RKMBs
Posted By: Wonder Boy the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-05-21 9:37 PM


I thought the 2016 Republican field was large. Now the 2020 Democrat field is up to 24 candidates, with probably more to enter later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries


Of the 24 currently in, 10 I never heard of till looking at the wikipedia page above. And I follow campaaign politics about as much as you could possibly follow it. Many of them (such as de Blasio) no doubt are not serious, and are just trying to increase their political visibility.

So far as I know, the 2016 Republican primary field was the most crowded ever, and this far exceeds that. And it ain't over yet...


The fact that Biden is leading the pack by a wide margin demonstrates that despite having 24 candidates, the selection is still pretty lousy.

I watched the Fox News 1-hour town hall meeting with Buttegeig on Sunday (May 19th).

And another on Special Report of Klobuchar.

It's telling of just how far off the deep end the Democrats are that every last one of them endorses:

* open borders,
* sanctuary cities,
* amnesty and/or citizenship for illegals,
* healthcare for illegals,
* federal reparations for blacks,
* the "green new deal",
* endorse post-birth infanticide (no restrictions on abortion),
* abolishing ICE,
* abolishing the electoral college (eliminating representation for smaller states),
* adding more justices beyond 9 to pack the Supreme Court with liberals,
* making Washington DC a state (washington D.C. was conceptualized specifically to not be a state),
* make Puerto Rico a state (only because it is a guaranteed Democrat electoral addition),
* to lower the legal voting age from 18 to 16,
* to let illegals vote (first voiced by failed GA governor candidate Stacey Abrams),
* and let incarcerated violent felons vote (first voiced by Bernie Sanders).

If any of the 24 maniacs running have not openly endorsed any of these points, they have at least quietly not condemned them for the craziness they are. Which means, though not campaigning on them, they would allow them if elected president.

We truly live in dangerous times.



Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-05-22 6:37 AM







 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy


It's telling of just how far off the deep end the Democrats are that every last one of them endorses:

* open borders,
* sanctuary cities,
* amnesty and/or citizenship for illegals,
* healthcare for illegals,
* federal reparations for blacks,
* the "green new deal",
* endorse post-birth infanticide (no restrictions on abortion),
* abolishing ICE,
* abolishing the electoral college (eliminating representation for smaller states),
* adding more justices beyond 9 to pack the Supreme Court with liberals,
* making Washington DC a state (washington D.C. was conceptualized specifically to not be a state),
* make Puerto Rico a state (only because it is a guaranteed Democrat electoral addition),
* to lower the legal voting age from 18 to 16,
* to let illegals vote (first voiced by failed GA governor candidate Stacey Abrams),
* and let incarcerated violent felons vote (first voiced by Bernie Sanders).

If any of the 24 maniacs running have not openly endorsed any of these points, they have at least quietly not condemned them for the craziness they are. Which means, though not campaigning on them, they would allow them if elected president.

We truly live in dangerous times.


God damn Democrats.
Damn we don't have a single reality tv show star that gushes about Putin. Better hope Putin helps your side again for another "electoral " victory. What is your side actually for these days anyways? Tax cuts and increased spending? And WB you would never apply the same standard for Republicans on what they support. I know many of the 2020 candidates have spoken about being against open borders for example. I'm not aware of any that actually support open borders. Do you understand what you even claim when you say they support open borders?

As for the topic in general, it is a whole bunch! Biden looks to be a solid front runner but I like quite a few of them. Amy Klobachar is an obvious favorite as well as the gay mayor with military experience.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-05-26 7:54 AM


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Damn we don't have a single reality tv show star that gushes about Putin. Better hope Putin helps your side again for another "electoral " victory.


That is such a head-in-ass comment.
Even you don't believe that, M E M.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
What is your side actually for these days anyways? Tax cuts and increased spending?


Lower taxes to stimulate more private growth. Less government control = less waste, and less authoritarian abuse of power. Which is exactly what those I cited in my above post have been up to.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
And WB you would never apply the same standard for Republicans on what they support.


I've clearly and repeatedly said I advocate equal protection, and equal punishment, under the law. Whereas your side weaponizes the IRS, FBI and DOJ among other agencies against its political enemies. As I cited above. And for all of the Obama years on these boards.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
I know many of the 2020 candidates have spoken about being against open borders for example. I'm not aware of any that actually support open borders. Do you understand what you even claim when you say they support open borders?


Do you really believe that?

Of the 24 current Democrat candidates, I can't think of ONE who doesn't endorse admitting illegals and sanctuary cities.
And any attempt to slow down the flood of illegals coming in is portrayed by >>>ALL<<< the Democrats as white racism and hating brown people.
Republicans don't have a problem with over a million "brown people" a year entering our country through the proper legal channels (1.3 million last year, under "white racist supremacist" Trump, more annually than Obama).
We do have a HUGE problem with millions more unvetted illegals entering this country to commit crimes, carry infectious diseases, and sponge up healthcare and social benefits that should be going to American citizens and veterans.

Your party wants them here illegally so they can eventually vote and give your party a permanent (corrupt) majority. Stacey Abrams (the black race-obsessed demagogue and failed Georgia governor candidate) made clear she sees illegal immigrants as an untapped voter base.
And every Democrat candidate has similarly endorsed keeping these illegals here for that purpose, either stated or unstated, but keeping them here for that purpose nonetheless.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
As for the topic in general, it is a whole bunch! Biden looks to be a solid front runner but I like quite a few of them. Amy Klobachar is an obvious favorite as well as the gay mayor with military experience.


Buttegeig. He again endorses, as do Klobochar and Biden, sanctuary cities and giving illegals the right to stay here. Even among the Republicans, except for lip service, I don't see any Senators or House members, certainly not a majority, making a vigorous attempt to stop illegals, keep them out, or deport them, or advocate/support policy to do so.

Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard, while still advocating the same far-Left craziness, at least display some administrative and leadership ability.
Robert Gates, who served as secretary of defense in both the W.Bush and Obama administrations (2006-2011) and before that, CIA director, National Security Advisor, and Deputy CIA director, said of Biden: "He's been on the wrong side of nearly every foreign policy issue for decades."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-wrong-foreign-policy-decades-charles

It frankly terrifies me that any of the current Democrats could become president. Only because of Trump is there any attempt to stop the flood of illegals, to rebuild our economy and military, and protect us from the growing threat of the Chinese and Russians. If it were President Hillary, we would be seeing complete surrender in the current 8 year period. Exponentially increasing the damage after 8 crippling years of Obama.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-05-26 8:12 AM


 Originally Posted By: Lothar of The Hill People
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy


It's telling of just how far off the deep end the Democrats are that every last one of them endorses:

* open borders,
* sanctuary cities,
* amnesty and/or citizenship for illegals,
* healthcare for illegals,
* federal reparations for blacks,
* the "green new deal",
* endorse post-birth infanticide (no restrictions on abortion),
* abolishing ICE,
* abolishing the electoral college (eliminating representation for smaller states),
* adding more justices beyond 9 to pack the Supreme Court with liberals,
* making Washington DC a state (washington D.C. was conceptualized specifically to not be a state),
* make Puerto Rico a state (only because it is a guaranteed Democrat electoral addition),
* to lower the legal voting age from 18 to 16,
* to let illegals vote (first voiced by failed GA governor candidate Stacey Abrams),
* and let incarcerated violent felons vote (first voiced by Bernie Sanders).

If any of the 24 maniacs running have not openly endorsed any of these points, they have at least quietly not condemned them for the craziness they are. Which means, though not campaigning on them, they would allow them if elected president.

We truly live in dangerous times.


God damn Democrats.




What Lothar said.

In all seriousness, I like a lot of Democrats as people and talk politics with many every day. But despite being nice people they have some dangerously suicidal ideas of how our country and the outside world works.

China is building a navy, island bases, and missile systems to be the dominant military power in the Pacific region, and within 20 years, the world. And aggressively moving in that direction.

As I detailed in another topic, they see the U.S. as their primary strategic enemy, and obstacle to their global domination. In a predatory way they are investing heavily in Africa and Latin America, that gives them the controlling share in those developing nations. Chinese colonization of those regions, by any other name.
Beyond trade deficits of $500 billion a year with the U.S., they also cyber-steal another $600 billion in technological and intellectual property.

Internally, China politically jails and kills tens of thousands of their own citizens in a Gulag system of concentration camps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_China#Falun_Gong
If they had military dominion over the U.S., would they treat us any better?

Russia, while we've let our nuclear arsenal age since the 1980's has modernized their nuclear arsenal, far from similarly downsizing their military in the Bush Sr, Clinton, and W. Bush years, slashed even deeper in the Obama years, as we did. They have also developed supersonic missile technology with new missiles that can travel so fast that there is no defense against them.

I seem to recall some warning in 2008 about Obama's plan to jeopardize U.S. military's technological superiority.
https://www.wnd.com/2008/05/65771/
That has now happened.

With Trump, there's a chance we can rebuild our military and economic strength. With the Dems in power, we're doomed.

Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-05-26 1:37 PM



THE DEMOCRAT PARTY LEFT ME BEHIND - AND I'M NOT ALONE (Saritha Prabhu, The Tennessee Opinion columnist, reprinted in USA Today)


Although while much of the media is reflexively and rabidly anti-Republican/anti-Trump, I would dispute that any of the media, particularly Fox, is reflexively on the side of Trump. Fox News can only be portrayed as "leaning conservative" because of their relative right tilt (48% /52% balance of coverage) as compared to the far left tilt (70% to 90% pro-Democrat/anti-Trump coverage) of the mainstream liberal media.

https://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-foxn...journalism-2008

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron...ercent-negative

https://www.mrc.org/media-bias-101

A consistent liberal bias for decades, and since the elections of Obama and Trump, an increasingly more shameless and unapologetic liberal bias.


I watched Trump and Putin together and it was embarrassing to our country. Russia loved it. And Trump is a reality tv star. This is not a matter of belief but just the facts.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-05-26 3:46 PM



OBAMA TO MEDVEDEV: "After my election I'll have more flexibility..."
MEDVEDEV (eagerly!): "I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]!"





Trump giving diplomatic flattering words to Putin while giving away nothing is nowhere near the treasonous low of Barack Obama, who clearly was deceiving the American people while secretly assuring his "flexibility" on U.S. missile defense, once he had successfully deceived his way into re-election. Add to that the Iran deal. And Egypt. and Libya. And Crimea and Ukraine.

Saul Alinsky tactics: Campaign as a moderate, and once achieving power, pursue a radical agenda.



Trump didn't just give flattering words to Putin. We discussed this already. It was so bad that Trump 24 hours later had to try to say he meant something else when he threw our intelligence under the bus. You gushed about his performance before that even. And yes Obama and any other President does have more flexibility off of election years. You knew he was doing his job because Putin hated him and actively helped Trump win in the next election.
No, democrats don't want open borders

Good article and for those that actually care about border security instead of Trump's lies, exaggerations and game playing that have gotten us nowhere maybe something to think about.n
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-05-26 6:35 PM


 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I watched Trump and Putin together and it was embarrassing to our country. Russia loved it. And Trump is a reality tv star. This is not a matter of belief but just the facts.



Here is a "key moments" of that joint conference of Trump with Putin in Helsinki, as collected by The Guardian, a decidedly leftist and not exactly Trump-friendly source:

Key moments from the Trump-Putin press conference




I didn't see any Trump statements that were "embarassing for our country". The most cited moment is where Trump said Putin heatedly denied 2016 Russian interference in the U.S. election, and Trump said U.S. intelligence (Dan Coates) said they believe it was the Russians who hacked the DNC server, and Trump saying "I don't see any reason why it would be", and that he took Putin's word when he denies Russian involvement.
I still say Trump's comments were no different from the polite diplomacy of W.Bush ("I looked in his eyes...") or the Obama administration ("reset", and reaching out for friendlier relations, where Obama gave away defensive missile protection of Poland and Czech Republic without even telling them!) except in Trump's case his were just diplomatic words and gave away nothing, as oposed to Obama who gave away the store.

More media and DNC collaborative spin.

Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-05-26 6:53 PM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
No, democrats don't want open borders

Good article and for those that actually care about border security instead of Trump's lies, exaggerations and game playing that have gotten us nowhere maybe something to think about.n



Every last Democrat endorses sanctuary cities, and portrays attempts to stop the surge of illegal immigration as "racist".
You watch interviews on Fox News of ICE, Border Guard and Department of Homeland Security officials (of course! Because liberal media don't want them heard, and don't interview them!) and they all advocate the wall as the only way to truly contain and slow down illegals so they can be apprehended.

Democrats, for whatever posturing, always oppose the wall, the one legislative element that assures illegal immigration would truly be be stopped.


END OF DISCUSSION.
No matter what the spin of the New York Times. It is a lying Democrat narrative, that belies the actual facts.

 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
No, democrats don't want open borders

Good article and for those that actually care about border security instead of Trump's lies, exaggerations and game playing that have gotten us nowhere maybe something to think about.n



Every last Democrat endorses sanctuary cities, and portrays attempts to stop the surge of illegal immigration as "racist".
You watch interviews on Fox News (of course! Because liberal media don't want them heard, and don't interview them!) and they all advocate the wall as the only way to truly contain and slow down illegals so they can be apprehended.

Democrats, for whatever posturing, always oppose the wall, the one legislative element that assures illegal immigration would truly be be stopped.


END OF DISCUSSION.
No matter what the spin of the New York Times. It is a lying Democrat narrative, that belies the actual facts.



Sorry but you're just not being honest here. You have posted about Dems supporting and building barriers in the past. To say they always oppose the wall just is something we both know isn't true. They don't support Trump's wall because it's not effective having the one he says he wants that Mexico was going to pay for. Border security and immigration are important to everyone and the article I sourced cites the support for it by democrats.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-06-28 2:06 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

 Originally Posted By: WB
Every last Democrat endorses sanctuary cities, and portrays attempts to stop the surge of illegal immigration as "racist".
You watch interviews on Fox News of ICE, Border Guard, and Department of Homeland Security officials (of course! Because liberal media don't want them heard, and don't interview them!) and they all advocate the wall as the only way to truly contain and slow down illegals so they can be apprehended.

Democrats, for whatever posturing, always oppose the wall, the one legislative element that assures illegal immigration would truly be be stopped.

END OF DISCUSSION.
No matter what the spin of the New York Times. It is a lying Democrat narrative, that belies the actual facts.


Sorry but you're just not being honest here. You have posted about Dems supporting and building barriers in the past. To say they always oppose the wall just is something we both know isn't true. They don't support Trump's wall because it's not effective having the one he says he wants that Mexico was going to pay for. Border security and immigration are important to everyone and the article I sourced cites the support for it by democrats.



No.

To be more specific, I've cited Democrats giving lip service to securing the U.S. border, but never actually following through in 40 years and actually securing it. Even after Reagan's concession to secure the border by giving 1 million illegals amnesty in exchange for securing the border, Democrats took the amnesty and then undermined the part of the agreement for securing the border, so that we now have an estimated 28 million illegals.
And by the way, the 1 million estimated illegals to be given amnesty in the 1986 deal turned out to be 3 million who actually were given amnesty.

If Democrats now estimate (lowball) "12 to 20 million illegals", the true number is more likely 30 to 50 million. Another trojan horse Demss want Republicans to let in the gate.

AGAIN: Democrats advocate sanctuary cities and California is now a sanctuary state. They even release criminal illegals who should be handed over to ICE. Many of whom (in the last month!) have killed again once released.
Any governor, mayor, city council member, judge or police official who does this should be arrested and jailed for obstructing federal law.

See my post in the Soros Funded Caravans topic. The U.S. population is now 327 million. There are 760 million worldwide who would like to leave their countries and come to the United States. They are a danger to the very existence of our nation, if even another 5% of them were to swarm our borders.

And AGAIN: The United States generously admits about 1.1 million LEGAL green-card immigrants annually, more than almost all the other nations combined admit. Based on that generous level of immigration, we should not permit even one illegal immigrant. Let alone those who show contempt for our laws at every turn, and march into our country under foreign flags.


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-06-28 2:35 AM



FIRST DEMOCRATIC DEBATE 2020 [Nicolle Wallace] 6/26/19



The first of 2 Democrat primary debates, 10 of the 25 Primary candidates. I think of it as "the children's table" debate.
With a second debate with "the adults table", the higher-polling candidates tonight.
Both in Miami.

The debate was a nationally televised foodfight, with repeated audio technical difficulties, where on one occasion they had to go to a commercial to resolve, and 5 ass-kissing lapdog liberal-progressive moderators who softballed their questions, asked no follow-up questions, and let the candidates get away with blatant misrepresentation of the facts with absolutely no challenge or pushback.

Textbook liberal Newspeak on full display.

Posted By: the G-man Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-06-28 8:17 PM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man


Elizabeth Warren has endorsed the most radical immigration idea in the 2020 primary:
Warren is on board with a proposal, first floated by Julián Castro, to decriminalize crossing the border without papers.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-06-28 11:50 PM


Exactly. There's no mistaking that Democrats are the party of lawlessness.


The second Democrat debate from last night, with 10 more of the 25 Democrat primary candidates, and the highest polling ones.

Democratic Presidential Debate - June 27 (Full) | NBC News (Actual debate starts 1 hour into the video.)




They all endorse :

1) de-criminalizing illegal immigration, which just guarantees illegal crossings would exponentially increase. At a point where we already had 140,000 illegals enter in one month in May 2019. Roughly equal to the population of my not-small city that took 120 years to reach that population. IN ONE MONTH.

and
2) providing healthcare to all illegals in the U.S.
Apparently they plan to tax the tens of millions of Americans who currently don't have health insurance to give superior coverage to illegals who shouldn't even be here.
I'm frankly surprised that Americans haven't stormed the Capitol at this point, dragged these Democrats out in the streets and hung them from the nearest tree.

As I cited in the Soros/Caravan topic, the total U.S. population now is about 330 million people. A poll I cited there shows another 750 million people would like to move to the United States if they could. More than twice the total U.S. population. Democrats press for the nation's destruction, and welcome the modern equivalent of the Vandals and Visigoths who destroyed the Roman Empire in 400 A.D.

It's insane.

Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-07-02 8:36 AM


Former press secretary Ari Fleischer just made a great point as a guest on Hannity:
If you're a Hollywood celebrity and you cheat to get your child into a college, that is a crime for which you are imprisoned.
If you illegally break into this country, you are not only not imprisoned for that crime, but get free college.

To my knowledge, not one of the Democrat primary candidates would do anything to stop illegal immigration. And quite the contrary, would de-criminalize crossing illegally, and kick the door open to encourage exponentially more illegal immigration.

See my post earlier to the Soros/illegal caravans topic. There are 327 million Americans right now. Gallup shows in a recent poll that another 750 million worldwide would like to immigrate, legally or illegally, to the United States, more than twice the current population. Democrats would do absolutely nothing to avert that catastrophe.

It's Rome, 400 A.D. all over again.




Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-07-03 3:00 PM


Post election polls:


 Quote:
The CNN poll also has some red flags for Democrats. By a 57 percent to 37 percent margin, voters say a new health-care system shouldn’t completely replace private insurance. And among Democrats, only 31 percent think it is a good idea and 50 percent do not. On the broader question of whether the government should cover everyone even if it requires higher taxes, 56 percent (including 87 percent of Democrats) say yes, 40 percent say no.

Likewise, by a difference of 59 percent to 38 percent, Americans say they don’t want to give government health-care coverage to illegal immigrants. However, 66 percent of Democrats approve of the idea. That’s a quintessential issue on which a popular position in the primaries is a loser in the general election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...m=.31faace9ef82

Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-08-02 8:06 AM




The latest 2 nights of Democratic primary debates. Probably the last time you'll see all 25 candidates still in the running. And still not one who cqn defeat Trump.

Democratic Presidential Debate - July 30, 2019 (Full) | Regressives vs. Libtards




As much as you can stomach.

I saw a report on OAN that only about 1 million Americans (less than 1%) tuned in to the last round of DNC debates and craziness). No one's watching, no one believes what they're saying, no one cares.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-08-02 8:14 AM

The second night of irrelevance:


Democratic Presidential Debate - July 31, 2019 (Full) | Cum-Ala Harris vs. Creepy Joe Biden II





It's clear who the media favors, in giving extrat time to the candidates they want to win. And how they softpedal on Bidan, because even though he can't win, he still polls the best against Trump. The questions are still softballs, the likes of which you'd never see asked of Republicans.

