2020 presidential candidate 'crats

[MakeItRain]

LOL, not a word of what she said was inaccurate nor insincere. I wonder if the both of you are using words too big for your conservative turned neo liberal minds.

It was accurate that he held a fundraiser in a wine cave. I'm guessing that despite what that woman who is just a regular old person with access to the Washington Post, claims there was at least one billionaire there given that the claim was not disputed by Pete or anyone else at the debate or since.

It was sincere because she doesn't hold events of that nature; Pete does, Sleepy Joe does, Booker does, and Bloomberg and Patrick definitely will. No one says that people of privilege shouldn't have a voice, but they shouldn't have access to politicians that others don't. Klo did an event in someone's living room here last night. The CEO of Principal Financial Group lives 10 minutes away, I'm sure they all would have loved to have him there. Everyone says they want money out of politics, not everyone actually means it.

[8manpick]

LOL, not a word of what she said was inaccurate nor insincere. I wonder if the both of you are using words too big for your conservative turned neo liberal minds.

It was accurate that he held a fundraiser in a wine cave. I'm guessing that despite what that woman who is just a regular old person with access to the Washington Post, claims there was at least one billionaire there given that the claim was not disputed by Pete or anyone else at the debate or since.

It was sincere because she doesn't hold events of that nature; Pete does, Sleepy Joe does, Booker does, and Bloomberg and Patrick definitely will. No one says that people of privilege shouldn't have a voice, but they shouldn't have access to politicians that others don't. Klo did an event in someone's living room here last night. The CEO of Principal Financial Group lives 10 minutes away, I'm sure they all would have loved to have him there. Everyone says they want money out of politics, not everyone actually means it.

I don’t think it was insincere, but if the $900 bottle of wine referenced was actually $185, then that was inaccurate. And it wasn’t some secret billionaires club fundraiser. 

Getting the money out of politics is a great thing to do once you’re in. Pretending money isn’t in politics while you’re still trying to run is stupid.

Republicans are playing to win, Democrats are playing to uphold some set of ideals. While this is generally admirable, abstaining from certain pots of money while running for office is a particularly dumb tactic.

[Kat Kid]

The only reason this resonates to this degree is because anyone with half a brain can look at this guy and his resume and the way he talks and figure him for an absolute worm.

I mean there are a million examples, but here is another-

https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1208891231721402370?s=21

Whatever Warren said was nowhere near as inaccurate as that op-Ed where the guy said “it only cost me $11.” I mean holy crap lol.

[Kat Kid]

LOL, not a word of what she said was inaccurate nor insincere. I wonder if the both of you are using words too big for your conservative turned neo liberal minds.

It was accurate that he held a fundraiser in a wine cave. I'm guessing that despite what that woman who is just a regular old person with access to the Washington Post, claims there was at least one billionaire there given that the claim was not disputed by Pete or anyone else at the debate or since.

It was sincere because she doesn't hold events of that nature; Pete does, Sleepy Joe does, Booker does, and Bloomberg and Patrick definitely will. No one says that people of privilege shouldn't have a voice, but they shouldn't have access to politicians that others don't. Klo did an event in someone's living room here last night. The CEO of Principal Financial Group lives 10 minutes away, I'm sure they all would have loved to have him there. Everyone says they want money out of politics, not everyone actually means it.

I don’t think it was insincere, but if the $900 bottle of wine referenced was actually $185, then that was inaccurate. And it wasn’t some secret billionaires club fundraiser. 

Getting the money out of politics is a great thing to do once you’re in. Pretending money isn’t in politics while you’re still trying to run is stupid.

Republicans are playing to win, Democrats are playing to uphold some set of ideals. While this is generally admirable, abstaining from certain pots of money while running for office is a particularly dumb tactic.

Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and then tried to convince everyone she only lost because Russians bought Facebook ads or something. If you think trying to put raise and outspend trump by any means necessary is the ticket forward burden of proof is on you.

