Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v4

Who do you support most out of the remaining Democratic candidates?

  • Tom Steyer (Entrepreneur)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    79
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing came up when I clicked your link. If it's the exchange where I defend Hockey from you freaking out and calling him a moron because he said you were the biggest Hillary supporter on the board (rather than that you just....voted for her, openly preferred her to Sanders, and spoke in hysterical defense of her more than anyone here) then ok. First and foremost I was making a stand for decency, as I had nudged you on being bitchy and toxic to good faith posters before, but ok.

It's not freaking out. We both know that Hockey is below average, but in this case, his stupidity is useful to you.

Anyways, your real meltdown occurred where I cited it. And i think it's funny that @Fawlty actually liked the post that set you off

There's no meltdown anywhere, but if you're tracing the origins of your kind of heel turn (going full Anung), it goes to when you A) started again (starting back up where you left off with your previous account) lying about my position and then B) getting super defensive when I pointed that out.
 
I'll say it again, I was annoyed when Bloomberg announced his candidacy but now I'm loving his campaign.

A real Billionaire attacking Trump really gets under his skin.

 
There's no meltdown anywhere, but if you're tracing the origins of your kind of heel turn (going full Anung), it goes to when you A) started again (starting back up where you left off with your previous account) lying about my position and then B) getting super defensive when I pointed that out.

Observers, take note:

Trotsky has stated (more than once) that he is not the former poster that Jack is associating him with. I have no way of knowing whether Trotsky's denial is factually true or false. But common courtesy and respect dictates that everyone in this forum should take Trotsky at his word.

Jack not only didn't apologize for having mistakenly made the association the first time, but he just goes on, very casually, as if it's uncontested common knowledge, continually referencing this alleged former account of Trotsky's.

This is an example of exactly the sort of blatantly classless behavior that is Jack's stock in trade here. The proof is in the pudding.
 






I can't believe that this disingenuous, rat-faced fuck seriously said that he just found about the bread price-fixing scandal when the media questioned him about it.

If he wants to deny making the recommendation to do it when he was working on that account, fine. I don't believe him, but it's a proper denial.

This is just insulting everybody's intelligence.
 






I can't believe that this disingenuous, rat-faced fuck seriously said that he just found about the bread price-fixing scandal when the media questioned him about it.

If he wants to deny making the recommendation to do it when he was working on that account, fine. I don't believe him, but it's a proper denial.

This is just insulting everybody's intelligence.

That reporter is a real one. Love seeing Wall Street Pete get checked like that.
 
I can't believe that this disingenuous, rat-faced fuck seriously said that he just found about the bread price-fixing scandal when the media questioned him about it.

If he wants to deny making the recommendation to do it when he was working on that account, fine. I don't believe him, but it's a proper denial.

This is just insulting everybody's intelligence.

Do you have even a shred of evidence that Buttigieg was involved in that alleged scandal?
 
Observers, take note:

Trotsky has stated (more than once) that he is not the former poster that Jack is associating him with. I have no way of knowing whether Trotsky's denial is factually true or false. But common courtesy and respect dictates that everyone in this forum should take Trotsky at his word.

Jack not only didn't apologize for having mistakenly made the association the first time, but he just goes on, very casually, as if it's uncontested common knowledge, continually referencing this alleged former account of Trotsky's.

This is an example of exactly the sort of blatantly classless behavior that is Jack's stock in trade here. The proof is in the pudding.

It's not a mistake, and Trotsky's denial is just a lie.
 
I'll say it again, I was annoyed when Bloomberg announced his candidacy but now I'm loving his campaign.

A real Billionaire attacking Trump really gets under his skin.


Apparently he’s willing to continue the assault even if he loses in the primary (which is obviously awesome and helpful).

Let’s say he loses and the winner is Bernie or Warren they are getting help from the type of person they’re fighting against (billionaires) without actually aligning with him.

Bloomberg is a really smart dude and I bet he has a great strategy.
 