And Tulsi Gabbard is suing Google for $16 million, for suppressing information about her in online searches.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/tulsi-gabbard-sues-google-for-50-million-alleging-censorship/


Mariannne Williamson as well has seen attempts to snuff out her candidacy by ultra-Left elements that control social media. Shades of Orwell's 1984.


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-08-10 10:30 AM



On Laura Ingraham's program tonight, author Jeffrey Lord pointed out how the Democrats have gone from an attack narrative on Trump and Republicans of RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA, and when that narrative collapsed have unashamedly pivoted to a narrative of RACISM RACISM RACISM. Which he points out is especially shameless and ironic, because the Democrat party historically and currently is built on 1) racism/slavery, 2) segregation and the KKK, and 3) identity politics.

The Democrat party is the home of racism.


Then there's the further examples he didn't bring up of Governor Ralph Northam (D-VA) and his blackface/KKK antics, and two levels of succession below him of racism/misogyny, that the Democrats no longer even call for removing from office.

Or gaff-prone creepy/groping Joseph Biden, who to name only two examples, said Barack Obama is a rare black guy whose "bright articulate and clean", and that you can't even go in a 7-11 unless you have an Indian accent.

But yeah, sure Dems, it's Republicans who are the "party of racism".

No, it's Democrats who are demonstably the party of racism and corruption. Further examples: Tracey Abrams, Andrew Gillum, Elijah Cummings, Charles Rangel, Hakeem Jeffries, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Alyssia Pressley, Ilhan Omar, los bros Joaquin and Julian Castro, Kamalah Harris, Bernie Sanders, and pretty much all the 2020 Democrat candidates.
Without rhetoric of identity politics and splintering the nation along race and class lines, uneccessarily and on contrived slander, there would be nothing for the Democrat party to rally on. They have no ideas.


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-08-21 3:28 AM



Obama's glowing endorsement of Obama:

New York Times: OBAMA REPORTEDLY TOLD BIDEN: "YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS, JOE. YOU REALLY DON'T..."

 Quote:



Former President Barack Obama reportedly told his former Vice President Joe Biden that he didn't "have to" run for president in 2020.
“You don’t have to do this, Joe, you really don’t,” Obama told Biden earlier this year, according to The New York Times.

Their report goes on to say that Obama quietly tried to convince his vice president to sit out of the 2016 presidential race, arguing that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a better chance to build upon his eight years as president. He was also worried about Biden's state of mind following the death of his son, Beau.

In response to Obama telling him he didn't have to run, Biden, who believes he would've beaten President Trump in 2016, said that he wouldn't be able to live with himself if he didn't take this opportunity the second time around.
Since then though, Obama has quietly chided Biden, saying that his advisers and inner circle are "too old and out of touch with the current political climate," The Times' report added.

Obama met with two of Biden's advisers in March and told them regardless of the outcome of the election, the most important thing was that Biden doesn't “embarrass himself” or “damage his legacy."



Shades of Bill Clinton, for Obama it's all about him and "his legacy".

Regardless, Obama makes clear that he thinks Biden not only can't win, but that he'll humiliate both himself and Obama. And damage Obama's precious legacy.



Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-08-21 3:53 AM


Jill Biden: Your Candidate Might Be Better Than Joe, But Look At Who's Going To Win

 Quote:
Thursday at a New Hampshire campaign event broadcast on MSNBC, Jill Biden, the wife of former Vice President Joe Biden, urged Democratic primary voters to think first about electability and vote for her husband.

"So yes, you know, your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election, and maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, 'OK, I personally like so-and-so better,' but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump," she said.


Yeah, I know my husband is a third-rate candidate who keeps saying dumb stuff, but he's the one with the best chance of beating Trump, so even if you hate him, you have to vote for him. No, really!


Man, you just can't make this stuff up.
Republicans don't even have to respond, what could be better than Jill Biden going on national television to say her husband isn't the best candidate?
But that out of desperation in a barren field of 25 insane Democrats, DNC voters should choose her not-so-great husband.

The Republican ads just write themselves...
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-08-21 4:11 AM



Biden Forcefully Grabs Girl Asking Question, says "Don't play games with me", and multiple other gaffes this week

 Quote:

As his gaffe parade continues, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden added insult to injury Thursday by angrily grabbing an Iowa college student by the arm and snapping at her because he didn’t like her questioning him about his stance on gender identity.

Many are now asking, "Is he fit to be president?"

The student – a field staffer for the Christian ministry, Turning Point USA – asked the former vice president about his take on genders … with the LGBT community contending there are dozens upon dozens.

"How many genders are there?" she asked, according to TheBlaze.

Biden responded by asking, “Pardon me?” -- and when the student repeated her question, Biden gave a vague answer.

“There are at least three,” the 76-year-old Democrat insisted, only to have the student come back by pressing, “What are they?”


KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF

Not liking where the questions were leading, the ex-VP shot a stern warning at the student.

“Don’t play games with me, kid!” Biden barked before reaching out and grabbing the student’s arm and reminding her, “By the way, the first to come out for marriage was me," – most likely referring to his support for legalizing same-sex marriage.

Turning Point Founder and Executive Director Charlie Kirk posted a video of the incident on social media.
Watch former Vice President Biden forcefully grab one of our young field staffers at yesterday’s Iowa State Fair after she asked him how many genders there are,” Kirk tweeted Friday.

“Biden has taken a lot of heat this election cycle over accusations of him inappropriately touching women in the past,” TheBlaze’s Breck Dumas recounted. “While most of the recent allegations have been characterized as unwelcome signs of affection, Biden's physical contact with Katie did not appear to be friendly in nature.”


THE GAFFE MACHINE...

As if former President Barack Obama’s old running mate didn’t have enough to worry about while campaigning for the 2020 election, his gaffes kept on coming last week, as well.

“Biden has been criticized for multiple incidents of inappropriately touching girls and women and has had multiple verbal stumbles on the campaign trail,’” the New York Post reported.

And the gaffes weren’t spread out over months, but over a 24-hour period.

“On Thursday, the 76-year-old Biden made three high-profile gaffes on the campaign trail that quickly renewed all of the old doubts about his candidacy,” Breitbart News reported.

The politician began his day confusing everyone around him at the Iowa State Fair – and also himself, apparently – as he tried to take a stab at Trump.

“Everybody knows who Donald Trump is – even his supporters know who he is,” Biden contended near the end of his stump speech, according to Breitbart News. “We got to let him know who we are – we choose unity over division, we choose science over fiction, we choose truth over facts.”

Breitbart’s Haris Alic pointed out says "many of those watching were left confused as to what Biden meant.

“The comment was likely the result of Biden flubbing an applause line he frequently uses to end campaign appearances: ‘we have to choose hope over fear, unity over division and, maybe most importantly, truth over lies,’” says Alic.

“Later in the evening, while addressing a town hall in Des Moines, Iowa – organized by the Asian and Latino Coalition – Biden confused the name of recently ousted British Prime Minister Theresa May, with the late Margaret Thatcher – who left office in 1990,” Alic noted.

Then Biden misquoted the president in an attempt to condemn him.

“Words that stunned the nation, and I would argue – I know – shocked the world … International leaders spoke about it,” Biden charged while falsely accusing Trump of lauding the neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the altercation at Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 as “very fine people” – a claim that has been debunked by two-year-old transcripts published by Politico.

Biden continued: “You had people like Margaret Thatch… excuse me,” he said while realizing his blunder “You had people like the former chairman and the leader of the party in Germany. You had Angela Merkel stand up and say how terrible it was. International leaders looked at us like, ‘what in God’s name is happening to the United States of America?’”

Biden’s next gaffe drew little media attention.

“We should challenge these students, we should challenge students in these schools to have advanced placement programs in these schools,” the Democratic leader said while talking about how he would reform the education system in the U.S. “We have this notion that somehow if you’re poor you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”

Breitbart's Alic says Biden's attempt to clarify that statement couldn't repair the damage.

“Biden quickly tried to clarify, adding ‘wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids’ as an addendum to his last sentence, but despite efforts by the candidate and his team to walk back the racially insensitive remarks, the damage was done,” Alic recalled. “Even before the gaffes were fully understood, several prominent individuals on the left began questioning not only Biden’s capabilities as a candidate, but also his competence to be commander-in-chief.”

After this salvo of gaffes, accoding to Alic, serious concern was raised about whether Biden is actually mentally capable of leading the nation.

“One of the most vocal was Adam Jentleson – a one-time deputy chief of staff to former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada),” Alic noted. “Shortly after the gaffes went viral on Thursday, Jentleson took to social media and called on Biden’s team to prove their candidate was up to the task of running for president.”

Jentleson implied that Biden’s mental and physical state might disqualify him from running for president.

“Biden and his team owe it to voters to [let] him run a real, rigorous public campaign schedule – like everyone else,” Jentleson tweeted Friday. “If he can hack it, great. If not, better to know sooner rather than later. Keeping him under wraps except for big events while trying to skate by is just sketchy.”

The Intercept Bureau Chief Ryan Grim charged Biden’s team with possibly promoting an illegitimate candidate to represent the Democratic Party as its presidential nominee.

“Senior Biden advisers – if they’re trying to smuggle in a candidate who isn’t fully with it – are truly playing with fire,” Grim tweeted Friday. “That’s a sociopathic – and ultimately unsustainable – strategy if that’s what’s happening.”

Jentleson and Grim aren’t the only ones worried about Biden’s perceived inability to lead a nation, as numerous similar concerns have been aired both privately and anonymously ever since Biden announced his candidacy for a 2020 White House run.

One Democrat serving in the U.S. Senate voiced his own misgivings about Biden’s bid to occupy the Oval Office after seeing him get jostled around by competitors in his first presidential primary debate.

“I was worried after the first debate he might have lost a step,” the senator told The Hill earlier this month.


ONE MORE GAFFE FOR THE ROAD...

Biden hit the campaign trail again Saturday and insisted that he was vice president during the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that killed 17 on February 14, 2018 – when Trump had already been in the White House with Vice President Mike Pence at his side for over a year.

Biden is now drawing even more mockery from his political opponents after he insisted he visited with kids whohe never met or consoled during last year’s tragedy – when he was no longer VP.

“The 76-year-old Biden, who left the vice presidency in 2017, was talking about gun violence with reporters in Iowa when he said that ‘those kids in Parkland came up to see me when I was vice president’ after the shooting that left 14 students and three educators dead,” Fox News announced.



It makes you nervous of what could have happened if he'd ever become president during Obama's 8 years... WOO !

Seriously, who has confidence in this guy. And meanwhile Trump had the best performance numbers across the board of any president in over 50 years.



Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2019-12-23 3:51 AM



THE NET WORTH OF EVERY 2020 CANDIDATE (Forbes magazine)
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-04 2:35 PM



Last night was the Iowa Caucus. When I looked last night about 2 AM they were still not counted yet, and there was some kind of glitch with the caucus counting system.
Without having any count, Amy Klobachar gave a victory speech of sorts without any visible basis for declaring it. Not to be upstaged, a few minutes later Bernie Sanders gave a similar speech, and a few minutes after Joe Biden (who is believed to have finished 5th in the caucus) also gave a victory speech.

Now I look this morning, and it's total meltdown chaos in the Democrat voting system. Reporters are waiting outside, but the election staff, with the lights still on but no one in the office, have apparently moved the vote counting (vote rigging?) to an undisclosed offsite location. So much for the ballot chain of custody... and that should play real well with the Bernie Sanders voters if Sanders again mysteriously loses after leading in the Iowa polls.

It's a madhouse. AAAAAAAA MAAAAAAAAAD HOOOOOOOOOOOOUSE!




Iowa caucus vote totals delayed amid 'inconsistencies'; campaigns lash out at 'crazy' state party

 Quote:
The Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) still has not reported official vote totals in the critical Iowa caucuses as of early Tuesday morning, in a largely unexplained and unprecedented delay that has raised questions about the legitimacy of the contest -- and Democratic campaign officials are livid, Fox News has learned.

The Trump campaign, meanwhile, openly suggested that the delay meant that the caucuses were being "rigged," and that the embarrassing night proved that the Democratic Party can't be trusted to run Americans' health care and implement sweeping new government programs. Even if a winner were ultimately announced, the chaos and confusion has seemingly erased any hope for the major momentum boost that would normally result.

"We found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results," the IDP said in a statement at 11:30 p.m. ET. "In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report. This is simply a reporting issue. The app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion. The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results."

Fox News is told that during an initial conference call with the campaigns, an IDP representative said the party would be "getting photos of the paper results sent over," but didn't answer any questions and then hung up on all the campaigns, even as frustrated staffers pushed for answers. A campaign staffer told Fox News the IDP's brief call was "crazy."

Another campaign official told Fox News, “Yes, they did hang up.”

During a second, equally contentious conference call early Tuesday morning, the IDP reportedly informed campaigns they could expect results sometime later on Tuesday, but gave no information about how the results would be verified or when precisely they would be published. (The 2016 Iowa caucus tallies were provided on the same day of voting, with more than 90 percent of precincts reporting by 11:00 p.m. ET that year.)

Speaking on a brief call with reporters at approximately 1:10 a.m. ET on Tuesday that lasted a little over a minute, the IDP said the system to validate electoral results was taking longer than expected, but that there had been no hack or intrusion. The IDP did not specify a precise time for results to post on Tuesday.

Former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign wrote to the IDP late Tuesday, complaining about the "considerable flaws" in the caucus reporting process. Biden, who arrived in New Hampshire early Tuesday, appeared to be dramatically underperforming at several precincts in Iowa throughout the night.


"The app that was intended to relay Caucus results to the Party failed; the Party’s back-up telephonic reporting system likewise has failed," the campaign wrote in a letter. "Now, we understand that Caucus Chairs are attempting to — and, in many cases, failing to — report results telephonically to the Party. These acute failures are occurring statewide. We appreciate that you plan to brief the campaigns momentarily on these issues, and we plan to participate. However, we believe that the campaigns deserve full explanations and relevant information regarding the methods of quality control you are employing, and an opportunity to respond, before any official results are released."

Screenshots posted to social media seemingly showed crash screens from the caucus app that indicated poor programming.

About an hour earlier, IDP spokesperson Mandy McClure said in a statement, "The integrity of the results is paramount. We have experienced a delay in the results due to quality checks and the fact that the IDP is reporting out three data sets for the first time. What we know right now is that around 25% of precincts have reported, and early data indicates turnout is on pace for 2016."

However, the turnout in the 2016 Democratic caucuses in Iowa was only 171,109. That was far below the nearly 240,000 that took part in the 2008 Democratic caucuses, when then-Sen. Barack Obama won the contest -- indicating that Democrats' high hopes for enthusiasm have not panned out.


With every passing minute that there is a delay, we worry that the process will lose credibility," a top Elizabeth Warren aide told CNN.

Former 2020 presidential contender Julian Castro tweeted: "This is a total mess. I respect the people of Iowa, they’ve been great—but it’s become very clear that our democracy has been misserved by a broken system."



BUTTEGEIG DECLARES VICTORY --WITHOUT VOTES

The void of information allowed campaigns to spin the results in their favor. Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg even said he was "victorious" early Tuesday and that Iowa had "shocked the nation," claiming the campaign's internal numbers showed he had pulled ahead.

"77 percent of our precinct captains have reported results from their caucuses," a Buttigieg aide told Fox News, noting that previous projections "had the race at a virtual tie on state delegate equivalents, but from the 77 percent of reported precincts, we’re performing 8 points better than our projections."


The aide added: "We believe we’re on our way to winning the SDE [State Delegate Equivalent] count. In the 1,301 precincts our precinct captains have reported, Pete reached viability in 1,064 (83%). For additional context, turnout returned to historical norms and we expect participation rates to wind up near 2016 levels. We found that our support in rural parts of the state was ~5% better than we expected (coming in at 28% so far.)"

Former presidiential candidate Marianne Williamson remarked incredulously from the sidelines, "Did Pete Buttigieg just claim victory in Iowa when the results haven’t been announced yet?"


Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders went rogue, and released internal data that his campaign said represented vote totals 40 percent of precincts. The figures, which indicated Sanders was winning with a narrow lead over Buttigieg, were also unverified.

In a surreal moment shortly before Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar took the stage at her Iowa headquarters to thank her supporters -- even as no voting results were available -- a precinct chief was being interviewed on CNN while he was on hold for more than an hour with the IDP to report results.

The IDP then hung up on the precinct chief live on-air after he was too slow to respond once they took him off hold.


At least four precincts had to resolve ties in their vote results by flipping a coin during the evening, Fox News has learned.

Speaking at 11:30 p.m. ET, Biden said he felt good about the caucus, then remarked, "So it's on to New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and well beyond. We're in this for the long haul."

"I want to thank the Iowans that are here," Biden said. "Well, the Democratic Party is working to get this result to get it straight. And I want to make sure they're very careful in their deliberations. ... We're gonna walk out of here with our share of delegates. We don't know exactly what it is yet, but we feel good about where we are."

Taking the microphone ten minutes later, Sanders said that when the results were in, he had a "good feeling we're going to be doing very very well here in Iowa."

Nearing midnight local time, the bar at Sanders headquarters was packed, and the crowd had not thinned at all.



Klobuchar's team, for their part, sounded its own note of optimism.

"Big night in Iowa," Klobuchar campaign chairman Justin Buoen wrote on Twitter. "With the numbers we’ve seen internally and publicly, we’re running even or ahead of Vice President Biden. Wheels up to New Hampshire!”



TRUMP TEAM MOCKS 'RIGGED' VOTE

Before voting began, the IDP had announced that for the first time ever, it would report three sets of results at the end of the state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses: a tally of caucus-goers’ initial candidate preference; vote totals from the “final alignment” after supporters of lower-ranking candidates were able to make a second choice, and the total number of State Delegate Equivalents each candidate receives. There was no guarantee that all three will show the same winner.

By the end of the night, it became clear that there was no guarantee there would be any winner at all.


JOHN KERRY OVERHEARD SAYING SANDERS WIN WOULD 'TAKE DOWN' THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY



In social media posts, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had boasted that it had been "preparing" for the Iowa process "for three years" to make the primary process "the most transparent" ever.

As the situation broke down minute by minute, the Trump campaign mocked the delay on Twitter, even as it celebrated the huge crowds at GOP caucuses in the state that showed up to vote for the president.



"QUALITY CONTROL = RIGGED ?" ASKS TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER BRAD PARSCALE.

“Democrats are stewing in a caucus mess of their own creation with the sloppiest train wreck in history," Parscale said in a statement just after midnight. "It would be natural for people to doubt the fairness of the process. And these are the people who want to run our entire health care system?"

Parscale added: "Tonight President Trump posted a record performance in the well-run GOP Iowa caucuses with record turnout for an incumbent.”

For his part, with just hours to go until his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Trump tweeted only, "Big WIN for us in Iowa tonight. Thank you!"

"If the Democrats can’t run a #caucus that they had four years to prepare for, how the hell can anyone think they could actually run the country?" Donald Trump, Jr., tweeted.



SANDERS SUPPORTERS STORM OUT.

The drama began unfolding late Monday, as the night wound on without any official vote figures released. In one precinct, Sanders reportedly won by 20 points, but received only one delegate -- along with four other candidates.

Sanders supporters called the situation a "joke" and stormed out, according to The Washington Examiner's Philip Klein.

Each candidate has to meet a threshold of 15 percent to be considered viable in each precinct. That means the number of people backing a candidate has to be at least 15 percent of the total number of people in the room at the local caucus.

For example, if there are 100 people in the room and 14 are backing a particular candidate, that candidate is not considered viable. If a candidate is determined to be not viable, that contender’s supporters would be given the opportunity to support another candidate in the next round.

An adviser to Biden told Fox News he was watching the caucus coverage with his family in Des Moines, and that the entry polls they’ve seen lined up with what the campaign was expecting -- although it wasn't clear what polls the adviser was referring to.

"Joe's had Iowa to himself," Donald Trump, Jr., told Bloomberg News Monday night, alluding to Biden's ability to campaign in the state while Warren and Klobuchar stayed in Washington, D.C. for Senate impeachment proceedings. "If he doesn't win big tonight, I think that's very indicative of his campaign."



In an unexpected move, almost all of the caucus-goers for the nonviable candidates at the Drake University precinct in Des Moines teamed up for Cory Booker, who has already dropped out of the presidential race. The caucus-goers told Fox News tactic was designed to keep delegates always from the viable candidates.

