Author Topic: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats  (Read 534786 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4425 on: January 15, 2020, 10:31:27 PM »

My man, Mike Bloomberg, the only non total whack job seeking the Dem nomination.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/478494-bloomberg-viewed-as-having-best-chance-to-beat-trump-in-betting-market

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
  • Cold Ass Honkey
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4426 on: January 16, 2020, 12:21:41 AM »
100% chance Bernie tried to convince her a woman had no shot NOT because of him and his Bernie Bros but because of shitty other types who would never vote for a broad and she should throw in with his old ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s 100% this and Bernie is right. America isn’t going to turn out to vote for a woman. Unfortunate but true. We aren’t there yet.

100%
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15097
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4427 on: January 16, 2020, 12:22:26 AM »
100% chance Bernie tried to convince her a woman had no shot NOT because of him and his Bernie Bros but because of shitty other types who would never vote for a broad and she should throw in with his old ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s 100% this and Bernie is right. America isn’t going to turn out to vote for a woman. Unfortunate but true. We aren’t there yet.

Yeah, again—and Bernie himself made this point on Tuesday—Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump. This is a very dumb talking point.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44804
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4428 on: January 16, 2020, 01:59:28 AM »
100% chance Bernie tried to convince her a woman had no shot NOT because of him and his Bernie Bros but because of shitty other types who would never vote for a broad and she should throw in with his old ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s 100% this and Bernie is right. America isn’t going to turn out to vote for a woman. Unfortunate but true. We aren’t there yet.

Yeah, again—and Bernie himself made this point on Tuesday—Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump. This is a very dumb talking point.

Did she win?

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 44804
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4429 on: January 16, 2020, 02:13:40 AM »
So Warren was so bothered by Bernie's comments in 2018 that all the reporting at the time suggests they amicably agreed that they were both running, then 13 months later she remembers this was an important thing and she is still upset about it?

And if the implication is not that it is sexist, then what is the point in even bringing it up?
I read somewhere that it came out in response to the Sanders campaign giving their supporters a anti-Warren script to use. It seems the two campaigns have mostly refrained from attacking each other.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/14/sanders-admits-anti-warren-script-early-states-098786



The quote in the article is the one I’ve seen pointed as the negative campaigning...

But volunteers were also equipped with talking points for voters who said they were leaning toward other candidates. In Warren's case, they stated that the “people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what” and that “she's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”


 :lol: that’s about as tame as you can get, and common knowledge. It is a crappy excuse to stick a sexist labeled knife in a surging Sanders’ back while you’re slippingin the polls three weeks ahead of Iowa. And as KK said two years after the damn one on one meeting took place.

Add in the disgusting way the issue was raised and Sanders’s denial basically ignored by the CNN moderator and you have what looks a lot like a concerted effort at a made for tv/ made for headlines gotcha moment meant to tear down Sanders.

https://youtu.be/O5CUfvoRCx4

The whole display was so gross that when during the post debate another CNN panelist was touting the claim as fact Anderson Cooper had to remind them that it indeed was he said/ she said.

Why would Warren do this? Will it help her win? Probably not. Will it make it easier for her to distance herself from Sanders and back the establishment candidate Biden when/if she drops out? Probably.

It’s a good example of why a lot of people, myself included, question Warren’s honesty and integrity.

The questioning of Warren's honesty is amazingly ironic when it comes to this post. Painting a progressive and his/her followers as elites is incredibly damning. I would be very shocked if you didn't realize that, something tells me that you do.

You also know full rough ridin' well why she waited for two years to release the details of that conversation. She essentially said why she did it.

At some point ardent Bernie Sanders supporters need to stop with the cult of personality bullshit and hold their candidate responsible for something, anything. Literally every other candidates supporters have something that they have to deal with regarding their candidate, and are forced to essentially eat it. You don't see Warren supporters threatening to boycott networks when the native american stuff comes out, even though, and this point has been made several times, that has happened to so many Americans, including me. Pete supporters don't crap themselves claiming media bias when he has to answer about the South Bend Police Chief or McKinsey on a damn near daily basis. All candidates go through stuff like this only Bernie supporters and MAGA behave as if the world is against them and their guy is perfect.

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21893
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4430 on: January 16, 2020, 06:10:04 AM »
100% chance Bernie tried to convince her a woman had no shot NOT because of him and his Bernie Bros but because of shitty other types who would never vote for a broad and she should throw in with his old ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s 100% this and Bernie is right. America isn’t going to turn out to vote for a woman. Unfortunate but true. We aren’t there yet.

Yeah, again—and Bernie himself made this point on Tuesday—Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump. This is a very dumb talking point.

Did she win?

She COULD have, which is the issue at hand. The election was VERY close.

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15097
    • View Profile
2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4431 on: January 16, 2020, 07:14:15 AM »
100% chance Bernie tried to convince her a woman had no shot NOT because of him and his Bernie Bros but because of shitty other types who would never vote for a broad and she should throw in with his old ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s 100% this and Bernie is right. America isn’t going to turn out to vote for a woman. Unfortunate but true. We aren’t there yet.

Yeah, again—and Bernie himself made this point on Tuesday—Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump. This is a very dumb talking point.

Did she win?

Not you too :facepalm:

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85174
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4432 on: January 16, 2020, 08:02:03 AM »
A woman can definitely win. hillary was like the second shittiest candidate for president of all time and she got 3 million more votes than her competition (admittedly because he was the first shittiest). But an actual good female candidate can for sure win. 95% of misogynists who wouldn't vote for a woman aren't voting for a lib no matter what so it doesn't matter.