[Spracne]

My word, the knives are really out for Pete...

[8manpick]

LOL, not a word of what she said was inaccurate nor insincere. I wonder if the both of you are using words too big for your conservative turned neo liberal minds.

It was accurate that he held a fundraiser in a wine cave. I'm guessing that despite what that woman who is just a regular old person with access to the Washington Post, claims there was at least one billionaire there given that the claim was not disputed by Pete or anyone else at the debate or since.

It was sincere because she doesn't hold events of that nature; Pete does, Sleepy Joe does, Booker does, and Bloomberg and Patrick definitely will. No one says that people of privilege shouldn't have a voice, but they shouldn't have access to politicians that others don't. Klo did an event in someone's living room here last night. The CEO of Principal Financial Group lives 10 minutes away, I'm sure they all would have loved to have him there. Everyone says they want money out of politics, not everyone actually means it.

I don’t think it was insincere, but if the $900 bottle of wine referenced was actually $185, then that was inaccurate. And it wasn’t some secret billionaires club fundraiser. 

Getting the money out of politics is a great thing to do once you’re in. Pretending money isn’t in politics while you’re still trying to run is stupid.

Republicans are playing to win, Democrats are playing to uphold some set of ideals. While this is generally admirable, abstaining from certain pots of money while running for office is a particularly dumb tactic.

Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and then tried to convince everyone she only lost because Russians bought Facebook ads or something. If you think trying to put raise and outspend trump by any means necessary is the ticket forward burden of proof is on you.

I think that proving spending is a positive for campaigns is probably pretty easy, but halftime is pretty short, so I'm not going to worry about it now.

[8manpick]

I'll go this far, not sure if the granular spending of dollars matched

[MakeItRain]

LOL, not a word of what she said was inaccurate nor insincere. I wonder if the both of you are using words too big for your conservative turned neo liberal minds.

It was accurate that he held a fundraiser in a wine cave. I'm guessing that despite what that woman who is just a regular old person with access to the Washington Post, claims there was at least one billionaire there given that the claim was not disputed by Pete or anyone else at the debate or since.

It was sincere because she doesn't hold events of that nature; Pete does, Sleepy Joe does, Booker does, and Bloomberg and Patrick definitely will. No one says that people of privilege shouldn't have a voice, but they shouldn't have access to politicians that others don't. Klo did an event in someone's living room here last night. The CEO of Principal Financial Group lives 10 minutes away, I'm sure they all would have loved to have him there. Everyone says they want money out of politics, not everyone actually means it.

I don’t think it was insincere, but if the $900 bottle of wine referenced was actually $185, then that was inaccurate. And it wasn’t some secret billionaires club fundraiser. 

Getting the money out of politics is a great thing to do once you’re in. Pretending money isn’t in politics while you’re still trying to run is stupid.

Republicans are playing to win, Democrats are playing to uphold some set of ideals. While this is generally admirable, abstaining from certain pots of money while running for office is a particularly dumb tactic.

Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 and then tried to convince everyone she only lost because Russians bought Facebook ads or something. If you think trying to put raise and outspend trump by any means necessary is the ticket forward burden of proof is on you.

I think that proving spending is a positive for campaigns is probably pretty easy, but halftime is pretty short, so I'm not going to worry about it now.

It isn't an issue of whether spending is important or not, not this argument anyway. The issue is where the money is coming from, if we had election laws that actually made sense in a democracy, I doubt that either Clinton or Trump wins their nomination for years ago.

[catastrophe]

LOL, not a word of what she said was inaccurate nor insincere. I wonder if the both of you are using words too big for your conservative turned neo liberal minds.

It was accurate that he held a fundraiser in a wine cave. I'm guessing that despite what that woman who is just a regular old person with access to the Washington Post, claims there was at least one billionaire there given that the claim was not disputed by Pete or anyone else at the debate or since.