There were 402 caucus-goers after the first alignment, and three reached viability: Warren with 120, Buttigieg with 101, and Sanders with 100. The nonviable were Andrew Yang with 33, Biden with 17, Klobuchar with 24, and Tom Steyer with 1.

The precinct leaders for the nonviable candidates told Fox News the strategy was purely decided among the caucus-goers at the Drake University precinct and did not represent a statewide strategy dictated by the campaigns.




More at the link. Total chaos.

The best part was how the Trump campaign chimed in saying These guys can't even run a state caaucus, how can they be trusted to run a country?

Comedy gold. The punchlines write themselves!



Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-04 2:49 PM



On top of that, a few days ago Bloomberg who didn't qualify for the debates, but he made a huge donation to the DNC, and all of a sudden he's on the stage with the frontrunners!
And people like Cory Booker and other minority candidates who couldn't qualify and were given no flexibility to be on stage in past debates, are raising hell against their own party for being bought off by Bloomberg, who for the right amount they could make an exception.
Complaints of elitism, and of possible racism, from the excluded candidates.

And again the race-obsessed Democrats bemoaning the exclusion of any candidates of color, and backhaandedly their hatred of whites, who they view with contempt as the remaining candidates. Once again the Democrats show their true face. And it's one that screams for the marginalization of white America. It won't be long till they express the same hatred for white Demcorat voters that they already do for white Democrat candidates, and needless to say their long expressed hatred for white Republicans, particularly those in MAGA hats. Way to go, Dems! Way to further alienate another huge swath of your voter-base.

They just can't help themselves.

It's going to be another November like 1972 or 1984. Such fun to stand in the sidelines and watch the Democrats destroy themselves, and ravenously eat their own.
Yup, caucuses are messy. I wouldn’t crow to much though as your party made it simple for republican voters by not letting other republicans run against Trump. Like trials without witnesses I suppose you get quicker results leaving your party a choice of just Trump.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-04 3:23 PM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Yup, caucuses are messy. I wouldn’t crow to much though as your party made it simple for republican voters by not letting other republicans run against Trump. Like trials without witnesses I suppose you get quicker results leaving your party a choice of just Trump.


Some more messy than others. This is reminiscent of the collossal failure of the Obamacare website launch in 2013.

And also reminiscent of the DNC (revealed in their own internal e-mails) rigging the primary against Bernie Sanders in 2016. Where Debbie Wasserman Bitch-Cunt Schultz was exposed and forced to resign as DNC chair.
And then her replacement, DNC new chair Donna Brazile, was revealed to be just as involved in badmouthing and plotting against Bernie Sanders.

And that's on top of Brazile rigging CNN debates, feeding Hillary Clinton the questions in advance of the debates. TWO separate televised CNN debates.


There were two other Republicans running. They both each got about 1% of the Iowa vote.


What I enjoy most is that Democrats have been launching this kind of backstabbing viciousness on Republican candidates since 2004. But increasingly, they just can't resist unleashing the same vicious rat-fuck tactics on their own. It's a pleasure to watch them viciously claw on each other, the ones who most deserve the clawing.

Meanwhile, Trump is busy fulfilling all his campaign promises, creating record growth, record low unemployment, rebuilding our military, re-negotiating trade deals that will further increase domestic growth and jobs, and securing our southern border.

As an alternative to Trump, Democrats only offer the chaos they displayed last night.

Posted By: the G-man Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-04 4:39 PM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Yup, caucuses are messy. I wouldn’t crow to much though as your party made it simple for republican voters by not letting other republicans run against Trump.


Both Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld and former Illinois congressman Joe Walsh ran against Trump in the Iowa caucus.
Results are still coming in but mayor Pete looks to have done very well! Klobuchar did okay but she really worked for it. Biden didn’t do as well as I thought he would. Bernie and Warren both right up there.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-05 8:14 AM


Over 24 hours after the Iowa Caucus, and the Democrats still haven't counted all the votes.


With 62% counted at this time, the results are:

Buttigeig........26.9%
Sanders..........25.1%
Warren...........18.3%
Biden............15.6%
Klobuchar........12.6%

And at the children's table:

Yang...............1%
Bloomberg......<1%
Steyer............<1%
Gabbard..........<1%


Subject to change, not fully counted, but that's the best the Dems have to offer so far.

Most incredible for me is Biden had the field to himself in Iowa for the last 2 weeks, with all major competitors (Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar) required to be Washington DC for the Senate impeachment trial. And even with that advantage, this is the best Biden could do!

Also interesting that the billionaires (Steyer and Bloomberg), for all their expensive advertising, are both circling the drain at less than 1%.

I'm just so incensed at this entire 2020 Democrat field at this point, that I could never vote for any of them.

They side against
* our police,
* against our military,
* against border patrol and securing our borders.
* Every 2020 candidate onstage raised their hand for de-criminalizing illegal immigrants,
* all support giving illegals taxpayer-funded health insurance (something many U.S. taxpayers don't have, but they want the uninsured to insure illegals!),
* all want to wreck our fossil-feul energy sector (right when Trump has made us economically independent and unreliant on the Middle East/OPEC for the first time in 70 years, and therefore able to leave behind wars in the Middle East.)
* And Every Democrat on stage is down for nationalized/socialized healthcare that will wreck our private healthcare system that 180 million Americans are happy with.

Score another win for the Bolshevik party. With a platform that no one wants to vote for except the hardest left wing of the Democrat party. Driving away the Democrat middle class. The Reagan Democrats are now once again Trump Democrats.
Thanks Dems!

On a personal level I actually like a few of the Democrat candidates.

Delaney who dropped out this week is a sane pragmatic voice (like James Webb in 2016) who could get no traction in this party.
Tim Ryan at least gave lip service to moderate positions.
Andrew Yang I think is an intelligent guy with some good ideas (unfortunately intertwined with some crazy left ideas).
Amy Klobuchar, has a track record of accomplishments, but again endorses the crazy-left agenda.
Tulsi Gabbard I respect as someone who has served in our military, and again thinks outside the box, at least on foreign policy, and is therefore attacked by her fellow establishment Democrats, most noteworthy by Hillary Rodent Clinton. But again: open borders, amnesty, healthcare for illegals, the whole crazy nine yards.

Politically, every one of these candidates have demonstrated themselves to be one with the maniacs who would destroy the country: Open borders, amnesty for illegals, FREE HEALTH CARE for illegals, reversing the securing of our border, sanctuary cities, de-funding our military, capitulating to China, eliminating ICE, wrecking our energy industry, further wrecking healthcare, on and on.

If Trump were only a president on a par with G.H.W. Bush, W. Bush the younger, or candidates like McCain or Romney, he would still be the only palatable choice relative to the maniacs the Boshevik party is offering us.
But how much more preferable is Trump who is quantifiably the most accomplished president in at least 50 years in categories across the board?


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-05 9:03 PM



VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE, interviewed after the Address about Pelosi's action:

"I wasn't sure if she was ripping up the speech, or ripping up the Constitution."


Errrr not sure what trump’s mini me trying to please his master has to do with this actual topic? I was surprised at Biden’s poor showing too. Than again he looks so old and his gaffes probably stick more. I like him and he’s probably got more chances but Trump probably got himself impeached trying to get rid of the wrong rival.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-06 7:32 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Errrr not sure what trump’s mini me trying to please his master has to do with this actual topic? I was surprised at Biden’s poor showing too. Than again he looks so old and his gaffes probably stick more. I like him and he’s probably got more chances but Trump probably got himself impeached trying to get rid of the wrong rival.



I've never heard Mike Pence called that. Pence is a pretty big guy to be dismissed as a mini-me. And Pence is one of the most sincere men in politics.

You should watch Tucker Carlson when he replays at midnight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5MRL4xECck
A story about 15 minutes in talks about Buttigeig's campaign's connection to the company that provided the app that has been maalfunctioning.
Followed by a former CIA special ops guy talks about how based on his experience that DNC's botched count in the Iowa Caucus was not a mistake, but with the knowledge that Sanders would be the big winner, the errors were deliberate, a way to discredit a Sanders victory in Iowa.

My instinct watching the Iowa ballot count over the last 48 hours is that it was a mixture of technological error and DNC rigging of the vote. This just confirms it.

And gee, I'm so shocked, after the slanders unleashed on Trump in the 2016 election, after the Roy Moore Senate election in Alamama and the slime poured on him. After the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation and the orhcestrated slime dumped on him. After the Wikileaks e-mails in 2016 that exposed how the DNC conspired against Sanders to give the nomination to Hillary. Where Debbie Wasserman-Bitch-Cunt-Schultz was forced to resign, and then immediately hired to lead the Hillary Clkinton cmpaign.
Gosh, I'm just so shocked the Democrats might rig the Iowa Caucus!

Gee, what are the odds?
Actually it wasn’t meant to be a size related comparison but I saw mini me as a failed copy of the evil villain in Austin Powers. That’s Pence. And your quote about Pence worrying that Pelosi was ripping the constitution shows his insincerity. He’s willing to say something untrue and it’s okay because it’s about a democrat. You can heap all the phony partisan praise on that garbage but he’s still gonna stink.
As for the actual topic what can I say, very happy to see mayor Pete do so well! I don’t think he could win but than again I’ve always been wrong on guessing who could actually win all the way back to Bill Clinton.

And I see even FOX is reporting that conservative trolls jammed the lines on caucus night adding to the problems they were already having. I’m glad they kept a paper trail and are not trying to rush out results and possibly duplicate what happened to Santorum back when Romney was incorrectly called the winner and it wasn’t corrected until much later.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-07 9:50 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Actually it wasn’t meant to be a size related comparison but I saw mini me as a failed copy of the evil villain in Austin Powers. That’s Pence. And your quote about Pence worrying that Pelosi was ripping the constitution shows his insincerity. He’s willing to say something untrue and it’s okay because it’s about a democrat. You can heap all the phony partisan praise on that garbage but he’s still gonna stink.



Insults... unsupported by facts.

Pence is by all appearances a very devout conservative Christian. He's not the most exciting guy, but he definitely seems very sincere in his faith and desire to do good in the world. The liberal media made fun of him a year or so ago because he said he loves his wife and won't spend time alone with other women to endanger that marriage! Wow, what a terrible guy.

For the Democrat/Left, conservative or sincere devout Christian = bad.

But criminal illegal immigrants, open borders, abortion on demand, forcing Christians to act against their faith to fund abortion or other fforced participation in gay culture, weakening our national defense to a level that endangers our soldiers, millions of new illegal immigrants annually, ALL = good.

Don't misunderstand me, gays, or whoever, have a right to their lifestyle. But they don't have a right to force their lifestyle choices on those who don't share their beliefs. To destroy conservative communities by forcing them to participate in failed liberal policy.
Like forcing taxpayers who want our borders secured to pay for illegals immigrants' housing and healthcare, thus encouraging more off them that were unwanted int he first place. Or forcing a Christian baker or photographer to cater a gay wedding. Or forcing residents in California or New York to pay the cost and live among homeless people who are pooping and urinating in the streets, and burglarizing homes and cars of the residents forced to live among them. To put conservative citizens at risk of diseases from hepatitis to bubonic plague, diseases not seen in close to a century in the U.S., if ever. Cultural decline all rising from insane liberal policy.

A free society is where Christians have a right to their lifestyle choices and traditions that work, and gays and other liberals have a right to their social experiments that ddon't work. But from Obama forward, Christians and conservatives are demonized and forced to participate in things they don't agree with, and don't like the consequences of.
Even in beautiful Boca Raton, "Section 8" housing subsidizes absolute scum and drug addicts in really nice neighborhoods. The poor, illegal immigrants, juvenile delinquents, a few years aago a drug dealer who was selling out of my building. I know because one afternoon I just parked my car and two police officers asked me about him. In a very nice residential community, I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Things we pay good money to live in a nice community to not be exposed to.
I was talking to a client a few months ago who lives in an intercoastal neighborhood with multimillion-dollar homes, she was really pissed that there are homes right across the street from her with government subsidized rehab halfway houses, and on weeknights she is often awakened at 11 or midnight by residents of an adjacent halfway house rehab residents, drug addicts coming outside to talk loudly and smoke cigarrettes at all hours.
I've had several in my condo development who were a problem before they moved out or were evicted. In 2015, I drove home from my girlfriends, and there was an army of cops with police dogs going house to house looking for an known drug trafficker/murderer, with several police helicopters with searchlights roaring overhead. It was about 11 PM, and I was not allowed in, and had to go to a bar/restaurant for about 2 hours, until they finally let me come home my second time at the gate. I've never seen anything like that.

If liberals want these things, let them live among it. But don't force conservatives to give up our way of life, and conform to a drug-addicted, secularist, homeless-filth-laden, utopia your policies create. That create decadent parasites and treat drug addicts and illegals and homeless scum better than honest citizens. Even liberals are leaving places like California and New York, and spreading their poisonous liberal ideology to places like Nevada, Colorado, Texas and Florida. South Florida has become a hub of expensive government subsidized drug rehab centers. And it is turning this place to a left-wing socialist hellhole of bad policy.
Leaving work or the day in a very nice area, several times a week I find I.V needles in the parking lot near my car. Twice in the last 3 years police have found an overdosed addict dead in their car. This is in Boca Raton, one of the richest cities in America!

So... screw your opinion of Mike Pence. If there were 160 million Mike Pences in the United States, the problems that have risen in cities across America the last 15 years would not exist, thanks to your oh-so-enlightened non-conservative non-Christian socialist experiments that don't work. Don't force us to join your plan for unwitting self-destruction.

Pence and Trump are attempting to restore sanity after 8 years of unbelievable Obama decline. If Democrats were in power to expand the chaos they've already created, it would be national suicide.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-07 10:00 AM
By the way, Doctor Evil's "mini-me" in the Austin Powers movies is a small version of himself. I don't recall the "flawed" part.


Trump calls Bloomberg "Mini-Mike" is a joke on Bloomberg's height, implying that he's so short he could be someone's mini-me. Trump has a gift for nicknames that stick.
"Little hands Marco".
"Pocahatas."
"Low-energy Jeb".
"Crying Chuck."

Pocaahantas is my favorite, it really snaps Elizabeth Warren's boundless hypocrisy and her incredible whopper lies in full perspective. Warren is one of the most unnatural and genuinely creepy pod-people fake humans I've ever witnessed. So creepy, and yet holding such morbid fascination it's hard to look away from the hideous display. A woman with absolutely no Native-American DNA, who PRETENDED to be Cherokee, displacing some ACTUAL Native-American so she could earn a six-figure income at Harvard, making a lifelong profession of exploiting minorities and playing a minority victim, while enriching herself on the backs of actual minorities. Just incredible.

Well, I'm going to get... a beer!


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-07 10:50 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
As for the actual topic what can I say, very happy to see mayor Pete do so well! I don’t think he could win but than again I’ve always been wrong on guessing who could actually win all the way back to Bill Clinton.

And I see even FOX is reporting that conservative trolls jammed the lines on caucus night adding to the problems they were already having. I’m glad they kept a paper trail and are not trying to rush out results and possibly duplicate what happened to Santorum back when Romney was incorrectly called the winner and it wasn’t corrected until much later.


I won't rain on your parade by deconstructing Buttigeig. His only experience is running a town of 100,000 (about the population of my own city of Boca Raton), that during his reign hemmorhaging jobs and residents, due to the spike in crime and decline in economic opportunity there. Buttigeig's policy has caused a maelstrom of crime, business decline, and racial tension. The black residents of South Bend don't seem to like the gay mayor much, nor do many of the white residents.

While he's intelligent, he's a cultural marxist who advocates expanding all the policies I cited above that would further destroy the country. Open borders, de-criminalizing illegals, healthcare for illegals, and other policies that similarly destroyed (or at best diminished) South Bend, Indiana.
I’ve read up on Buttigieg and unemployment went down while he was in charge. He was also re-elected by a huge margin. He did not file for bankruptcy multiple times or have to dissolve any charities he ran. We don’t have to worry about him putting his son-in-law in charge of an Israeli & Palestine peace plan either. He hasn’t caught on with African Americans yet but I can remember Obama not winning them over right away either. It is something he will have to do to beat Trump though if he became the democratic nominee.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-08 10:50 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I’ve read up on Buttigieg and unemployment went down while he was in charge. He was also re-elected by a huge margin. He did not file for bankruptcy multiple times or have to dissolve any charities he ran. We don’t have to worry about him putting his son-in-law in charge of an Israeli & Palestine peace plan either. He hasn’t caught on with African Americans yet but I can remember Obama not winning them over right away either. It is something he will have to do to beat Trump though if he became the democratic nominee.



I love your hypocrisy. It's corrupt for Trump to appoint Jared Kushner to negotiate a middle east peace plan with Isael and the Palestinians becaause Kushner is a relative (despite that neither Trump or Kushner or Ivanka take any financial compensation for their wwork, and despite that Kushner seems to be doing better at negotiating a settlement than anyone has in 70 years.)

But Bill Clinton hiring his own wife Hillary Rodent Clinton to bully healthcare companies and the American public into a healthcare plan they didn't want, that's perfectly OK to you.

Also JFK hiring his brother RFK as attorney general.

Buttegeig never filed for bankruptcy (temporary) because he's never run a business large enough to have a cash flow problem. Legitimate and well-run businesses all the time have to borrow money through slow business cycles to remain solvent until business resumes. A problem salaried cultural marxist bureaucrats like Buttigeig could never imagine.

And from what I've seen and read, South Bend, Indiana under Buttigeig's reign has not fared well, less than stellar at best. And increased crime, and allegations of racism by police under Buttigeig's leadership, that he is apparently unwilling or unable to solve.



MAYOR PETE'S SOUTH BEND RECORD

 Quote:


Pete Buttigieg is rising in the Democratic presidential polls on his rhetorical gifts, distinctive resumé and fund-raising prowess. But the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has so far largely received a pass on his government record from the press and even other Democrats. That isn’t likely to continue, and a good place to start is his trouble controlling violent crime.

Violence has dropped sharply throughout the U.S. over the past two decades as a result of improved policing, more incarceration and demographic changes. But crime rates have diverged among cities with similar demographics based on local policies. South Bend, with a population of 102,000 and poverty rate of 25%, has one of the poorer records.

Since Mr. Buttigieg became mayor in 2012, the city’s violent crime has surged 70% compared to about 10% Indiana-wide. Violent crime has declined 2% in the U.S. in the same period despite a transient uptick in 2015 and 2016 amid a backlash against police following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

South Bend police say a change in how data was reported to the FBI in 2016 caused aggravated assaults to spike that year. But violence has continued to increase in the city while declining in other mid-sized cities in Indiana. Last year the violent crime rate in South Bend was higher than in Chicago.

Mr. Buttigieg says violence in South Bend is comparable to cities with similar poverty.
But the poverty rate in Evansville, Indiana, is 2.1 percentage points lower than in South Bend, yet its violent crime is about half as high.
Gary, Indiana, has a poverty rate of 36%, though its violent crime rate is 50% lower than in South Bend.
Violent crime in South Bend dropped during the recession and hit a nadir in 2012. But it has climbed since Mr. Buttigieg became mayor. This raises questions about competence and priorities because a mayor’s foremost responsibility is to protect public safety.

The causes are hard to pinpoint. But one persistent problem is a longstanding lack of trust between police and the community that Mr. Buttigieg hasn’t improved. He demoted the city’s first black police chief in 2012 amid an FBI investigation into his taping phone calls of white officers. Maybe the demotion was justified, but many in the community weren’t convinced.

The millennial mayor then hired a white police chief from New Bedford, Massachusetts., who shared his technocratic tendencies but was opposed by rank-and-file officers and the City Council. Mr. Buttigieg wasn’t able to build consensus, which might have eased racial tension. The new chief resigned after three years without progress reducing crime.

Current chief Scott Ruszkowski is well-liked by officers and minorities, but he has also failed to stanch the bloodshed or improve police morale. One reason may be the mayor’s progressive law-enforcement policies such as body cameras and implicit-bias training that have made officers wary of confrontation.

After a white officer fatally shot a black man in June, Mayor Pete rebuked police recruits: “In our past and present, we have seen innumerable moments in which racial injustice came at the hands of those trusted with being instruments of justice.” He also sent an email to campaign supporters saying “All police work and all of American life takes place in the shadow of racism.”