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4433 on: January 16, 2020, 08:53:57 AM »
Tbh I don't run into misogyny in the wild very often (except obviously sarcastic jokes). The race barrier is much higher than the gender barrier. Just my jmho
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4434 on: January 16, 2020, 09:09:58 AM »
I think a big part of it is that a lot of women really don't like other women. It's their fault. :curse:

Offline star seed 7

  • hyperactive on the :lol:
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 63767
  • good dog
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4435 on: January 16, 2020, 09:11:04 AM »
That is something I have not factored into my jmho
Hyperbolic partisan duplicitous hypocrite

Offline catastrophe

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 15097
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4436 on: January 16, 2020, 09:12:59 AM »
Women candidates have some unique obstacles. Probably the biggest is that people can view the exact same leadership trait as “assertive,” “powerful,” or “clever” in a man but as “bitchy” or “deceitful” in a woman. A lot of it is implicit.

But people who act like that kind of stuff is insurmountable by female candidates are either being overdramatic or flat out sexist. Women candidates (yeah mostly Dems) did very well the last election cycle. And as SD pointed out, a plurality of Americans voted for a woman last presidential election even though she was the same party as an outgoing two term president and represented “politics as usual” when people were generally unhappy with the system.

Offline Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23382
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4437 on: January 16, 2020, 09:15:24 AM »
A woman can definitely win. hillary was like the second shittiest candidate for president of all time and she got 3 million more votes than her competition (admittedly because he was the first shittiest). But an actual good female candidate can for sure win. 95% of misogynists who wouldn't vote for a woman aren't voting for a lib no matter what so it doesn't matter.

the issue isn't with the obvious misogynists and bad people though. it's with people who aren't even aware that they judge women differently/worse and also with women themselves who will judge her more harshly. it's going to take a superwoman to overcome some of our inherent and/or subconscious biases. Unfortunately Liz doesn't have "it". she can't and won't win. Neither can Klobuchar. Bernie is/was right.

Offline sonofdaxjones

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 52946
    • View Profile
2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4438 on: January 16, 2020, 09:18:10 AM »
All Hillary Clinton had to do was run a semi coherent campaign and not say a couple of things and she would have been elected and we’d be bombing the hell out of a whole set of new countries .  FFS you pearl clutches.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85174
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4439 on: January 16, 2020, 09:31:32 AM »
All Hillary Clinton had to do was run a semi coherent campaign and not say a couple of things and she would have been elected and we’d be bombing the hell out of a whole set of new countries .  FFS you pearl clutches.

Agree with dax here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23382
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4440 on: January 16, 2020, 09:36:21 AM »
All Hillary Clinton had to do was run a semi coherent campaign and not say a couple of things and she would have been elected and we’d be bombing the hell out of a whole set of new countries .  FFS you pearl clutches.

the whole and entire point is that she "did" though and it gave people enough of a reason in their head to not vote for her. I would argue that she was always going to do or say something that would've caused enough people to decide to not vote for her. The bar for what was going to turn someone off from voting for hillary or any female in her situation is lower. much lower. Donald Trump on the other hand, did and said way more worse things and it didn't keep people (many of whom were females) from showing out and going all in on him.

Offline LickNeckey

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5990
  • #fakeposts
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4441 on: January 16, 2020, 09:38:57 AM »
a significant issue that women face is women not voting for women

imagine if after 200 years men had a chance to vote for a male candidate

Offline Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23382
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4442 on: January 16, 2020, 09:39:29 AM »
All Hillary Clinton had to do was run a semi coherent campaign and not say a couple of things and she would have been elected and we’d be bombing the hell out of a whole set of new countries .  FFS you pearl clutches.

Agree with dax here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


you guys are both wrong then. enough people were always going to find a reason to not vote for her whether they knew it or not. the bar is way higher for a female.

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39041
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4443 on: January 16, 2020, 09:41:11 AM »
which is more likely? america elects a second black male president, or a first female president (of any race)?

Offline Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23382
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4444 on: January 16, 2020, 09:41:38 AM »
a significant issue that women face is women not voting for women

imagine if after 200 years men had a chance to vote for a male candidate

women are humans just like men are, so yes they are also naturally biased against female voices and will also hold women to a higher set of standards than men.

Offline Dr Rick Daris

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 23382
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4445 on: January 16, 2020, 09:43:06 AM »
which is more likely? america elects a second black male president, or a first female president (of any race)?

second black male. also, america will elect a gay male before a female.

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21893
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4446 on: January 16, 2020, 09:49:35 AM »
Saying Hillary couldn't have won in 2016 is like saying OU football couldn't have beaten K-State in 2019. There are many, many variables that affect the outcome. Luck is a factor. Different teams can win on different days. Different candidates can win on different days. But either CAN win.

What if Trump had died the day before the election? Would Hillary definitely not have won?

Offline gatoveintisiete

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4036
  • Cold Ass Honkey
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4447 on: January 16, 2020, 09:55:18 AM »
Its not often the discussion gets Rick all fired up but it sure is fun when it does.
it’s not like I’m tired of WINNING, but dude, let me catch my breath.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37048
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4448 on: January 16, 2020, 09:58:12 AM »
a significant issue that women face is women not voting for women

imagine if after 200 years men had a chance to vote for a male candidate

women are humans just like men are, so yes they are also naturally biased against female voices and will also hold women to a higher set of standards than men.

I don't think it's a human thing. Plenty of first world countries have elected female leaders.

Offline mocat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 39041
    • View Profile
Re: 2020 presidential candidate 'crats
« Reply #4449 on: January 16, 2020, 10:14:52 AM »
a republican female might do it before a democrat female