It was sincere because she doesn't hold events of that nature; Pete does, Sleepy Joe does, Booker does, and Bloomberg and Patrick definitely will. No one says that people of privilege shouldn't have a voice, but they shouldn't have access to politicians that others don't. Klo did an event in someone's living room here last night. The CEO of Principal Financial Group lives 10 minutes away, I'm sure they all would have loved to have him there. Everyone says they want money out of politics, not everyone actually means it.

It was insincere because Warren implied Pete’s focus through the event was catering to billionaires instead of regular people. This was a fancy event where net worth did not determine access. But she didn’t care about that, she liked the sound byte.

Also - having events specifically to EXCLUDE people above a given net worth is a very stupid pissing match for Dems.

[MakeItRain]

LOL, not a word of what she said was inaccurate nor insincere. I wonder if the both of you are using words too big for your conservative turned neo liberal minds.

It was accurate that he held a fundraiser in a wine cave. I'm guessing that despite what that woman who is just a regular old person with access to the Washington Post, claims there was at least one billionaire there given that the claim was not disputed by Pete or anyone else at the debate or since.

It was sincere because she doesn't hold events of that nature; Pete does, Sleepy Joe does, Booker does, and Bloomberg and Patrick definitely will. No one says that people of privilege shouldn't have a voice, but they shouldn't have access to politicians that others don't. Klo did an event in someone's living room here last night. The CEO of Principal Financial Group lives 10 minutes away, I'm sure they all would have loved to have him there. Everyone says they want money out of politics, not everyone actually means it.

It was insincere because Warren implied Pete’s focus through the event was catering to billionaires instead of regular people. This was a fancy event where net worth did not determine access. But she didn’t care about that, she liked the sound byte.

Also - having events specifically to EXCLUDE people above a given net worth is a very stupid pissing match for Dems.

Offense taken, but this is really stupid. The event was not catered to regular people, give me a break, man. You and that dude who wrote the post article are so far removed from what regular people are, that I have to wonder what world you are living in. Either that or you just didn't read that article or anything else associated with this, which I'm guessing is the case. Net worth very well may not have been a determining factor, but access to a very small circle certainly was. No one reading this board wouldn't have been invited. The author of the article is the VP of a health care company, again with access to the Washington Post editors. The party was hosted by the former Ambassador to Austria. A dean of a community college system, a former flight attendant, who I'm guessing wasn't there alone, a gentleman who lives in the Bay Area but has the means to send his daughter to Georgetown, and a councilwoman of a bay area city were the people who this Pete supporter listed as some of the attendees. Do any of these people scream "regular person" to you? Do any of these people relate to the "fine midwesterners of South Bend" that Pete often refers to? When Bloomberg gets in, he won't be made to be embarrassed because he isn't duplicitous. Frankly Joe Biden gets away with this bullshit, he's probably worse than Pete about trying to position himself as an everyman but is just a massive corporate whore stuffed like a pinata with special interest cash. 

I don't know what your last sentence even means. Are you saying that positioning yourself as a democratic candidate that can't be brought is a foolish stand to take? If so LLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL. Every presidential canididate ever wants to show that they can't be compromised by money. Drain the swamp mean anything to you? Even a rich dullard knew to at least pretend that he was beholden to the common man and not to corporate interests.

[catastrophe]

Yeah anyone with a brain wants a candidate uncompromised by money unless they’re the one with the deep pockets.  But holding campaign events in living rooms and taking care to make sure you’re not caught in a photo together with billionaire is just more marketing for Democratic rubes.

[Kat Kid]

Yeah anyone with a brain wants a candidate uncompromised by money unless they’re the one with the deep pockets.  But holding campaign events in living rooms and taking care to make sure you’re not caught in a photo together with billionaire is just more marketing for Democratic rubes.