That was a bow to the national social-justice left but it didn’t help morale among cops on the streets in South Bend. The city has struggled to recruit police officers and has 15 fewer than budgeted for next year. The shortage has made it harder to patrol communities and respond to calls.

Many potential recruits fail the required written exam, and they aren’t helped by South Bend’s schools. The city’s high school graduation rate has declined to 77%—about 11 points lower than statewide—from 83% in 2015. Failing schools may also be contributing to higher crime since most violence is perpetrated by young men who aren’t in school or employed.

***

In Wednesday’s debate, Mr. Buttigieg contrasted his experience in what he called a “small” city with the “small” politics of Washington. It was a shrewd play to become the fresh outsider voice. But the issue isn’t that South Bend is small so much as what he did with the opportunity to lead.

Mayor Pete served for eight years as an intelligence officer in the Navy, including seven months in Afghanistan, and worked as a consultant at McKinsey. But his government experience is limited to running South Bend. Democratic voters will want to inspect that record before they anoint him as the great millennial hope to defeat Donald Trump.





See also:

https://www.businessinsider.com/south-bend-under-mayor-pete-buttigieg-economy-2019-12

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/the-unl...ld-be-president
lol, I guess you’re admitting you’re a hypocrite over Clinton? Or maybe you feel Bill should have had Hillary working on a peace plan instead? Oh and your party worked like hell to poison that healthcare plan. We could have had people getting better coverage a long time ago. Now we have Obamacare anyways. (more popular than Trump, lol).

And bankruptcy and charity fraud are not selling points for Trump. Of course with this job he can just run up the deficit. Soaring btw . And Trump has a long unflattering history of bad business and deceit that you ignore.
How crime data can mislead in South Bend

Basically what wasn’t counted before as violent crime is now.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-08 11:37 PM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
lol, I guess you’re admitting you’re a hypocrite over Clinton? Or maybe you feel Bill should have had Hillary working on a peace plan instead?



The points that you either don't get or deliberateely dodged, are

1) that you and other Dems had no problem with appointing family, for decades by Democrats, and now that a Republican appoints Kushner and Ivanka, sunndenly you have a problem with that.

2) That unlike Hillary or RFK, Ivanka and Kushner are not abusing their power in a bullying and authoritarian way, the way Hillary did with healthcare, and RFK did to serve his family's interests. I've saaid it before, both JFK an LBJ used FBI to surveeil theirr enemies, and IRS to harass and audit their enemies. I read that Nixon was a bit astonished that he was investigated, for things it was common knowledge the two presidents preceding him had prteviously done without consequences.

3) Ivanka and Kushner, like Donaald Trump himself, take no salaries for their work, it is truly public service, without any personal gain. In point of fact, the Turmp family has taken a personal loss, and thus sacrificed to serve the public.

4) Unlike Hillary in particular, Ivanka and Kushner are yielding magnificent results from their work, to the benefit of the American public and the world. Ivanka established the contacts that secured the release of thousands of non-violent offenders to be released from prison and given a second chance at life. Ivanka has worked with businesses to create apprentice programs that will provide millions with a career path and better lives.

 Originally Posted By: M E M

Oh and your party worked like hell to poison that healthcare plan. We could have had people getting better coverage a long time ago. Now we have Obamacare anyways. (more popular than Trump, lol).


Lying scapegoatism on your part. Obamacare was already "poisoned" and failing before Trump was inaugurated. As I've cited maany times, Obamacare was designed by Obama and its architects to fail, so that when Hillary was presumed to be the next president, she could enact spending for nationalized insurance to replace it, destroying any vestiges of private healthcare. Like everything the Bolshevik Democrats do, it was forged in deception, and relied on the deception of the American public to implement it.
Or as Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber termed it, on "the stupidity of the American voter."

Yours is truly the party that hates America.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
And bankruptcy and charity fraud are not selling points for Trump. Of course with this job he can just run up the deficit. Soaring btw . And Trump has a long unflattering history of bad business and deceit that you ignore.


The deficit is roughly the same as when Obama was in office. The majority of it for rebuilding our military that Obama destroyed. As I said prior, there were more deaths from military training accidents or inadequate field preparedness than there were deaths from actual combat when Trump was inaugurated.
50% of U.S. military aircraft were not combat ready.
Despite enormous defense obligations, our military was dangerously unprepared.

I suspect the kind of cuts necessary to balance the budget would have prevented Trump getting a second term, and that he will go after that in his second term, now that the military is restored.

Trump has already accomplished more than any president in at least 50 years, I cut him some slack for not tackling debt reduction in his first term. His focus was on more immediate problems left fo him by Obama.

As I already explored, Trump's temporary bankruptcy, 30 years ago, is a risk of any business, particularly something as high-finance as real estate. Trump has 4 $billion now, and has brought about $12 trillion in growth to the U.S. economy and the American people since his inauguration.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-08 11:56 PM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
How crime data can mislead in South Bend

Basically what wasn’t counted before as violent crime is now.


Buttigeig was challenged about this in last night's debate, and the consensus is that his response was unconvincing and inadequate.

Up to this point, Buttigeig has been able to get away with not having to defend his record as maayor. We are seeing that begin to change. A higher poverty rate (25%!) than the rest of his state. A higher ratio of crime and violence than the rest of his state. As detailed in the Wall Street Journal article I cited above.
That debate question was specific on blacks being arrested more often on drug charges in South Bend. I do agree he will be tested more now than before as it should be but the article I cited did point to stats being increased because wider definitions were being used.
The deficit btw isn’t roughly the same as when Obama was in office. It’s soaring. Tax cuts and increased spending does that. When you get back to demanding that it needs to be addressed I will know it’s bs. It’s only an issue when republicans don’t have the WH.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-10 12:14 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
That debate question was specific on blacks being arrested more often on drug charges in South Bend. I do agree he will be tested more now than before as it should be but the article I cited did point to stats being increased because wider definitions were being used.



But it opened the door to Buttigeig's entire record.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-10 12:26 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
The deficit btw isn’t roughly the same as when Obama was in office. It’s soaring. Tax cuts and increased spending does that. When you get back to demanding that it needs to be addressed I will know it’s bs. It’s only an issue when republicans don’t have the WH.



Like I said, Trump has already accomplished more in 3 years than any president in history, and the best record of any president on issues across the board of any president in 50 years. Better than Chinton or the Bushes, better than Reagaan even, and certainly far better than Obama.

So I give Trump a litle time to balance the budget. Trump has to win re-election to accomplish anything, and if he proposed cuts in his first term, he would have been demonized by the leiberal media and Dems as someone who "hates black and brown and poor people". Which by the way is what Dems said about Republicans from 2001-2008 every thime Republicans tried to prevent the housing bubble.

During Obama's term, the average annual deficit was between 1 and 1.4 trillion. And if your party was so interested in reducing the deficit, the House Dems wouldn't have extorted another $2 trillion in social spending to allow Trump to get 700 billion to rebuild the military.
Only when Obama raised taxes did the annual deficits fall below 1 trillion annually. But then Obamacare was implemented, and that instantly added another 2 trillion in annual debt in a category hidden outside the official budget.
You always give republicans a break that’s why I don’t take you seriously on the deficit. Republicans always end up blowing up the deficit and are only interested in reducing it if they don’t have the WH. Bush Sr was the last republican President that actually took it seriously and the greatest economic expansion started towards the tail end of his term. Your party since sucks at paying the bills and winning the popular vote for the top office.
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
That debate question was specific on blacks being arrested more often on drug charges in South Bend. I do agree he will be tested more now than before as it should be but the article I cited did point to stats being increased because wider definitions were being used.



But it opened the door to Buttigeig's entire record.



Well being towards the top that was going to happen anyways. So far I think he’s doing good but honestly think Bloomberg is probably the best bet right now. Still early though obviously.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-10 1:35 AM


If Buttegeig were a Republican, his entire record would have been slammed since the first day he announced. Just ask Dr. Ben Carson, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Herman Cain or Rick Santorum. These guys got blasted from the day t hey announced, with a waiting salvo from the liberal media waiting to fire the moment they announced.

Compare with Obama, who even after completing roughly 2 years of primaried in 2007-2008 and 8 years in office, *was never* fully vetted by the liberal media. His socialist/marxist ideology, his membership in the marxist Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Derrick Bell, the racist rants of wife Michelle Obama, Obama's marxist advisors such as Van Jones, Ron Bloom, Valerie Jarrett, Anita Dunn, Marl Lloyd, marxist and anti-american and muslim radical lawyers appointed to Obama's DOJ, many of whom are still there, moles boring away destroying from within.

Over 10 years in the national spotlight, and the liberal media has still not explored what they unleashed in *ONE DAY* against any of these Republicans.

Likewise with Buttigeig, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren. The liberal media could rip any of them open like a Pinata if they wanted to. But instead the media are protecting them.
Vive le resistance!
Republican’s have an entire network devoted to your party’s propaganda. Anything not as devoted and loyal is dubbed an enemy to the country. Sad that a free and independent media is under attack every day because it’s not a dependable propaganda delivery system for the gop.

As for experience, I’m good with Mayor Pete’s. More would be nice but he’s already shown a level of maturity and discipline that Trump just doesn’t have.
Looks like Mayor Pete won the most delegates in Iowa. A bit to early for Mitch and Lindsey to get an investigation going
probably
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-10 7:09 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Republican’s have an entire network devoted to your party’s propaganda. Anything not as devoted and loyal is dubbed an enemy to the country. Sad that a free and independent media is under attack every day because it’s not a dependable propaganda delivery system for the gop.



Uhh... yeah. It's called documented evidence and the statistical facts, that I've sourced abundantly.

It's your side that has vicious lie sites like MediaMatters and DailyKos, and Vox, and MoveOn.org, that are completely devoted to lying narrative that benefits your party and hides the facts.

It's your side that worships Marxism, and people like Mao, and Che Gueverra and Hugo Chaves and Castro. Your party's leading candidate Bernie Sanders has for decades sung his praise for the Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, Hugo Chaves, and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even as he over those same decades railed on the U.S. as a racist and unfair place. He spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union! He kept a Soviet flag on the wall in his Wilmington, Vermont mayor's office for 10 years!

Yours is the party that rages on police, and military, and Border Patrol guards and INS.
Yours is the party of demonizing our nation's founders as racists, and getting rid of holidays in their honor.
How can you possibly spin that as truth or patriotism to defend our nation? Yours is the party of DESTROYING America. Absolutely without question.

When I listen to the liberal media, it's like watching Pravda. It's terrifying that almost the entire media is hell-bent on destroying the country, in paving the way for your party's envisioned cultural marxist utopia. The new socialist order.

I noticed that unapologetic bias begin with Bush's election in Nov 2000. It intensified in the 2004 and 2008 elections. And beginning with 2016 you've seen the full-on media insurrection unleashed on an elected U.S. president Trump.
Combined with an internal coup by FBI, DOJ, CIA, the FISA court, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Obama administration.

I don't know how you can possibly buy the shit sandwiches they're feeding you, M E M. Democrat zombies who welcome the destruction of the United States.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
As for experience, I’m good with Mayor Pete’s. More would be nice but he’s already shown a level of maturity and discipline that Trump just doesn’t have.


\:lol\:

Please! The guy has been mayor of a rural third-rate town of barely 100,000 for almost 8 years, and in that time has spiked crime and violence, and managed to furiously piss off half the population there, as well as his own police department (cited and sourced.)

Trump by comparison was the owner and CEO of a $4 billion construction corporation for over 40 years, doing business in 20 nations worldwide. He has met world leaders, long before becoming president. Trump was close friends with the Reagans and the Clintons, has belonged to both parties, has been both a contributor and a participant in decades of presidential elections prior to running himself, as well as to House, Senate and local elections and candidates.

And as a result of that experience, with both parties, Trump has overseen the most accomplished presidency in at least 50 years: created the lowest unemployment in every demographic group, rising wages, multiple re-negotiated trade deals with virtually every major nation, and rebuilding our military, while simultaneously avoiding wars.
In only his first 3 years!

You Democrats praise Bolton now, but if Trump had listened to Bolton instead of firing him, we'd be in a costly war with Iran now. Trump has dodged multiple attempts by both Iran and North Korea to provoke all-out war. Against the advice of the NSC and his generals. Buttigeig would have followed the herd and gone to war.

Buttigeig at the very least is very inexperienced and not equipped to think for himself rather than the Republican/Democrat establishment that has tried every last dirty trick to press Trump into the same policy as 30 years of presidents before him, by persuasion, blackmail (Comey), intimidation and attempted removal. Buttigeig would be a return to a president who takes the payoff and returns to the bidding of establishment/globalist/ Wall Street advisors. And even the Bernie Sanders voters can see that, chanting "Wall Street Pete".

Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-10 7:11 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Looks like Mayor Pete won the most delegates in Iowa. A bit to early for Mitch and Lindsey to get an investigation going
probably



And that wasn't a blatantly rigged election, for the establishment of your party to deprive Bernie Sanders of the win?
Wake up.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-12 2:20 AM



A little bit more about Mayor Buttplug and the Iowa Caucus voting problems:



A BUTTIGEIG TOP CAMPAIGN FUNDER IS PART OF THE 'SHADOW' APP BEHIND DISASTROUS IOWA CAUCUS VOTE COUNT
A dark money operation funded by billionaires is behind the app that delayed Iowa’s voting results, Max Blumenthal reports.


 Quote:

By Max Blumenthal, The Grayzone



At the time of publication, 12 hours after voting in the Democratic Party’s Iowa caucuses ended, the results have not been announced. The delay in reporting is the result of a failed app developed by a company appropriately named Shadow Inc.

This firm was staffed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaign veterans and created by a Democratic dark-money nonprofit backed by hedge fund billionaires including Seth Klarman. A prolific funder of pro-settler Israel lobby organizations, Klarman has also contributed directly to Pete Buttigieg’s campaign.

The delay in the vote reporting denied a victory speech to Sen. Bernie Sanders, the presumptive winner of the opening contest in the Democratic presidential primary. Though not one exit poll indicated that Buttigieg would have won, the former mayor South Bend, Indiana, took to Twitter to confidently proclaim himself the victor.

(much more at link)


So the election that Buttigeig was declared the winner of, declared Buttegeig the winner in Iowa, after very odd voting irregularities due to a voting "Shadow" app. An App run by one of Buttigeig's largest campaign donors.
How about that?

Despite that Bernie Sanders got 6,000 more votes.

And further staffed by many Obama and Hillary veteran campaign staffers who didn't want Bernie Sanders to win. The same people who didn't want Bernie Sanders to win in 2016, and rigged the primary for Hillary Clinton back then.
How about THAT?

Gee, what are the odds they'd rig the vote against Sanders again?



Pretty amazing seeing Buttigieg do so well! And Klobuchar definitely had a bounce from Iowa and her debate performances. Sanders is still doing good but I don’t think as good as 2016. Warren and Biden are not having good nights. It’s still early in the priocess but Biden really should be doing better. I really think Trump got himself impeached for nothing, lol
Posted By: the G-man Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-12 5:16 AM
 Quote:
It’s still early in the priocess but Biden really should be doing better.


I honestly think Biden is suffering from some dementia or something. I say that with sympathy. He doesn't seem like the same guy who was VP.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-12 5:25 AM

Warren and Biden are both on the way out.

Buttigeig and Klobuchar are gaining votes from those who have dropped support for the above two.
I think in the end it will be Sanders and Bloomberg. And maybe Sanders, Bloomberg and Klobuchar in the last three. But in the end Bloomberg, because he's the only sane halfway moderate choice who can attract moderate Democrats and compete with Trump in the general election.

To review, ALL the Democrat candidates for months have openly supported:

* de-criminalizing and/or amnesty for illegals.
* Government-funded HEALTHCARE for illegals
* Sanctuary cities
* the Green New Deal (with at least a 60 trillion-dollar pricetag)
* nationalized healthcare (with at least a 30 trillion pricetag), and in doing so ending private healthcare for 180 million privately insured Americans.


And I don't recall where each stands on these issues, but most or all support:

* de-criminalizing drugs, which would double or triple the number of drug addicts and cause federal, state and local government have to pick up the tab and pay for the damage caused. To say nothing of the thousands of innocent citizens who will suffer murder, beatings, drunk driving injuries, theft from these addicts, and suffer disease from these addicts.
* Allowing illegals to vote, either overtly or from deliberately unenforced laws that allow illegals to vote.
* Stacking the Supreme Court with liberal judges to make conservatives a minority.
* Eliminating the electoral college that our founders put in place to prevent just a few population centers from smothering representation for the rest of the country.
* Allowing criminals to vote in jail! (seriously!)

I've heard Buttigeig express support for de-criminalizing drugs, eliminating the electoral college, and stacking the supreme court within the last 2 days.

And I suspect that even the 2020 candidates who don't openly support these things would passively allow them to be implemented, if elected president.

Just like Obama didn't openly support them, but paved the way for them with an Obamacare that was calculated to fail and collapse, paving the way for a President Hillary Clinton to bail it out and replace it with nationalized healthcare.
And like Obama gave amnesty to children of illegals to deliberately create a growing tidal wave of illegals, that only Trump has been able to stop, and I doubt any other Republican or Democrat as president would have the resolve to do so.
And similar deceitful incremental erosions by Obama to undermine religious freedom, gun ownership rights, and forcing Christians and others to endorse and participate in things like gay marriage and abortion/birth control against their will.


 Originally Posted By: the G-man
 Quote:
It’s still early in the priocess but Biden really should be doing better.


I honestly think Biden is suffering from some dementia or something. I say that with sympathy. He doesn't seem like the same guy who was VP.


He was always gaffe prone but I think they might do more damage these days as he looks ancient. Sanders literally just had a heart attack and he looks younger.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-12 5:25 AM


And surprisingly, within the last hour, Yang and Steyer both ended their campaigns tonight.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-12 5:43 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
 Quote:
It’s still early in the priocess but Biden really should be doing better.


I honestly think Biden is suffering from some dementia or something. I say that with sympathy. He doesn't seem like the same guy who was VP.


He was always gaffe prone but I think they might do more damage these days as he looks ancient. Sanders literally just had a heart attack and he looks younger.


I'll give Sanders this much, a guy who has a heart attack and then goes right back out and campaigns has remarkable determination.

Over the last 20 years, the more I've learned about Biden, the less I've liked him. Unquestionable corruption and enrichment for himself and his family off his positions as both Senator and Vice President (see just the opening chapter of Michelle Malkin's 2010 book CULTURE OF CORRUPTION). Biden's vicious race demagoguery and stoked division, combined with his creepy sexual behavior, even toward secret service agents assigned to protect him. I thought Biden was vile toward both Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan in the VP debates in 2008 and 2012. And with Obama he aligned himself with cultural marxist destruction of the country for 8 years.

Biden is 77 years old and a rich man. After being vice president, he had the legacy of having been VP,he should have ended it there.
Biden has neither the strength nor the vision to be president, let alone to campaign. If he'd just let it end in Jan 2017 when he left office, his legacy would be a lot brighter.
But his weird craziness, combined with his 50 years of corruption that have been brought to light by his campaign will be the things remembered about him now. Ultimately, his own party opened this whole Ukraine thing up with the plan to sacrifice Biden, to destroy him, just to take out Trump. But Trump is still standing and stronger than the day he was elected, and Biden is gone.

Yea yeah, trials without witnesses are the bestest and most fairest. I will say Trump’s attempt to get Biden actually increased my support for Biden but I don’t think his firewall is really going to be there and he probably is done for. It’s not going to get easier when Bloomberg gets in
Posted By: the G-man Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-12 6:14 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
 Quote:
It’s still early in the priocess but Biden really should be doing better.


I honestly think Biden is suffering from some dementia or something. I say that with sympathy. He doesn't seem like the same guy who was VP.


He was always gaffe prone but I think they might do more damage these days as he looks ancient. Sanders literally just had a heart attack and he looks younger.


Agree he was always gaffe prone but the gaffes seem more bizarre and the way he speaks is much more halting and stumbling to me.
Posted By: the G-man Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-12 6:15 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Yea yeah, trials without witnesses are the bestest and most fairest. I will say Trump’s attempt to get Biden actually increased my support for Biden but I don’t think his firewall is really going to be there and he probably is done for. It’s not going to get easier when Bloomberg gets in


I think a fair argument could be made that the impeachment actually made people aware of Bidens Ukraine problem and may have actually hurt him more than it hurt Trump in the long run.
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Yea yeah, trials without witnesses are the bestest and most fairest. I will say Trump’s attempt to get Biden actually increased my support for Biden but I don’t think his firewall is really going to be there and he probably is done for. It’s not going to get easier when Bloomberg gets in


I think a fair argument could be made that the impeachment actually made people aware of Bidens Ukraine problem and may have actually hurt him more than it hurt Trump in the long run.