It's not a mistake, and Trotsky's denial is just a lie.

If a mod PM's me and verifies this I will accept that your claim is based on fact and not just your desire to believe it.

Otherwise I will continue to take Trotsky at his word. As that's what class and decorum in a public forum full of strangers dictates.
 
If a mod PM's me and verifies this I will accept that your claim is based on fact and not just your desire to believe it.

Otherwise I will continue to take Trotsky at his word. As that's what class and decorum in a public forum full of strangers dictates.

Mods don't do that, and I don't think Trotsky wants me to go over the evidence, as there's a reason that he abandoned the old account. But the fact that he's willing to straight up lie about that (not the only one he's been busted on in this thread) tells you all you need to know. That's not something I'd be able to do.
 
Do you have even a shred of evidence that Buttigieg was involved in that alleged scandal?
The scandal isn't a mere allegation. Loblaw admitted it. Pete has plausible deniability of course, but companies hire consultants like McKinsey to handle crap like this for them. Everybody there knew what they were doing, including Pete. I don't buy his "awe shucks" routine for a second.
 
Who is the slam dunk VP that helps Bernie settled the fears of the establishment Dems?

Is it someone like Kamala or Mayor Pete, who are not a concern due to age and will be seen as moderating factors?

I think it would be a mistake to pick a VP also from progressive left.

I don’t see Bernie compromising too much on his message.
From left to right candidates that come to mind; Tulsi, Abrams, Klobachar.
 
Yeah this whole debacle with Warren and Sanders was a nasty one. I know some people have been very upset and wanted Sanders to go after Warren hard, but I think he did the right thing. Stayed classy and moved on, focusing on the issues. That's what will him the nomination, if anything, in the end.

I'll say it again, I was annoyed when Bloomberg announced his candidacy but now I'm loving his campaign.

A real Billionaire attacking Trump really gets under his skin.


Bloomberg is actually doing a lot of good for Bernie it seems. Sucking up some Biden, Pete and Warren votes and making Trump emotional (hopefully).
 
Yeah this whole debacle with Warren and Sanders was a nasty one. I know some people have been very upset and wanted Sanders to go after Warren hard, but I think he did the right thing. Stayed classy and moved on, focusing on the issues. That's what will him the nomination, if anything, in the end.


Bloomberg is actually doing a lot of good for Bernie it seems. Sucking up some Biden, Pete and Warren votes and making Trump emotional (hopefully).

Yeah that was one of things that confused me at first.

He had to know he'd be helping their campaigns.

But I guess he doesn't care much which Dem wins. He just wants to be able to spend his money freely to defeat Trump.

Commendable
 
The scandal isn't a mere allegation. Loblaw admitted it. Pete has plausible deniability of course, but companies hire consultants like McKinsey to handle crap like this for them. Everybody there knew what they were doing, including Pete. I don't buy his "awe shucks" routine for a second.
There's a giant gulf between 1) working on optimal pricing and 2) collusion.

There's no evidence Buttigieg was involved in 2), correct?
 
amy's campaign slogan should be:

not really compelling, buy she's not batshit crazy
 






I can't believe that this disingenuous, rat-faced fuck seriously said that he just found about the bread price-fixing scandal when the media questioned him about it.

If he wants to deny making the recommendation to do it when he was working on that account, fine. I don't believe him, but it's a proper denial.

This is just insulting everybody's intelligence.


That was a disingenuous framing by Appelbaum, especially after High Hopes Pete disputed and answered the claims previous in the interview. It's the same garbage Abby Phillip threw out there in the debate. It's too bad too because I think it is an interesting question of why he struggles to align with the younger generation, doesn't present the same anger towards these things despite his proximity to it, and why that proximity hasn't stoked any anger. He was given an out and just talked about his hometown and didn't reflect on his work or military history and why he's not angrier about it.

I do think it is amazing (and embarrassing) that he just found out that one of clients was involved in a price fixing scandal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top