It is very transparent that the people making these types of arguments are actually perfectly comfortable with the status quo and actually don’t want anything to change. They make standing on any sort of principle seem naive, or hypocritical or self-defeating. They make these smug arguments because even they know that saying what they truly believe is unpalatable.

It is why Trump and Dax can’t shut up about wind energy killing birds and Pete is desperate to let everyone know that actually this is no big deal and anyone (that donated $2,800) could’ve been there including non-millionaire health insurance VP’s and their community college professor partner. Nothing to see here, move along, nothing can ever be better just accept that.

[Trim]

With there being a lot of homes in america and only so much time, how should it be decided which ones get visits?

[chum1]

How about find a poor person who happens to agree on an issue with your rich donor and then go to that poor person's house along with the rich donor?

[star seed 7]

Hold the event in a trailer park cul de sac

[Kat Kid]

Lmfao

[catastrophe]

Yeah anyone with a brain wants a candidate uncompromised by money unless they’re the one with the deep pockets.  But holding campaign events in living rooms and taking care to make sure you’re not caught in a photo together with billionaire is just more marketing for Democratic rubes.

It is very transparent that the people making these types of arguments are actually perfectly comfortable with the status quo and actually don’t want anything to change. They make standing on any sort of principle seem naive, or hypocritical or self-defeating. They make these smug arguments because even they know that saying what they truly believe is unpalatable.

It is why Trump and Dax can’t shut up about wind energy killing birds and Pete is desperate to let everyone know that actually this is no big deal and anyone (that donated $2,800) could’ve been there including non-millionaire health insurance VP’s and their community college professor partner. Nothing to see here, move along, nothing can ever be better just accept that.

It’s very transparent that people lodging these types of critiques are self righteous dweebs who would rather feel better about themselves than witness positive changes around them.

I am 100% in favor of abolishing private money in campaign finance. I’m also in favor of a million other things that a halfway decent president could actually accomplish if they focus on what’s doable instead of what sure would be nice.

I also know that if I were running for president I would have no qualms accepting all the super PAC money that is offered me even though I would also openly support shutting that crap down as president. I have no idea why that is viewed as a problematic position. I also support higher taxes even though I’m currently paying the tax rate and itemizing deductions for maximum benefit, so come at me.

[MakeItRain]

My God you are dense. There's no need to continue this conversation given you reposition your argument with every single post. You favor campaign finance reform but it's dumb for actual politicians to have the same opinion because it's impossible for the current system to change. Never mind, the system as it is now is less than 15 years old.

Also your "I don't think super pacs should exist, but I'd take their money" stance just shows, like Pete, your convictions are for sale. You're a whore.

[catastrophe]

Actually, it shows that I appreciate a level of nuance that you want to pretend doesn’t exist. You can advocate for change in the rules while simultaneously playing within the existing rules.

What about my taxes analogy? Do you think higher income individuals should be paying more? And do you currently pay more in order to be consistent with that position?

You seem to believe that accepting money from someone makes you subservient to them. That is the position that I would consider dense.

[8manpick]

An roughly analogous argument is the one that criticizes Bernie and Warren for being rich while they advocate for socialist policies. If they want to live in that world why don’t they just give up their money to the government now?

[Kat Kid]

Well both of those arguments are for sure dumb as crap so they have that in common.

[catastrophe]

Xpost Common ground!

[Kat Kid]

https://twitter.com/aaronmehta/status/1209189983090860033?s=21

Damn! I wonder why aerospace lobbyists are pumped for Pete?

[Katpappy]

An roughly analogous argument is the one that criticizes Bernie and Warren for being rich while they advocate for socialist policies. If they want to live in that world why don’t they just give up their money to the government now?

Why in the eff do you think a candidate with "socialist policies" needs to be poor.   

[MakeItRain]

An roughly analogous argument is the one that criticizes Bernie and Warren for being rich while they advocate for socialist policies. If they want to live in that world why don’t they just give up their money to the government now?

  holy crap, you almost got me