Maybe, personally it worked the other way for me. Sending your own lawyer down to push for an announcement of an investigation and be the point man is to me an obvious ethical conflict of interest right there. Right now with what’s going on in the DOJ isn’t good btw.
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy


And surprisingly, within the last hour, Yang and Steyer both ended their campaigns tonight.


I’ll miss Yang
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-12 12:12 PM
 Quote:
Maybe, personally it worked the other way for me. Sending your own lawyer down to push for an announcement of an investigation and be the point man is to me an obvious ethical conflict of interest right there. Right now with what’s going on in the DOJ isn’t good btw.


That wasn't overly clear. I figured out you're referring to Giuliani going to Ukraine. Giuliani wasn't in Ukraine to pressure Zelensky, Giuliani was there to investigate the true facts. Facts that were freely given by the Ukraine government to FBI, DOJ and State Department over the last year, that were suppressed by Democrat/pro-Hillary deep state operatives in those federal agencies. Giuliani had to travel to Ukraine and speak to witnesses firsthand to get the true facts that were buried, for years, by those Democrat moles.

 Quote:
LISA PAGE: Trump isn't going to be president, right? RIGHT?!?
STRZOK: No. No, he won't. We will stop it.


Similarly in the White House NSC, where the new National Security Advisor has recently fired or transfered out 70 of the 230 NSC staffers, including Alexander Vindman and his brother.
While Obama was still president, Robby Mook deliberately ballooned the NSC to 230, way higher than it had ever been, for the clear purpose of creating Democrat influence and rat-capability/leaks within the Trump White House. Which explains the obscene amount of leaks that occurred in Trump's first year from the NSC.

Trump has finally eliminated that treachery.




Posted By: the G-man Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-12 2:45 PM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Yea yeah, trials without witnesses are the bestest and most fairest. I will say Trump’s attempt to get Biden actually increased my support for Biden but I don’t think his firewall is really going to be there and he probably is done for. It’s not going to get easier when Bloomberg gets in


I think a fair argument could be made that the impeachment actually made people aware of Bidens Ukraine problem and may have actually hurt him more than it hurt Trump in the long run.


Maybe, personally it worked the other way for me. ...


You are nothing if not consistent
Just being honest. If I thought Trump’s efforts to get Biden actually worked I would have no problem with blaming Trump. Watching the debates I just didn’t see a strong Biden and the gaffes just not as easy to brush off.

Mayor Pete didn’t win but has the most delegates at this early stage. I suspect that will change but it’s been really cool seeing the gay guy doing so well. After Obama maybe this country could elect an openly gay person for President?
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-12 3:45 PM


If I were Donald Trump or a newspaper editor, and I had a way with clever nomenclature, I might print or tweet the headline:

"BOOT-EDGE-EDGE" EDGED OUT BY BERNIE SANDERS
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-13 2:42 PM


Bill Clinton chief strategist James Carville: "Not impressed" by Democrat candidates.
"Why is Tom Perez still chairman of the DNC". "Can't act like this is going well!"



\:lol\:

The Democrat party is so poisonously marxist/leftist that no decent candidate can run or get the nomination.
As James Webb showed in 2016.
As John Delaney, Joe Sestak, and Tim Ryan have shown in 2020.

I love Carville's rant about how Democrats have alienated working-class Reagan Democrats because of the DNC's fanatic lurch to the marxist lunatic left in support of gender-neutral bathrooms, wanting to champion inmates voting from their prison cells, open borders and healthcare for illegals. Carville rightly says even Democrat voters are terrified and repelled by that agenda.

But, y'know, why help the cultural marxists figure out a better way to lie to and deceive the American people? Let them crash and burn.
Barack Obama himself has advised the 2020 "can't-idates"(borrowing from Greg Gutfeld) to not mention their true agenda while campaigning. (i.e., follow the model of Bill Clinton in 1992 and the Barack Obama model in 2008: LIE to the American people, PRETEND to care about what's important to the people, and once elected pursue your true radical nation-destroying agenda.
Or as Hillary Clinton was caught saying to Clinton Foundation donors in Brazil in 2016: "It's important to have a public policy and a private policy." Which again is borrowed from Marxist RULES FOR RADICALS author Saul Alinsky.

The Democrat party winning and pursuing its true agenda is completely built on deceiving the American people.

Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-14 1:29 AM



JAMES CARVILLE EMBRACES BERNIE SANDERS' "POLITICAL HACK" COMMENT. "AT LEAST I'M NOT A COMMUNIST."
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-14 4:53 AM
 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy


And surprisingly, within the last hour, Yang and Steyer both ended their campaigns tonight.


A correction, of what I either mis-heard or what I accurately quoted that was mis-reported:

Steyer is still in the campaign.

And it is Andrew Yang, Michael Bennet, and also Deval Patrick who dropped out that night, before the Iowa Caucus vote was fully counted.

I’ll be honest that I have never been right with who could get elected all the way back to mock voting in elementary. I picked Ford. Actually agree with a lot of what Carville is saying. To be clear though that doesn’t include your take on it WB.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-14 7:04 AM


I'm not clear where your perspective diverges from mine on Carville's common-sense advice for running a pragmatic campaign.

I've said it before, but while too young to vote then, I've been politically aware since 1975-1976. If I could have voted at that age, I would have supported Jimmy Carter. I liked his optimism for the country and sincerity and Christian faith. But he proved to be weak and indecisive as president, and did a lot of damage to the economy and to national pride in his 4 years. In retrospective his ideology was globalism at the cost of Americanism and American sovereignty. His national security advisor was Brzezinsky (his daughter is Mika on Morning Joe) and Brzinsky and Rockefeller were the co-founders of the globalist Trilateral Commission, an ideology Carter clearly bought into himself.

In 1980, Reagan was the clear choice for me, no contest. I've never been so confident of the right direction of the country than under Reagan.
Again an easy choice in 1984.

G.H.W. Bush was again the obvious choice in 1988, on paper the most qualified man ever to run for president. This was actually the first presidential election I voted in. Although Bush was a disappointment, campaigning as a conservative and governing as a moderate and globalist, racking up debt, raising taxes and breaking his most firm campaign promise.
And in retrospect possibly setting the stage for and fighting an unnecessary war: A diplomat's statement in 1990 that the U.S. would not defend Kuwait is arguably what emboldened Saddam Hussein to do so when he otherwise would have been deterred from it if that was not said. It's possible that was an unplanned error, or that it was done to deliberately provoke a war. In late 1991, Bush also encouraged the Kurds and Shi'ites to rise up, and then ordered U.S. forces to stand on the sidelines and let them be slaughtered in the tens of thousands by Saddam Hussein's forces.

I voted Perot in 1992 and 1996, for the purposes of 1) pushing the Republican party further right and a return to Reagan conservatism if they wanted my future vote, and 2) to build a 3rd-party alternative to both the Democrats and the Republicans.

In 2000 I voted for Ralph Nader, and in retrospect I would have voted Pat Buchanan, if I was better versed in his views at that time. Nader in retrospect was too left-aligned for me. And at that point I gave up on third-party candidates as just throwing away my vote. At the time I started going third-party in 1992, Perot got 19%, a real viable alternative. But by 2000 and since, third parties now get 1 or 2% at most. Useless, except as maybe a way of saying "none of the above".

in 2004, as the better alternative to the impossibly leftist and pacifist Kerry, I voted W.Bush for his second term. And while he wasn't my kind of Republican, too globalist/establishment, he still on the net did more right than Al Gore or Kerry would have.

I think 2008 was the last time I seriously considered a Democrat. And really since back to 2004, the Democrats have lurched to the crazy/anti-American/globalist/socialist-marxist/open-borders Left. It just took me till 2008 to fully realize that was a permanent change. David Horowitz's book THE SHADOW PARTY explains why.

Up till 2008, I gave serious consideration to Democrat candidates, despite that I ultimately went Republican or independent. But since then, the Democrat/Left has made clear they are hell-bent on destroying and "radically transforming" America, into something non-white and non-capitalist.
And since that time Democrats have not only been a party that I disagree with, but one that is openly hostile to what I value and who I am ethnically. And Democrats are increasingly open about wanting to harm and destroy those who are white, conservative, Christian, capitalist, or all the above. Or at the very least, the less radical Democrats are willing to pander to and enable those who do.

I frankly don't know how anyone could support the current Democrats, when their vision for the country is to destroy what currently exists. As Lou Dobbs terms it, they have become the party of hate. Hating America, and hating anyone who would preserve it. And ironically in the process, branding themselves the true patriots.

Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-14 3:14 PM
Tucker Carlson's commentary on Roger Stone's excessive midnight CNN-conveniently-filmed Seal-Team-6-style guns-flashing arrest.

Tucker Carlson: Is America safer now that Roger Stone was arrested? - Jan 25, 2019



Youtube has deleted more recent commentaries by Carlson on the Stone conviction and sentencing controversy.
But this one is as true as it was a year ago.

This part in particular rings true:
"There is a double standard. Some people skate, others are destroyed."
Guess which side Roger Stone is on?


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-14 3:37 PM


Ingraham: In Bloomberg's China cabinet -Feb 13, 2020


Bloomberg enriched himself by caving in to China. And a pawn of China, will use those billions to try and overthrow Trump. A presidency that absolutely sell us out to enslavement by China.

The blonde gir interviewing Bloomberg is Margaret Hoover, the great grandaughter of former president Herbert Hoover.


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-14 3:58 PM




Hannity: Dems wasting time, resources on more possible investigations
- Feb 13, 2020



A great comparison of Roger Stone's strained perjury conviction, compared to the DOZENS of Democrats, Attorney generals, FBI, DOJ and others that are not even investigated, let alone prosecuted or sentenced.
The hypocrisy and double-standard on full display.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-15 6:23 PM


DEMOCRATS CAMPAIGN AS 'MODERATES', BUT THEIR VOTING RECORDS PROVE THEM RADICALS DESPITE THE FALSE NARRATIVE
Democrats don't have any moderates left -- they are all hard-core leftists now


 Quote:
by Deroy Murdock



Pundits and political strategists have filled the airwaves with talk of “moderates” who will rescue Democrats from the ascendant Senator Bernie Sanders and his Vermont-style socialism. But the vaunted “moderate lane” lacks one thing: moderates.

Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, former mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., and the rapidly sinking former vice president Joe Biden are hard-core, big-government left-liberals. While they may not be full-blown socialists, the balderdash that they are even vaguely centrist is either desperately uninformed or deliberately dishonest.


NEWT GINGRICH: SANDERS, BUTTIGIEG, BLOOMBERG AND MORE – THE TRUTH ABOUT THE 2020 PRIMARY SEASON SO FAR


Indeed, several legislative scorecards confirm this incredible fact: Sanders’s senatorial vote record repeatedly puts him to the right of Klobuchar and Biden!
•The Americans for Democratic Action awarded Sanders a 2018 Liberal Quotient of 100 percent — a perfect left-wing score.
The “moderate” Klobuchar tailgated Sanders with a 95 percent rating that year. But in 2017, Sanders scored a 95, with Klobuchar to his left at 100. Biden, for his part, earned an 80 percent Liberal Quotient in 2008, his final year in the Senate.
While not as far left as Klobuchar and Sanders, who both hit 100 that year, Biden was much closer to the liberal fast lane than to the middle of the road.

•The American Conservative Union bestowed on Sanders a 9 percent rating for 2018 and a lifetime measure of 6.78. Klobuchar was left of Sanders, with a 5 percent rating for that year and 4.70 across her Senate career.

In 2008, Sanders’s ACU rating was 8 percent, with a then-lifetime score of 6.44. Klobuchar took 16 percent, with a lifetime 10. Biden scored an all-the-way-left 0 percent, although his lifetime figure was a less extreme 12.67.


•The National Taxpayers Union gave Sanders a D and a score of 31 percent for 2018. While that evaluation might have made Milton Friedman weep, Klobuchar’s grades would have made him cry, cry, cry: She earned an F and just 16 percent — half of Sanders’s total, putting her, yet again, to Sanders’s left. In 2008, meanwhile, NTU gave Sanders a D and 18 percent, Klobuchar an F and 4 percent, and “moderate” Joe Biden an F and 2 percent.

The reputedly centrist Biden earned straights Fs on NTU’s report cards, from 1998 to 2008. Klobuchar repeated that feat, from 2007 to 2018. Across those same years, Sanders yielded nine F's, two D's, and an “n/a” for 2016, when he skipped Senate votes, campaigned for president, and was swindled by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee’s rigged system.
•The Club for Growth gave Sanders a 2018 score of 26 and a lifetime rating of 9. That year, Klobuchar earned a 5, matching her lifetime figure. In 2008, CFG awarded Sanders a 13 (lifetime 8), Klobuchar a 3 (lifetime 5), and Biden a 0, equal to his lifetime number.

Unlike the grizzled and grumpy Sanders — who honeymooned in the Soviet Union for 10 days in 1988 and praised Fidel Castro’s Cuban revolution — Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg (who has no legislative votes to analyze), offer a moderate demeanor — notwithstanding their leftist records and proposals. But Democrat moderation is solely stylistic. As the Washington Post recently opined, “every major Democratic candidate is running on an agenda to the left of Mr. Obama’s.”

As the chart demonstrates, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is, ideologically, Bernie Sanders’s twin sister.
Former New York City mayor and multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg has seconded the Left’s prescriptions — from aggressive gun control to anti-“global warming” orthodoxy, to robust rejection of his own mayoral law-enforcement practices [stop and frisk gun seizures from minorities].
These candidates advocate steep tax hikes, a new carbon levy, lavish federal spending programs, freebies for illegal aliens, subsidized abortion—on-demand, without apology, and until natural delivery — and truckloads more government intervention.

From Nevada to New Jersey, Democrats must decide over the next few months whether they want a practicing socialist to lead their party into the November 3 election. But even if primary voters just say “Nyet” to Bernie Sanders, Democrats will not choose a moderate nominee because no such creature currently is running for president of the United States.




It goes without saying Trump and his propagandists are going to try to make the left look as radical as possible. Looking at an issue like health care though there is obviously a difference between candidates. Trump’s efforts have left more people without insurance. All the democrats are for increasing coverage true but there is a big difference between them. Sanders plan would entirely get rid of employer insurance for a government one. Klobuchar & Buttigieg on the other hand wouldn’t get rid of the old system but give people the option of a government one. Those are huge differences imho. And as Trump runs the deficit up with tax cuts for the wealthy he’s proposing cuts in Medicare and other safety net programs.
And while I don’t see Pete Buttigieg being able to get the nomination, he has won enough now where he’s starting to get some attention from conservative propagandist’s like Limbaugh. It is gratifying to see a gay candidate do so well. We are still the country that elected an African American twice and a woman winning the popular vote in the last one.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-17 4:18 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
It goes without saying Trump and his propagandists are going to try to make the left look as radical as possible.


If citing the quantifiable voting record of the Democrat candidates and their clear radicalism makes the messenger a "propagandist".
THAT is face-saving propaganda spin of the Democrat/Left.

And many of the groups cited in the article are Democrat/Left watch groups who track Democrat legislators' loyalty to the Democrat-progressive cause. In their eyes, not in that of "Trump propagandists" are these candidates at 100% loyalty or close to it, and are measurably to the Left of even Marxist "Democratic-Socialist" Bernie Sanders. Don't blame conservative reporters who accurately quote the Left's own count of these Senators' voting records.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
Looking at an issue like health care though there is obviously a difference between candidates. Trump’s efforts have left more people without insurance.


Actually, the Democrats' own PRE-PLANNED implosion of Obamacare, in a scheme to replace it with single-payer/socialized healthcare is what has caused less people to be insured.
However I do blame both Trump and Republicans for not having come up with a healthcare plan of their own and a better alternative in the 10 years since Obamacare was passed into law by both houses and President Obama. Literally 10 years since 2010. 7 years since its implementation in 2013.
If I were president (or the Republican party before or during Trump's reign) I would send experts to study the 10 or 20 nations with the best healthcare plans in the world, and then come back and talk to healthcare experts in this country on how to customize that and refine it for the best healthcare program here. That Republicans haven't done so says to me that they just haven't made a priority of doing so.
Democrats don't care more about people because they implemented Obamacare, they created Obamacare as a means to implement centralized control over U.S. citizens. It's just a means of centralized control and power to cosolidate Democrat power and a permanent majority.

And Democrats deliberately set up a system in 2010 that was planned to fail (phase 1), to rationalize ending Obamacare at what was planned to be the beginning of President Hillary Clinton's reign, to bail it out with nationalized healthcare, what Dems wanted all along (phase 2!)
Deliberately planning a system that would cause millions of Americans to lose their private heathcare plans, while simultaneously orchestrating a crisis where millions more on Obamacare would lose their healthcare in a planned collapse, definitely does NOT show Democrats care more. It shows that Democrats deliberately deceived those who trusted them, and were betrayed. Or as Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber phrased it (caught on videotape) it "relies on the stupidity of the American voter".

And you can measure the American voter's lack of support of Obamacare, and the betrayal they feel, by how over 1,000 Democrat Senators, House members, and state and local Democrats have been voted out of office as a direct reaction and opposition to Obama's policy.
While I blame Republicans for not making priority of a better alternative, that doesn't mean there is popular support for Obamacare, or that Obamacare is or was working, before Trump or during Trump. Don't blame Trump for Obamacare's failure.

 Originally Posted By: M E M
All the democrats are for increasing coverage true but there is a big difference between them. Sanders plan would entirely get rid of employer insurance for [replacing it with?] a government one.
Klobuchar & Buttigieg on the other hand wouldn’t get rid of the old system but give people the option of a government one. Those are huge differences imho. And as Trump runs the deficit up with tax cuts for the wealthy he’s proposing cuts in Medicare and other safety net programs.


I trust the Democrats as far as I can throw a piano (i.e., not at all).
Democrats assure us they wouldn't do things ("if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan", not giving healthcare to illegal immigrants, ATF's Obama orchestrated "fast and furious" as a scheme for blaming gun retailerss and taking away 2nd Amendment gun rights, on and on) ...and once Democrats have conned the public into electing them, they do them anyway.

And with your alleged concern about debt: You again had no concern about debt while Obama was racking up annual deficits at well over $1 trillion a year. Obama racked up more debt in his 8 years thaan every previous president combined.

That said, not eliminating deficits is my biggest disappointment with Trump. As I've said before, I think Trump couldn't get re-elected if he cut deficits in his first term, the Democrats would hypocritically demonize him for it.
I hope that is something Trump addresses in his second term, when he doesn't have to worry about re-election. Trump needed to accumulate accomplishments in his first term and gain popular support from that, which he has done, the most accomplisshed presidency in 50 years, before he use that political capital to take on debt reduction.


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-17 5:22 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
And while I don’t see Pete Buttigieg being able to get the nomination, he has won enough now where he’s starting to get some attention from conservative propagandist’s like Limbaugh. It is gratifying to see a gay candidate do so well. We are still the country that elected an African American twice and a woman winning the popular vote in the last one.


What ever haappened to Democrats who want their sons and daughters to be judged "by the content of their character and not the color of their skin"?

Democrats are divisively all about bean counting, tokenism and identity politics, and they for three decades have splintered the country along race and class lines, for their own short-term political gain.

And I love how racial/multicultural inclusiveness by Republicans is invisible to Democrats.

A few examples:

Clarence Thomas, black U.S. Supreme Court justice, appointed by G.H.W. Bush in 1991.

Jeane Kirkpatrick, first woman appointed U.S. ambassador to the U.N., 1981-1985, appointed by Ronald Reagan.

K.T. McFarland, assistant defense secretary appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Edward J. Perkins, a black man appointed U.S. ambassador to the U.N. (fired by Clinton as soon as Clinton was inaugurated in Jan 1993, replaced by Madeleine Albright). The third black man appointed ambassador, two previous black appointments under Jimmy Carter.

Nikki Haley, first woman and Sikh/Indian appointed U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and also first woman and Indian governor of South Carolina. Appointed by Trump, 2017-2018.

Kelly Craft, current woman U.S. ambassador to the U.N., appointed by Trump, 2019-present.

Colin Powell, first head of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff. Under G.H.W. Bush.
Then appointed Secretary of State under George W. Bush, 2001-2004.

Condoleezza Rice, first black woman National Security Advisor, appointed by W. Bush, 2001-2004. Then in W. Bush's second term, Rice became the first black woman Secretary of State, replacing Powell.

Alberto Gonzales, first hispanic U.S. Attorney General, 2005-2007. Appointed by President George W. Bush.



And on the gay side:

Richard Grenell, current U.S. ambassador to Germany, 2018-present, aappointed by Trump.
And prior to that Grenell was U.S. spokesperson at the U.N. embassy.



I'm sure there are others I could list if I thought about it more.

Several conservative pundits are gay, that I see regularly on Fox News:

Tammy Bruce

Guy Benson



Again, it annoys me that these conservative/Republican minorities are invisible to Democrats and the liberal media.

And I notice that minorities just quietly serve in Republican administrations, and don't make a huge spectacle of their ethnicity or it being a first. They're closer to what I always envisioned with Star Trek (original series) in the future, where racial/ethnic differences weren't even noticed or discussed, they just quietly became one culture in the future.
Closer to Martin Luther King Jr's vision of being recognized by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Whereas with Democrats, they're the race-conscious bean-counters, and they use it divisively. And make a freak-show of a minority being appointed, constantly bringing it up every day that they're minorities. Where it's not even about selecting someone competent, it's more a case of the person selected HAS to be black, or HAS to be hispanic, or HAS to be a woman, irregardless of competency.
Or gay, apparently.

Way back on the DC boards, circa 2000-2002, before we ever came here to RKMB to post, I cited an article that said ironically that while gays bemoan being a persecuted minority, at that time they were the highest earning demographic group in America.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Democrats, far from simply wanting equality for everyone, want to displace and crush white/conservative/Christian America.
And the terms "multicultural" and "diversity" are code words for squeezing out and de-platforming white/conservative/Christian America. And there are a multitude of examples to back that up.


Uhm somebody from the party of Trump has very little credibility talking about character. Charity fraud, birtherism, massive amounts of adultery, lies and corruption are your values now. Rush Limbaugh’s are your heroes and the Roger Stone’s are the ones that you see as victims. Obama winning the popular vote along with the electoral was “razor thin” compared to Trump’s huge electoral college won that didn’t include the popular vote. We are now in the largest economic expansion in history. Most of it occurred under Obama.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-18 1:00 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Uhm somebody from the party of Trump has very little credibility talking about character. Charity fraud, birtherism, massive amounts of adultery, lies and corruption are your values now.

That's quite a cluster of Democrat propaganda to deconstruct.

[quote=M E M]quote=Matter-eater Man]Uhm somebody from the party of Trump has very little credibility talking about character. Charity fraud, birtherism, massive amounts of adultery, lies and corruption are your values now.


Most of that would describe the Clintons, the Kennedy family, or quite a few others in the Democrat party. Assuming all you allege about Trump is true, one can make mistakes and redeem themselves and be a better person going forward.

At the very least, Trump is not a treasonous America-hating cultural marxist radical who wants to "radically transform" America, who sees the Constitution as a "transitional document" that can be altered in pursuit of a socialist utopia to replace it. At least Trump is not a radical like the Democrat sackss of shit (which by the way includes every 2020 candidate who all raised their hand on a debate stage in support of these things: open borders, to de-criminalize illegal immigrants, to GIVE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED HEALTHCARE to illegal immigrants, to allow convicted felons to vote from their jail cells, gun confiscation, de-criminalizing every single narcotic drug, the party of homelessness, the party of people pooping and shooting drugs in the street, the party of weaponizing federal agencies against their opponents. Yours is the party of Jim Crow, segregation, the Ku Klux Klan, and now the party of identity politics, polarization and race hustling, of de-Christianizing America, and late-term abortions.

And you have the audacity to talk about immorality?!?


 Originally Posted By: M E M
Rush Limbaugh’s are your heroes and the Roger Stone’s are the ones that you see as victims.


Rush Limbaugh has committed no crime or dishonor. I still recall in 1994 when Ronald Reagan sent a letter to Rush Limbaugh, telling Limbaugh that he had led the country as far as he could, and that he saw Limbaugh as the new spiritual leader of the Republican party. What a deep honor Limbaugh must have felt in that moment.
In addition to politics, Limbaugh is an industry innnovator who many others have acknowledged personally saved A.M. radio. And there created a platform for conservative thought that avenues like print news and broadcast television had been used to lock out conservative thought.

Limbaugh has nothing to apologize for.

Roger Stone, for all his flamboyance and bombast, is an author and political advisor for decades. The crimes alleged against him (like against Michael Flynn, George Papadaapoulos, Paul Manafort, and other still being persecuted by a Democrat-weaponized DOJ and FBI) are process crimes that otherwise never would have been prosecuted. Shakedowns by FBI/DOJ that they were forced to confess to under duress, process crimes, not ACTUAL crimes. Stone was bankrupted by litigation and then unable to further afford legsl defense forced to confess to lying, regarding an alleged crime by Trump that the Mueller special investigation team of 17 Trump-hating lawyers finally had to confess had no supporting evidence. So Stone was forced to confess to purjury about a crime that didn't happen.


 Originally Posted By: M E M
Obama winning the popular vote along with the electoral was “razor thin” compared to Trump’s huge electoral college won that didn’t include the popular vote. We are now in the largest economic expansion in history. Most of it occurred under Obama.


Whether you like it or not, those are the rules of U.S. presidential elections, and Trump won by a landslide in electoral college votes. I LOVE how the assholes of the Democrat/Left went on and on about how Trump couldn't win electorally, the "blue wall" and all that crap, on and on for months about how there was no way Trump could win the electoral college.
Then election night, Trump won the electoral college, fair and square, by a landslide. And now all the assholes of the Democrat/Left can talk about is how Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

Let me give you a review of why the electoral college exists: It exists to give proportional representation to all 50 states, so that a candidate can't just campaign in a few population centers like New York and Illinois and California and Texas to lock up the vote while ignoring the rest of the country.

The electoral college also assures that if there is corruption and millions of illegal votes in, say, California, where illegal immigrants can get a drivers license, and by cheecking a box with no verification tht they're not a citizen,can illegally vote. Millions of illegals.
Catherine Englebrecht and her organization studied illegal voting in just 28 of the 50 states and found 7 million illegal votes. Hillary Clinton's "popular vote victory" of 2.8 million votes could be achieved just in the corrupt state of California. Just the kind of state election corruption the electoral college was designed to prevent.


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-21 9:10 AM



In the Democrat debate last night, Bloomberg got absolutely killed. Not that there's any viable candidate to replace Bloomberg. Klobuchar, Buttigeig, Pocahantas, and all Sanders took heavy shrapnel too. Only Biden escaped any attacks, because he's sinking in the polls from self-inflicted wounds and no longer matters.


Sanders is the net winner who has no obstacle to the nomination, and that's good news, for the Trump campaign, and for the nation that will not have to risk living under Democrat Bolshevism from any of the above.

Bloomberg has spent over $450 million on his campaign at this early stage. Billionaire candidate Tom Steyer has also spent the second largest amount, and likewise gotten no traction for it.
As compared with Trump who spent $600 million total in 2016 (half of what Hillary Clinton spent) and still won.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-21 9:42 AM


I was also thinking, of Trump's nickname for the height-challenged Bloomberg, "Mini-Mike". Which is an obvious reference to Mini-Me in the Austin Powers movies.

But beyond the height joke, Mini-Me is the servant of Dr. Evil. So who would be the master who pulls the puppet-strings for "Mini-Mike"?
I'm thinking this guy:




Bloomberg made his fortune, and continues to make billions annually, off his dealings with China. And he refuses to criticize China, and even denies that China is a dictatorship.

Talk about your Manchurian candidate who would kowtow to Chinese interests!

In addition to Bloomberg's stated desire to take away Americans' guns, to let old people die as a cost-cutting approach to healthcare, and other authoritarian views.







Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-02-21 2:34 PM


Tucker Carlson: Bloomberg paid to be humiliated -Feb 20, 2020




Laura Ingraham: Why Bloomberg is failing



Hannity: Bloomberg had worst debate performance I've ever seen




Hannity I think did the best job of quoting from across the liberal print and broadcast media, to show that even Democrats, and their even further-Left brethren in the liberal media, saw Bloomberg's performance and that of the other Democrat 2020 candidates onstage as a collossal failure. That it's not just Republican or Fox News spin, that's what liberals are reporting as well.

Also self-incriminating, that none of the 2020 Democrat candidates respects the will of Democrat primary voters and won't accept Bernie Sanders as their candidate, and endorse a brokered convention, where the Politburo inside the elite of their party should select the candidate, rather than Democrat voters. Borrowing from Orwell, some animals are more equal than others, it seems.

The same Politburo elite who want to do away with the electoral college.

They don't believe in freedom or democracy, they only believe in whatever assures their own political supremacy. And in that they reveal themselves not to be believers in our constitutional republic, or even in socialism, or Bernie Sanders' self-proclaimed "democratic socialism" (whatever in hell that made-up term means). They only believe in whatever twisting of the rules allows them to gain power. And in that, if there was any doubt before, they prove themselves one in spirit with Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Hugo Chaves... all praised, by the way, by Bernie Sanders.
http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/individual.asp

And you're kidding yourself if you think the rest of the 2020 Democrt field wouldn't enact the same centrist authoritarion America-hating Bolshevik policy. The party of Bernie Sanders is also the same ideology with a slightly different face as Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigeig, Joseph Biden (saying not even a month ago that DACA kids are "more American than most U.S. citizens"), and one in spirit with cultural marxists Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Barack and Michelle Obama (look at their own words quoted in their DiscoverTheNetworks listings linked above.)
And the other America-hating marxist wack jobs in the DNC such as Stacy Abrams, Cory Booker, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar (none more undeniably anti-American!), Rashida Tlaib, Claire McKaskell (once fronting as a moderate, now spewing her venom on MSNBC), Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and the rest of their evil brood.

It is only by self-delusion and by ignorance of their party's own rhetoric that Democrat voters could imagine these people and many others in their party actually represent their interests. They delude themselves that the Democrat party regards them as more than useful idiots to advance their own agenda, to be later cast aside, in their destruction of the United States, code-phrased "radical transformation", according to their barely-hidden ideology.
They regard the United States as an evil unfair racist place, and want to transform us into a socialist utopia, in the model of socialist Europe as their standard, and certainly make no secret of their admiration of far more radical socialist/marxist states than that. Rather than admiration of the Constitutional republic we are, that they believe is immoral and doesn't deserve to exist.

An American republic Democrats believe so immoral that they labor to abolish celebration of holidays in honor to, and tear down monuments to, such for Washington or Jefferson, or for Columbus. What more proof do you need that these people despise and want to destroy this country, destroy every last vestige of its memory and previous existence?
What could be more America-hating than that?

These are the maniacs we've seen campaigning for the last year. The ones who who can barely restrain themselves and keep the appearance of being moderate, as they labor to get their Trojan horse inside the gate, to destroy us. To destroy even those who would elect them.

These aren't new tactics, but both the Clintons and the Obamas had the Alinsky trained discretion to hide their true intentions until after elected:
 Originally Posted By: Hillary Clinton (in a secret closed meeting with Clinton Foundation investors


And more recently Obama publicly advised the 2020 candidates to not discuss their radical intentions until after the election (again, Alinsky tactics of infiltration). Because their special brand of evil succeeds best under cover of darkness.


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-02 11:15 PM

Wow...

On Saturday, immediately after he came in third in the South Carolina primary (the only state he even made the slightest showing in the polls), Tom Steyer ended his campaign.

Last night, Pete Buttegeig suspended his campaign.

And now Amy Klobuchar just announced she is ending her campaign.

And both have endorsed Biden.
Right after Biden in South Carolina got a first place finish of 49%, with Sanders finishing at a distant second with 19%. The ONLY state Biden has won, and not come in 3rd or worse.

It appears that the lesser players are clearing the moderate side of the field to give Biden a snowball's chance in hell of beating Sanders for the Democrat nomination. The only other DNC contenders remaining at this point being Mike Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard. All of whom would not secure our Southern border, would de-criminalize illegal immigrants, and would provide government-subsidized healthcare to illegals (thus incentivizing millions more to come.)
So... even the so-called "moderate" Democrats left in the primary race are, in fact, radicals.

Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-03 5:39 AM


The last great hope of the Democrat party:



"Everyone be sure to vote on Super Thursday!"


"I'm here to announce my candidacy for the United States Senate!"


"I love little kids bouncing on my lap."


Biden's confrontation with the dreaded swimming pool thug Corn-Pop!



Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-03 5:47 AM



Biden: "Obama has a big stick. I promise you! I PROMISE YOU!"



Even when the audience was lauging, he was utterly clueless to what they were laughing at.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-03 5:51 AM


Best of the vice president's 'Bidenisms'



Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-03 8:14 AM



Joe Biden parody by Tom Shillue



\:lol\:
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-03 9:04 PM



Well, today is Super Tuesday.
(For some of the candidates, Super Thursday!)

It just seems really creepy to me that not only do 3 candidates get out of the primary a day or two before the biggest primary they've all been staying in the race for, and spent millions of dollars on campaign ads to win. And then, not only do they drop out right before Super Tuesday, but then Buttigeig, Klobuchar and an out-of-the-woodwork Beto O'Rourke ALL suddenly endorse Biden.

I seriously doubt all, or even one of these candidates, actually believe in Joe Biden. There clearly was some trading of favors and promises down the line from Biden or the DNC, for each to join a united front in support of Biden (obviously, in a bid to shut out Bernie Sanders). None of these would I describe as centrists who logically would align with Biden. Let alone the fact that he's an incoherent tongue-tied bufoon, with no logical rationale or lucid agenda to even run for president. But all these figures from the center/far-Left suddenly endorse him?

And then you have Elizabeth Warren of the unapologetically far-Left to divide the Sanders-wing's vote from the marxist-Left side, while the center-Left aligns against him from the other side.

And it's just too creepy how all these candidates of far-flung ideologies.... suddenly endorse the failing candidacy of Biden?!?

Sanders is expected to clean up across most states tonight. Even if Biden does halfway decent tonight, I see him losing confidence quickly, because there really aren't any more Clyburn endorsements or South Carolinas to keep Biden afloat. I see Biden's candidacy collapsing, as it was already before South Carolina threw him a lifeline. And after Biden, there's nothing left but Sanders, a fading Pocahantas campaign, and Bloomberg.

And that's where I see it ending, with either Sanders and/or Bloomberg. Because only Bloomberg has the financial resources to take on Trump in the general election with unlimited resources. It's certainly no secret that Bloomberg has spent exhorbitant amounts of his own money to hire the brightest and the best for his campaign.
Well, the most expensive anyway.
But I think with the resources Bloomberg has, even with the errors made so far, his campaign will continue to learn from mistakes, refine and improve into a formidable machine. And Bloomberg is the only Democrat candidate with a record as New York mayor to have the credibility and executive experience to compete with Trump.

I think in the end the DNC will turn to Bloomberg as their only option.

It's funny how Trump played in his rally speech last night with the bizarre and sudden embrace of Joe Biden by the other candidates, saying "clearly there was a deal made", and that the Democrats should be investigated for "quid pro quo".

Posted By: the G-man Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-04 4:13 PM
 Quote:
It just seems really creepy to me that not only do 3 candidates get out of the primary a day or two before the biggest primary they've all been staying in the race for, and spent millions of dollars on campaign ads to win. And then, not only do they drop out right before Super Tuesday, but then Buttigeig, Klobuchar and an out-of-the-woodwork Beto O'Rourke ALL suddenly endorse Biden.

I seriously doubt all, or even one of these candidates, actually believe in Joe Biden. There clearly was some trading of favors and promises down the line from Biden or the DNC, for each to join a united front in support of Biden (obviously, in a bid to shut out Bernie Sanders). None of these would I describe as centrists who logically would align with Biden. Let alone the fact that he's an incoherent tongue-tied bufoon, with no logical rationale or lucid agenda to even run for president. But all these figures from the center/far-Left suddenly endorse him?


It says a lot about the current state of the Democrat party that Joe Biden is somehow considered a "moderate."

That being said, it's not really all that creepy that other candidates are dropping out to endorse him. The ones you mention certainly had internal polling that showed they couldn't win and they in all likelihood figured it was better to cut a deal now to help stop socialist Sanders. That's SOP in any campaign season.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-04 10:36 PM


Standard operating procedure?
To some degree, I guess the backroom deals are standard political practice. But there's never been an overnight surrender of all opposition, combined with ALL OF THEM suddenly endorsing the frontrunner. And a very weak frontrunner at that, with no clear agenda or vigor to really succeed against Trump.

Biden had an unexpected very good showing last night. But that's not because Biden or his campaign put together a good message or organization to make it happen. It was pretty much a victory by default, where all opposition collapsed and got out of the way, and Biden was the only one left.
And even Elizabeth Warren who remains in the race helped to split the far-Left vote to further assure Biden a victory, despite his own inadequate campaign. Rep. Ilhan Omar said as much after the election. Without Warren, Sanders would have won Minnesota.

And then Bloomberg, astonishingly, got out of the race today! So there goes the safety net, there's no one else left when Biden inevitably flounders. I think Bloomberg should have stayed in, because Dems are now all-in for Biden, and this is not going to work out well for them.


THE RE-ANIMATED CORPSE OF JOSEPH BIDEN:
Super Tuesday results: Where the 2020 Democratic candidates stand


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-04 11:16 PM


Chris Stirewalt:
"What the Democrats need to do is declare Biden has coronavirus, put him in a hermetically sealed tube, and keep him away from the stage at all costs."

\:lol\:
Posted By: the G-man Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-05 12:16 AM
 Quote:
To some degree, I guess the backroom deals are standard political practice. But there's never been an overnight surrender of all opposition, combined with ALL OF THEM suddenly endorsing the frontrunner. And a very weak frontrunner at that, with no clear agenda or vigor to really succeed against Trump.


It makes sense if the party is worried that Bernie will so tarnish the "Democrat brand" that they could lose the House, whereas Biden would (even if he loses to Trump) allow them to keep the House.

There's also the subterfuge angle. They're all basically democratic socialists, but only Bernie admits it. Running old Joe allows them to keep up the illusion.

Trust me. I've been involved in campaigns. Sometimes it's not a question of "who will win" but a question of "who will do the least damage to our party".
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-05 6:02 AM



You kind of make my point for me, I'm not sure where we disagee.
Demonstrate to me how Bernie Sanders is more "radical" and tarnishing the Democrat brand than any of the other maniacs running in 2020.

As I've cited quite a few times, there is absolutely no difference between "moderate" Joseph Biden and all the other pedal-to-the-floor hardcore Bosheviks who were on the debate stage with him for the last 8 months or so.

Every single 2020 Democrat hand when asked by a debate moderator, including Joseph Biden, went up in support of :
  • * De-criminalizing illegal immigrants, turning it into a misdemeanor, or possibly with no penalty whatsoever

    * Government-funded free HEALTHCARE for illegal immigrants

    * post-birth infanticide

    * the "green new deal" that would bankrupt the country, and do nothing to really fight pollution, that overwhelmingly comes from countries like China, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, whereas the liberal-demonized U.S. is actually already complying with environmental standards more than any other nation on earth.

    * banning fracking, and simultaneously eliminating 1) recently established U.S. oil independence, and 2) millions of high-paying jobs, with no alternative energy source to replace it.

    * Abolishing ICE, thus incentivising a tsunami of new illegal immigrants, and crimes committed against U.S. citizens without penalty.

    * abolishing the Electoral College, to assure voter fraud and a permanent majority by Democrats

    * stacking the U S Supreme Court, to eclipse conservative justices with liberal activist judges who have no respect for Constitutional law, just whatever unconstitutional contrivances suit their own agenda. As comments by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg make clear, that Biden or ANY Democrat primary candidate makes clear they would enable.

    * the complete denial by all the Democrat candidates that there even is a border crisis, that they describe as a "conspiracy theory" and a "hoax" by President Trump (reality check: there were over 1.2 million illegal immigrants who entered in 2019, even with Trump's vigorous efforts to reduce and contain it)

    * Federal reparations for blacks (again, every hand on stage went up, every Democrat in the debates supported reparations)

    * they would make Washington DC a state with electoral votes. Despite that the creation of Washington DC was precisely to have a capital independent from all other states, that did *NOT* have electoral votes! (again, for corrupt Democrat advantage reasons to help establish a permanent Democrat electoral majority, as Washington DC is close to 100% black, and overwhelmingly liberal. )

    * Make Puerto Rico a state. For the same corrupt reasons as Washington DC. Despite that Puerto Rico will not accept English as its primary language to qualify for statehood. Just because it would help create a permanent Democrat majority.

    * Would lower the voting age to 16. Again just because it would create a Democrat advantage, and despite that 16 year olds don't know their own ass from a hole in the ground.

    * Let incarcerated felons vote from prison! How inssane are these people?

    * and ultimately, to let illegal immigrants vote, just because it would give a permanent majority to Democrats. Even Democrats who don't openly endorse this more secretively support it by labelling it "restrictive" and "racist" to verify voters are citizens before letting them vote.


Even the "moderate" Democrats, including Biden, who don't openly endorse all the above, have not objected to these things, and either deliberately or through purposefully weak enforcement of the law, would allow these things to happen, to consolidate Democrat power.

And Biden is a potted plant who would enable these maniacs with his vacant smile, the benign face of their Bolshevik revolution. It was not Biden who negotiated for the other 2020 candidates to drop out. The radicals running his campaign arranged that. And these cunning authoritarian hand-wringers, not Biden, are the ones who would be running the country if Biden won, not Biden himself.

It absolutely terrifies me that these maniacs could ever gain power, whether 2020, 2024, 2028, or 2050. The moment they gain control, ever, this Constitutional republic ends, and their ideological purge begins.

Glad to see a Biden surge and it does look like he will be the Democratic nominee. Trump tried to knock him out early and ended up getting impeached for it. Now Joe can beat him in November. Even with Trump trying to prop up Sanders campaign he was still underperforming his 2016 numbers so while I don’t see Sanders stopping just yet, now that support around one moderate candidate has become the consolidated I see Sanders not seeing a revolution building for him. He might get a bump from Warren dropping out but I didn’t see her whole base being all Bernie brother’s oriented.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-05 6:29 AM


 Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy

Biden had an unexpected very good showing last night. But that's not because Biden or his campaign put together a good message or organization to make it happen. It was pretty much a victory by default, where all opposition collapsed and got out of the way, and Biden was the only one left.
And even Elizabeth Warren who remains in the race helped to split the far-Left vote to further assure Biden a victory, despite his own inadequate campaign. Rep. Ilhan Omar said as much after the election. Without Warren, Sanders would have won Minnesota.

And then Bloomberg, astonishingly, got out of the race today! So there goes the safety net, there's no one else left when Biden inevitably flounders. I think Bloomberg should have stayed in, because Dems are now all-in for Biden, and this is not going to work out well for them.


This has obviously upset Trump voters.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-06 1:35 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
This has obviously upset Trump voters.



How so?

Trump voters are laughing. It's very possible the inevitably gaffe-prone Biden will destroy himself in less than 2 weeks. In the last week Biden has announced "I'm here to announce my candidacy for the United States Senate".
At another event Biden announced on stage he couldn't tell the difference between his own wife and his sister, and then later called Chris Wallace "Chuck" [Todd?] during a Fox News Sunday interview. Just to name a few.

And "Barack America" hasn't endorsed him yet.

But Biden has been endorsed by James Comey, Susan Rice, Mike Bloomberg, Pete Buttigeig, Amy Klobuchar, Rep. Clyburn and a few others. So it's pretty clear he has the Deep State behind him, to feed endless cash into his campaign, and pull his marionette stringss. It's pretty clear they, not Biden, will be running things in the absurdly hypothetical scenario that Biden ever won.

How corrupt are you that you would endorse that, M E M?

Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-06 1:42 AM


Tucker: Democrats pin their hopes on gaffe-prone Joe Biden - Monday, March 2, 2020 (on the eve of Super Tuesday)


\:lol\:

Good luck with that.


Happy "Super Thursday", everyone!


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-06 2:22 AM


Tucker: Joe Biden's success is good news for the Democratic establishment - Wed, March 4, 2020




Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-11 6:03 AM

As Lothar pointed out in another topic, it's increasingly looking like Joe Biden in 2020 will be the sacrificial Democrat lamb, to be eaten up by Trump in November.

I foresee huge problems before Biden ever makes it to the DNC convention. And maybe a brokered convention where the Democrats are forced to pick another Hail-Mary alternative before November.

Today it was reported that Biden handlers only allow him to speak for 7 minutes at a time on the campaign stump. And that Biden's staff in the next debate want both candidates seated, because Biden apparently has trouble even standing for prolonged periods. It's all very "Weekend at Biden's".




I’m betting Biden has more than a chance of beating Trump in November. I also think Biden will also have to fight after winning the election too. We already know Trump will say anything and use all his power to try to stay in office. Once upon a time I would have discounted that as something even the GOP wouldn’t support. I think we all know better now.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-03-11 6:44 AM


We all know that Trump is in charge, and won because he had a clear vision for the nation he has followed through on, that has exceeded even a Trump supporter like me's wildest expectations. No president has kept his promises as completely as Trump has. Only two other political leaders have come close.
One was Ronald Reagan.
And though not a president, House Speaker Newt Gingrich after the 1994 election.

Biden has no vision for the country, and is campaigning as a "moderate", but is in truth every ounce as radical as those who ran against him: open borders, de-criminalizing illegal immigration, government subsidized healthcare for illegals, green new deal, on and on. What is moderate about Biden, other than the slogan?

And further, Biden is so weak-minded at this point that the radicals in his party will dominate him rather than the reverse. It's a formula for disaster.



Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-04-08 8:21 PM


And then there was one...


COMRADE COMMISSAR BERNIE SANDERS SUSPENDS HIS CAMPAIGN, LEAVING JOSEPH BIDEN THE PRESUMPTIVE DEMOCRAT NOMINEE


Within the last hour, Sanders ended his campaign, with Biden the last man standing on the Democrat side.



Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-04-08 8:28 PM




Just to clarify exactly who Bernie Sanders is, that the liberal media will never disclose:


http://archive.discoverthenetworks.org/summary.asp?object=Persons&category=
Sanders, Bernie

 Quote:
Bernard “Bernie” Sanders was born in Brooklyn, New York on September 8, 1941, to Polish immigrants of Jewish descent. After attending Brooklyn College for one year, he transferred to the University of Chicago (UC) and earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1964. At UC, Sanders joined the Young Peoples Socialist League (youth wing of the Socialist Party USA) as well as the Congress of Racial Equality and the Student Peace Union. He also was an organizer for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; participated in an American Friends Service Committee project at a California psychiatric hospital; and worked briefly (as an organizer) for the United Packinghouse Workers Union (UPWU), which, like all the CIO unions, had a number of influential Communists among its ranks. At that time, UPWU was under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

After college, in 1963, Sanders lived and worked for a number of months in an Israeli kibbutz known as Kibbutz Sha'ar Ha'amakim (KSH), which was co-founded by Aharon Cohen, an Arabist who was a harsh critic of Israeli policy and was arrested for spying for the Soviet Union in the 1950s. The founders of KSH referred to Joseph Stalin as the "Sun of the Nations," and a red flag was flown at outdoor events held at the kibbutz. Sanders stayed at KSH as a guest of the Zionist-Marxist youth movement Hashomer Hatzair (HH), which pledged its allegiance to the Soviet Union; some left-wing groups described HH as Leninist and even Stalinist. HH made it plain that its cooperation with Zionists was a temporary expedient designed to help pave the way for a socialist revolution; that it viewed Israel's independence as a transitional phase in the development of a bi-national socialist state which would ultimately end Israel's existence as a Jewish entity.

HH founder Ya'akov Hazan described the USSR as a second homeland, and in 1953 he lamented “the terrible tragedy that has befallen the nations of the Soviet Union, the world proletariat and all of progressive mankind, upon the death of the great leader and extolled commander, Josef Vissarionovich Stalin.” “We lower our flag in grief in memory of the great revolutionary fighter, architect of socialist construction, and leader of the world's peace movement,” Hazan added. “His huge historical achievements will guide generations in their march towards the reign of socialism and communism the world over.” In a similar vein, Eliezer Hacohen, one of HH's ideological leaders, called Marxism “the key to renewing our spiritual creativity.” (Another individual who gravitated to an HH kibbutz as a young man was Noam Chomsky.)

Following his time at Kibbutz Sha'ar Ha'amakim, Sanders moved to Vermont where he worked variously as a carpenter, filmmaker, writer, and researcher. In 1964 he married a young woman named Deborah Sanders; the marriage lasted only until 1966. Over the next few years, Sanders worked variously as a psychiatric-hospital aide and a Head Start preschool teacher in New York; as a Department of Taxes employee in Vermont; and as a staffer for a nonprofit organization called the Bread and Law Task Force, where he registered people for food stamps. In 1969 he fathered a child out-of-wedlock.

In the 1960s as well, Sanders, a self-identified pacifist, applied for conscientious objector status in order to avoid military service. His application was eventually rejected, but by that time he was too old to be drafted.

In 1971 Sanders joined the Liberty Union Party (LUP), which strongly opposed the Vietnam War, called for the nationalization of all U.S. banks, and advocated a government takeover of all private utility companies.

That summer, Sanders went to live briefly on a hippie commune in northeast Vermont called Myrtle Hill Farm. According to the Washington Free Beacon: "Sanders came to the farm while researching an article on natural childbirth for the Liberty Union's party organ, Movement. Interest in alternative medicine was strong among members of the counterculture as part of their wider suspicion of modern science, which was associated with the sterility of hospitals and the destruction of war." In his piece, Sanders criticized traditional methods where "infants were bottle fed on assembly line schedules designed by assembly line doctors in order to prepare them for assembly line society." "All of life is one and if we want to know, for example, how our nation can napalm children in Vietnam—AND NOT CARE—it is necessary to go well beyond 'politics,'" he wrote. In her 2016 book We Are As Gods, author Kate Daloz writes that Sanders spent a great deal of his time at Myrtle Hill in “endless political discussion” rather than doing any work, a habit that annoyed many of the commune's other residents. For example, writes Daloz, one resident, a man named Craig, “resented feeling like he had to pull others out of Bernie’s orbit if any work was going to get accomplished that day.” Consequently, “When Bernie had stayed for Myrtle’s allotted three days, Craig politely requested that he move on.”




Sanders made unsuccessful runs for the U.S. Senate in 1972 and 1974, and for Governor of Vermont in 1976—all on the LUP ticket. Sanders's LUP platform called for the nationalization of all U.S. banks, public ownership of all utilities, and the establishment of a worker-controlled federal government. According to the Guardian, a press release from his 1974 campaign stated that as a means of addressing the problem of rising energy prices, Sanders advocated “the public takeover of all privately owned electric companies in Vermont.” it stated. The Guardian noted, as a qualifier, that "[t]he press release ... is annotated and could be a draft."

In the mid-1970s, Sanders spent about two years as an amateur historian and film-maker, selling educational film strips to schools in New England. Sanders also became the head of the American People’s History Society, which journalist Paul Sperry has described as “an organ for Marxist propaganda.” “There,” writes Sperry, “[Sanders] produced a glowing documentary on the life of socialist revolutionary Eugene Debs, who was jailed for espionage during the Red Scare and hailed by the Bolsheviks as 'America’s greatest Marxist.' This subversive hero of Sanders, denounced even by liberal Democrats as a 'traitor,' bashed 'the barons of Wall Street' and hailed the 'triumphant' Bolshevik revolution in Russia.” Debs also ran six times for U.S. president on the Socialist Party ticket. (To this day, Sanders continues to hang a portrait of Debs on a wall inside his Senate office.)




After resigning from LUP in 1979, Sanders became a political Independent. In 1981 he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, by a margin of just 10 votes. He was subsequently re-elected three times and served as mayor until 1989.

Sanders created some controversy when he hung a Soviet flag in his mayoral office, in honor of Burlington's Soviet sister city, Yaroslavl, located some 160 miles northeast of Moscow. During his tenure as mayor, Sanders placed restrictions on the property rights of landlords, set price controls, and raised local property taxes in order to fund communal land trusts. Further, he named Burlington's city softball team the “People’s Republic of Burlington,” and its minor league baseball team the “Vermont Reds.” Local business owners, meanwhile, distributed fliers asserting that Sanders “does not believe in free enterprise.”

According to an Accuracy In Media report, Sanders during the 1980s "collaborated with Soviet and East German 'peace committees'" whose aim was "to stop President Reagan’s deployment of nuclear missiles in Europe.” Indeed, he “openly joined the Soviets’ 'nuclear freeze' campaign to undercut Reagan’s military build-up.”

In 1985 Sanders traveled to Managua, Nicaragua to celebrate the sixth anniversary of the rise to power of Daniel Ortega and his Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government.
In a letter which he addressed to the people of Nicaragua, Sanders denounced the anti-Communist activities of the Reagan administration, which he said was under the control of corporate interests. Assuring the Nicaraguans that Americans were “fair minded people” who had more to offer “than the bombs and economic sabotage” promoted by President Reagan, he declared: “In the long run, I am certain that you will win, and that your heroic revolution against the Somoza dictatorship will be maintained and strengthened.”

Following his trip to Nicaragua, Sanders penned a letter to the White House indicating that Ortega would be willing to meet with Reagan to negotiate a resolution to the conflict. The mayor also sought to enlist the help of former president Jimmy Carter, telling him that the people of Nicaragua were very fond of him (Carter). Sanders even invited Ortega to visit Burlington, though the Nicaraguan president declined.

Also in the aftermath of his trip to Nicaragua, Sanders praised the living conditions under that country's Communist regime:
•"No one denies that they are building health clinics. Health care in Nicaragua is now free.... Infant mortality has been greatly reduced."
•"[The Nicaraguan government is] giving, for the first time in their lives, real land to farmers, so that they can have something that they grow. Nobody denies that they are making significant progress."
•"Sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country [like Nicaragua] is because people are lining up for food [e.g., bread lines]. That's a good thing. In other countries, people don't line up for food. The rich get the food, and the poor starve to death."


By no means was Sanders's trip to Nicaragua his only trek to a Communist country. He also visited Fidel Castro's Cuba in the 1980s and had a friendly meeting with the mayor of Havana.

In an August 8, 1985 interview on a Vermont government-access television station, Sanders discussed his recent trip to Nicaragua and drew parallels between the Castro and Ortega regimes. "In 1961," he said, "[America] invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world, that all the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated the kids, gave them health care, totally transformed the society. You know, not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect -- they are certainly not -- but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say that the people in their own nations feel the same way. So they expected this tremendous uprising in Cuba; it never came. And if they are expecting a tremendous uprising in Nicaragua, they are very, very, very mistaken." (For video of this 1985 interview, click here.)

During the same interview, Sanders also stated that he "was impressed" with Nicaragua’s Foreign Minister Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a Catholic priest whom Pope John Paul II had barred from celebrating Mass because Brockmann had defied a church rule forbidding priests from holding government jobs. “If this guy is the foreign minister of a 'terrorist nation,' then they should get another foreign minister, because he is a very gentle, very loving man,” said Sanders.
Moreover, Sanders characterized Daniel Ortega as “an impressive guy” while criticizing then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan. “The Sandinista government, in my view, has more support among the Nicaraguan people, substantially more support, than Ronald Reagan has among the American people,” said Sanders. “If President Reagan thinks that any time a government comes along, which in its wisdom, rightly or wrongly, is doing the best for its people, he has the right to overthrow that government, you're going to be at war not only with all of Latin America, but with the entire Third World.” (For video of this 1985 interview, click here.)

In 1986 Sanders ran unsuccessfully for Governor of Vermont, and two years later he made a failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

When Sanders in 1988 married his wife, Jane, the couple honeymooned in Yaroslavl, Russia. In an interview with that city's mayor, Alexander Riabkov, Sanders acknowledged that housing and health care were “significantly better” in the U.S. than in the Soviet Union, but added that “the cost of both services is much, much, higher in the United States.”

In November 1989 Sanders addressed the national conference of the U.S. Peace Council, a Communist Party USA front whose members were committed to advancing “the triumph of Soviet power in the U.S.” The event focused on how to “end the Cold War” and “fund human needs.” Fellow speakers included such notables as Leslie Cagan, John Conyers, and Manning Marable.

Choosing not to seek re-election to a fifth term as mayor, Sanders spent 1989-90 working as a lecturer at Hamilton College in upstate New York and the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.





By 1990 Sanders was a leading member of Jesse Jackson's National Rainbow Coalition, and he ran successfully for Congress as a socialist, representing Vermont's single at-large congressional district. In his campaign, Sanders was supported by the Communist author and journalist I.F. Stone.

In 1991, Sanders founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus along with fellow House members Tom Andrews, Peter DeFazio, Ron Dellums, Lane Evans, and Maxine Waters.

During the 1990s, Sanders participated multiple times in the Socialist Scholars Conferences that were held annually in New York City.

During each year of the Bill Clinton administration—starting in 1993, shortly after the first al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center, Sanders introduced legislation to cut the U.S. intelligence budget sight unseen. He justified this approach by noting that “the Soviet Union no longer exists,” and that such concerns as “massive unemployment,” “low wages,” “homelessness,” “hungry children,” and “the collapse of our educational system” represented “maybe a stronger danger [than foreign terrorists] for our national security.”

Sanders was a vocal critic of the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism bill passed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, as an assault on civil liberties.

In 2006 Sanders co-sponsored a resolution by Rep. John Conyers to impeach President Bush on grounds that he had led the United States into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq.






In November 2006 Sanders ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Then-Senator Barack Obama, whom Sanders described as “one of the great leaders” of that legislative body, campaigned enthusiastically on Sanders's behalf. When a Washington Post reporter asked Sanders just prior to the election: “Are you now or have you ever been a Socialist?” Sanders replied, “Yeah. I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I’m a democratic Socialist.”

In 2007 Senator Sanders and Rep. Maurice Hinchey together introduced the Media Ownership Reform Act, which was designed to tightly restrict the number of radio stations that any firm could own. It also sought to resurrect the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”—a measure that, if passed, would greatly diminish the influence of conservative talk radio.

Sanders has long maintained that “global warming/climate change” not only threatens “the fate of the entire planet,” but is caused chiefly by human industrial activity and must be curbed by means of legislation strictly limiting carbon emissions.

In 2007 Sanders and Senator Barbara Boxer proposed the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, which, according to an MIT study, would have imposed on U.S. taxpayers a yearly financial burden of more than $4,500 per family, purportedly to check climate change.

In February 2010 Sanders likened climate-change skeptics to people who had disregarded the Nazi threat prior to WWII: “During that period of Nazism and fascism's growth … there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said, 'Don't worry! Hitler's not real! It'll disappear!'”

Accusing “big business” of being “willing to destroy the planet for short-term profits,” Sanders in 2013 said that “global warming is a far more serious problem than al Qaeda.”
Stating unequivocally that “the scientific community is unanimous” in its belief that “the planet is warming up,” Sanders the following year declared that the “debate is over” and emphasized the importance of “transform[ing] our energy systems away from fossil fuels.”

In an August 2011 op-ed decrying income inequality in America, Sanders wrote: “These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?”

In September 2011, Sanders was the first U.S. Senator to support the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street movement, lauding its activists for focusing a “spotlight” on the need for “real Wall Street reform.”

In March 2013, Sanders and fellow Senator Tom Harkin together introduced a bill to tax Wall Street speculators. “Both the economic crisis and the deficit crisis are a direct result of the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street,” said Sanders.

On April 29, 2015, Sanders announced that he was running for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination, citing economic inequality, climate change, and the Citizens United Supreme Court decision as issues of particular concern to him.

In May 2015, Sanders told CNBC interviewer John Harwood that he was in favor of dramatically raising the marginal tax rate on America's highest earners.
“[When] radical socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president,” Sanders said sarcastically, “I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.” When Harwood asked whether Sanders thought that was too high, the senator replied: “No. What I think is obscene, and what frightens me is, again, when you have the top one-tenth of one percent owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 [percent]. Does anybody think that is the kind of economy this country should have?” Notably, in 2014 Sanders paid $27,653 in federal income taxes -- an effective federal tax rate of 13.5 percent.




In his first public speech as a presidential candidate in Burlington, Vermont, Sanders in May 2015 broadly laid out the major planks of his campaign's agenda:
•He declared that financial inequality "is immoral, it is bad economics, it is unsustainable."
•Vowing to send "a message to the billionaire class," he said: "[Y]ou can't have huge tax breaks [for the rich] while children in this country go hungry ... while there are massive unmet needs on every corner.... Your greed has got to end.... You cannot take advantage of all the benefits of America if you refuse to accept your responsibilities."
•He pledged to enact "a tax system that is fair and progressive, which tells the wealthiest individuals and the largest corporations that they are going to begin to pay their fair share."
•Claiming that "the current federal [hourly] minimum wage of $7.25 is a starvation wage and must be raised ... to $15.00 an hour." (Yet Sanders himself was only paying his office interns $12 per hour.)
•He described the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as a "modest" step in the direction of rightfully forcing the U.S. to "join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all as a right." "And we must do it through a Medicare-for-all, single payer health plan," he explained.
•He called for "pay equity for women workers," and "paid sick leave and guaranteed vacation time for every worker in this country."
•Describing the rising costs of a college education as "insane," he vowed to "fight to make tuition in public colleges and universities free, as well as substantially lower interest rates on student loans."
•He pledged to "expand Social Security benefits" and mandate "a universal pre-K system for all the children of this country."
•Asserting that "there is nothing more important" than fighting global warming, he said: "The debate is over. The scientific community has spoken in a virtually unanimous voice. Climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and it is already causing devastating problems in our country and throughout the world." He elaborated that in the absence of government intervention, America would inevitably see "more drought, more famine, more rising sea level, more floods, more ocean acidification, [and] more extreme weather disturbances," he elaborated, in the absence of government intervention.
•He called for the government to use taxpayer dollars to rebuild America's "crumbling infrastructure" by repairing "our roads, our bridges, our water systems, our rail and airports." Sanders added he would begin this process by working to advance, in the Senate, a five-year, $1 trillion bill that he himself had proposed, claiming that it "would create and maintain 13 million good paying jobs."


In September 2015, Sanders's presidential campaign received the support of the former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers, who wrote: "I believe that among the Sanders supporters there are thousands who are dissatisfied, who are disgruntled, but who do not have a coherent left analysis, who therefore are open to our ideas as they weren’t before they got involved in the Sanders surge.... So, why don’t we joi[n] a Sanders local campaign or go to a mass rally?... We could have lists of places and projects where anarchists and others are working with people in projects that are using anarchist and community participatory ideas and vision. Places where Bernie supporters might get involved once they knew about them."


In 2015 as well, Sanders enthusiastically supported the nuclear deal that the Obama administration negotiated with Iran—an agreement allowing the terrorist regime in Tehran to inspect its own Parchin nuclear weapons research site, conduct uranium enrichment, build advanced centrifuges, purchase ballistic missiles, fund terrorism, and have a near-zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb approximately a decade down the road. Notwithstanding these undeniable realities about an accord that would inevitably make Israel vulnerable to an attack by the one nation whose government had candidly vowed to wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth, Sanders saw the deal as “the best way forward if we are to accomplish what we all want to accomplish — that is making certain that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.”

In a September 14, 2015 campaign appearance at Liberty University, Sanders was asked: "If you were elected president, what would you do to bring healing and resolution to the issue of racism in our country?" His reply made it clear that he viewed racism as a trait found chiefly in white people:


"... I would hope and I believe that every person in this room today understands that it is unacceptable to judge people, to discriminate against people, based on the color of their skin. And I would also say that as a nation, the truth is, that a nation which in many ways was created—and I’m sorry to have to say this—from way back on racist principles. That’s a fact. We have come a long way as a nation. Now I know, my guess is probably not everybody here is an admirer or a voter for Barack Obama. But the point is, that in 2008, this country took a huge step forward ... in voting for a candidate based on his ideas and not the color of his skin.... We all know to what degree racism remains alive in this country. [Sanders then cited a recent incident where a white South Carolina man had shot and killed nine black members of a church.] And I cannot understand, for the life of me, how there can be hundreds of groups in this country, whose sole reason for existence is to promote hatred [against] African Americans or gays or Jews or immigrants or anybody that is different from us.... [L]et us be clear, that when you have unarmed African Americans shot by police officers -- something which has been going on for years -- That is also institutional racism and cries out for reform."


In a September 18, 2015 appearance on CBS This Morning, Sanders discussed his plan to raise taxes on the wealthy; to provide free public college tuition for all Americans; to provide 12 weeks of paid family leave and paid vacation time for all workers; to “create universal health care for every man, woman and child”; to put private health insurance companies “out of business”; and to require “the wealthiest people in this country who are doing phenomenally well” -- along with “large corporations that are making billions of dollars in profits” -- to “start paying their fair share of taxes.” Following are some highlights of his exchange with co-hosts Norah O'Donnell and Vinita Nair:
•O'Donnell asked, "Would that mean taxing the wealthiest Americans at 90 percent, as you’ve suggested in the past?"
Sanders replied, "No, I don't think you have to go up to 90%, but you can remember that under people like Dwight David Eisenhower [under whom the top tax rate was approximately 90 percent], we had a tax system that was far more progressive than it [is] today.... But we will come up with some very specific ideas."

•O'Donnell asked how Sanders proposed to pay for "free health care for everybody, college for everybody, [and] paid leave."
Sanders replied: "This is what we would do. If you want tuition-free public colleges and universities, which I believe we will have a tax on Wall Street speculation, which will more than pay for that. We will end the fact that profitable corporations, in some cases, in America today, pay zero in federal taxes because they stash their money in the Cayman Islands and in Bermuda."

•Nair pointed out that The Wall Street Journal had estimated that all of Sanders's proposed programs would cost $18 trillion to implement.
Sanders replied: "But what The Wall Street Journal said, and we responded to, it is that that included 15 billion dollars for [a] national health care program. What they forgot to say is that you would not be paying, and businesses would not be paying, for private health insurance. So, in other words, right now if you're paying $12,000 a year for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, you would not be paying that. In fact, every study indicates that we pay more per capita for healthcare than any nation on earth. We would lower that cost."

•O'Donnell said, "You're calling for a single payer health care system but your home state of Vermont tried that in 2011 and the Democratic governor has said we can't afford it and rolled it back. Your own state can't even carry it through. How is America going to do it?:
Sanders replied, "Because every other country in the world, in one way or another, does it."

O'Donnell then asked, "Then why couldn’t Vermont figure it out?"
Sanders responded: "Well, you’ll have to ask the Governor for that. I'm not the Governor of the state of Vermont, but you can ask the conservative prime minister of Canada how they have a single-payer health care system. You can ask every other major country on Earth how they guarantee health care to all of their people with far less cost per capita than we do in the United States."
•Sanders said: "Thirty million people [in America] today have zero health insurance, and millions more are underinsured. No one debates that fact. What the story is, how can you create universal health care for every man, woman and child and do it in a cost effective way? Other countries do it. The United States of America can do it. Now, I know the private insurance companies don't like this idea. We’re going to put them out of business. And the drug companies that are ripping off the American people and charging us the highest prices in the world don't like the idea. Tough luck."

During a Democratic presidential debate on November 14, 2015 -- in the aftermath of the horrific ISIS terror attacks that had killed well over 100 people in Paris the day before -- Sanders was asked if he still thought (as he had indicated on numerous prior occasions) that climate change was the biggest threat facing the world.
He replied: “Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism and if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see countries all over the world ... struggling over limited amounts of water and land to grow their crops and you’re going to see all kinds of conflict."
Sanders then proceeded to explain how this was already playing out with the Paris attacks: “Well, what happens in, say, Syria … is that when you have drought, when people can’t grow their crops, they’re going to migrate into cities. And when people migrate into cities and they don’t have jobs, there’s going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment, and people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al Qaeda and ISIS are using right now. So, where you have discontent, where you have instability, that’s where problems arise, and certainly, without a doubt, climate change will lead to that.”

In a November 15, 2015 interview on CBS's Face the Nation, Sanders doubled down on his claim, saying: “If we are going to see an increase in drought and flood and extreme weather disturbances as a result of climate change, what that means is that peoples all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources. If there is not enough water, if there is not enough land to grow your crops, then you’re going to see migrants of people fighting over land that will sustain them, and that will lead to international conflict.”

In February 2016, while Sanders -- who had long identified as an Independent rather than as a Democrat -- was still in the thick of a hard-fought battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, he told a New Hampshire town hall meeting: "Of course I am a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination."
In an interview two months later on Bloomberg’s With All Due Respect, host Mark Halperin asked Sanders's campaign manager Jeff Weaver if the senator planned to stay in the Democratic Party even if he failed to become its nominee.
Weaver replied: “Well, he is a Democrat, he said he’s a Democrat and he’s gonna be supporting the Democratic nominee, whoever that is.” “But he’s a member of the Democratic Party now for life?” Halperin pressed.
“Yes, he is,” said Weaver. But when Sanders was asked whether he still identified as a Democrat in an April 2017 interview on MSNBC, the senator replied: "No, I'm an Independent."

In early April 2016, Sanders's presidential campaign hired a young woman named Simone Zimmerman as its national Jewish outreach coordinator.
According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: “During the 2014 Gaza war, Zimmerman was one of the leaders of a group of young Jews that held regular protest vigils outside the offices of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, reading the names of Palestinians and Israelis killed in the conflict. She opposes Israel’s occupation, wants Hillel to allow participation by groups that support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions [BDS] movement against Israel, is against Jewish federation funding for Israeli projects in the West Bank, and wrote favorably of the efforts of Jewish Voice for Peace, a pro-BDS group, to get 'international corporations to stop profiting off human rights abuses.'”
“We’re paying attention to what’s happening in Israel — and we are angry,” Zimmerman wrote in a February 2016 column about her fellow millennials.
“The hypocrisy of expecting feel-good social justice projects to offset millennials’ deep outrage at the grave injustices committed by the Jewish state is almost too much to bear. No public relations trick can save Israel’s image. The problem isn’t with the hasbara. The problem is nearly 50 years of occupation. The problem is rampant racism in Israeli society. The problem is attacks on human rights defenders by extremists and by the state. The problem is a Jewish establishment that ignores or justifies all of this.”

On April 13, 2016, the Sanders campaign suspended Zimmerman from her position after the Washington Free Beacon reported that on March 3, 2015, she had written an expletive-laden Facebook post denouncing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a mass-murderer: “Bibi Netanyahu is an arrogant, deceptive, cynical, manipulative asshole.... Fuck you, Bibi … you sanctioned the murder of over 2,000 people this summer.”
At a later date, Zimmerman edited the Facebook post, replacing “asshole” with “politician” and “Fuck you” with “shame on you.”

During a May 2016 town hall meeting in Puerto Rico, Sanders stated that he wanted President Obama to pardon the 73-year-old convicted Puerto Rican terrorist Oscar López Rivera, who had been imprisoned in the U.S. since 1981.
As The New York Post explained: "López Rivera was a founder of the FALN (Fuerza Armadas de Liberacion Nacional, Spanish for Armed Forces of National Liberation), which waged a violent campaign for Puerto Rican independence.
[He] was arrested in Chicago in May 1981 and was convicted of trying to overthrow the U.S. government, seditious conspiracy to destroy federal property, armed robbery, weapons violations, and interstate transportation of stolen property."
Said Sanders: “Oscar López Rivera is one of the longest-serving political prisoners in history — 34 years, longer than Nelson Mandela. We are talking about a Vietnam War veteran who was awarded a Bronze Star. I say to President Obama — let him out!”
Moreover, Sanders promised that “I will pardon him” if elected president.

In a June 2016 press conference in California, Sanders stated unequivocally that he would ban fracking if he were elected president:
"I hope very much that Monterey County will continue the momentum that makes it clear that fracking is not safe, is not what we want for our kids. If elected president, we will not need state-by-state, county-by-county action, because we are going to ban fracking in 50 states in this country.... I would hope the Democratic Party makes it clear that it has the guts to stand up to the fossil fuel industry and tell them that their short-term profits are not more important than the health of our children or the future of our planet."

Sanders invited Paul Bustinduy, the Secretary of International Relations of the Spanish far-left political party Podemos -- which belongs to a leftist coalition called United We Can (UWC) -- as his guest at the July 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
The historian and scholar Ronald Radosh notes that UWC: (a) "models itself on the Marxist Greek party Syiriza which brought the Greek economy to near total collapse," and (b) is "composed of old Communists, Trotskyists, independent revolutionaries, Basque and Catalan nationalists, leftist urban intellectuals and former supporters of the Socialist Party annoyed at what they perceive as its continuing compromises."
Describing Podemos, meanwhile, as "blatantly anti-Semitic," Radosh writes: "In Madrid the [Podemos] Party’s affiliate is called Ahora Madrid. The head of Madrid’s department of culture, Guiller Zapata, who is a [Podemos] member, tweeted: ‘How do you fit five million Jews in a SEAT 600? [a version of the Fiat car of the same name] Answer: In an ashtray.’ ... Podemos is so anti-Israel, that it defends publication of a notorious anti-Semitic Spanish magazine, El Jueves [which once published a cartoon] about Israel, using the symbols of Hitler’s SS to indicate that Israel is composed of Nazis." As further evidence of its anti-Semitism, Podemos supports the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, a Hamas-inspired initiative that aims to use various forms of public protest, economic pressure, and court rulings to advance the Hamas agenda of permanently destroying Israel as a Jewish nation-state.

In August 2016, Sanders purchased a seasonal waterfront home on Lake Champlain in Vermont, for $575,000. He already owned a row house on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, and a home in Burlington, Vermont. Notwithstanding the fact that he owns three homes, Sanders has consistently articulated his belief that the luxuries of wealthy people should be limited -- or at least taxed at a very high rate. In April 2017, for instance, the senator tweeted: "How many yachts do billionaires need? How many cars do they need? Give us a break. You can't have it all."

All told, Sanders earned more than $1 million in 2016. That total included: (a) his $174,000 Senate salary; (b) a $795,000 advance for his book, Our Revolution; (c) another $63,750 for his forthcoming book, Bernie Sanders’ Guide to Political Revolution; and $6,735 in royalties for his 1997 memoir, Outsider in the House.

During the January 2017 Senate confirmation hearing for Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price, who was President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, Sanders and Price had the following exchange:

Sanders: “The United States of America is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare to all people as a right. Canada does it. Every major country in Europe does it. Do you believe healthcare is a right for all Americans whether they’re rich or they’re poor? Should people, because they are Americans, be able to go to the doctor when they need to go into a hospital because they are Americans?”

Price: “Yes we are a compassionate society –”

Sanders (interrupting): “No, we are not a compassionate society in terms of poor and working people. Our record is worse than virtually any other country on earth, and half of our senior workers have nothing set aside for retirement, so I don’t think compared to other countries we are particularly compassionate. But my question is in Canada all people have the right to get healthcare. Do you believe we should move in that direction?”

Price: “If you want to talk about other countries' healthcare systems there are consequences to the decisions they made just as there are consequences to the decisions that we’ve made. I believe, and I look forward to working with you, that every single American has access to the highest quality care and coverage that is possible.”

Sanders: “'Has access to' does not mean they are guaranteed healthcare. I can have access to buying a 10 million dollar home but I don’t have the money to do that.”

In a March 2017 letter, Sanders asked David Friedman, whom President Donald Trump had nominated for the post of U.S. Ambassador to Israel, whether he would support the idea of diverting "a portion" of the $38 billion which the United States had earmarked as aid to Israel over the ensuing ten years, and sending it instead to the Hamas-led government of the Gaza Strip -- to "facilitate a much greater flow of humanitarian and reconstruction materials" to that region. Israel Nation News, however, pointed out that historically, "Hamas has taken most of the aid monies it receives to strengthen its fighting capability." Also in his letter to Friedman, Sanders asked the ambassador whether he thought that the tax-exempt status of groups raising funds for Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria should be revoked, so as to help "end the flow of donations to illegal settlements."

On March 18, 2017, Sanders posted a Twitter message denouncing America for its alleged indifference to the needs of poor people: "We are living in a nation which worships wealth rather than caring for the poor. I don't think that is the nation we should be living in."

In a speech he delivered at a February 2017 conference hosted by J Street, Sanders called for an end to Israel's “50-year occupation” of “Palestinian territories,” suggesting that “its daily restrictions on the political and civil liberties of the Palestinian people runs contrary to fundamental American values.” In addition, Sanders likened the Palestinians who had fled their homes shortly before Israel's establishment in 1948, to Native Americans. “Like our own country, the founding of Israel involved the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people already living there, the Palestinian people,” he said. “Over 700,000 people were made refugees.”

In 2017, Senator Sanders's wife, Jane Sanders, became the subject of an FBI investigation. The probe centered around a 2010 deal in which Mrs. Sanders, who at the time was the president of Burlington College, secured a $6.7 million loan from People’s United Bank and used the money to purchase a 33-acre lakefront campus for the school. But as the news website VT Digger explains, the deal was illegitimate:
“Jane Sanders ... overstated donation amounts in a bank application for [the loan].... She told People’s United Bank in 2010 that the college had $2.6 million in pledged donations to support the purchase of the ... property. The college, however, received only $676,000 in actual donations from 2010 through 2014, according to figures provided by Burlington College. Two people whose pledges are listed as confirmed in the loan agreement told VTDigger that their personal financial records show their pledges were overstated. Neither was aware the pledges were used [by Mrs. Sanders] to secure the loan.” For example, a separate VT Digger report says that Mrs. Sanders "appears to have counted [Corinne Bove] Maietta’s bequest as a cash gift that was available as collateral to finance the land deal. The 2010 loan agreement says 'CBM' pledged $1 million to the school over five years in increments of $150,000, with a final payment of $100,000 in year six." Maietta told reporters that she was incredulous that Burlington College would try to use her bequest to secure a bank loan. “You can’t borrow money on the future,” she said. “That doesn’t exist.”

When Senator Sanders was asked in June 2017 about the allegations against his wife, he replied: "My wife is about the most honest person I know. When she came to that college [Burlington], it was failing financially and academically. When she left it, it was in better shape than it had ever been.... All that I will tell you now ... it is a sad state of affairs in America, not only when we have politicians being destroyed ... but when you go after ... people's wives. That is pretty pathetic...."

In June 2017, Sanders had a contentious exchange with Russell Vought, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. As National Review noted, Sanders was "imposing a religious test for public office, in direct violation of Article VI of the United States Constitution." Below is a transcript of the Sanders-Vought exchange:


Sanders: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?

Vought: Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and . . .

Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?

Vought: Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College.

Sanders: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?

Vought: Senator, I’m a Christian . . .

Sanders (shouting): I understand you are a Christian, but this country are made of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?

Vought: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals . . .

Sanders: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?

Vought: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation.

Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.


Over the years, Bernie Sanders's political campaigns have received strong support from such organizations as the AFL-CIO, the American Association for Justice, the Backbone Campaign, the Council for a Livable World, the Democratic Socialists of America, and Peace Action.

Sanders is a strong supporter of the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of environmentalists and big labor that wants the federal government to take over America's energy industry.

Although Sanders is officially listed as an Independent, he caucuses with the Democrats and votes with them nearly 100% of the time.



Likewise Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Van Jones, Joseph Biden and so many others of the Democrat/Left are never vetted by the media, despite the facts right in front of them to report.

It was funny when Ted Cruz announced his candidacy in 2016 and was more heavily investigated in his first 24 hours as a candidate than Barack Obama was in the entire 10 years of his candidacy and then presidency, and still has never been vetted.


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-04-14 10:23 PM


Five days later, last night, Bernie Sanders endorses Joe Biden in a rather uncomfortable conference video between the two.

Then today, Barack Obama finally and half-heartedly endorses Joseph Biden as candidate.

Republican conservative Matt Schlapp described it as "yet another example of Barack Obama leading from behind."
And an endorsement that will not gain Biden a single vote.

Barack Obama's glowing endorsement a year ago when Biden first announced his candidacy (if I recall, April 25 2019):
"You don't have to do this, Joe..."

And then there's the recent sexual allegations against Joseph Biden from 1993 by a former staffer. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but reaction of the New York Times, of the collective liberal media, of the Democrat leadership, and of Biden himself is largely ignoring the allegations rather than answer them. And when they give it any attention, are completely dismissive of accuser Tara Reade. What a sharp contrast against, say, Brett Kavanaugh, whose now-discredited accusers they were so eager to believe, based on no investigation or facts.
Democrat hypocrisy, piled on high.

This is not going to end well for Biden or the DNC. You already see Democrats fly-casting for a lifeline, such as recruiting Gov. Andrew Cuomo as a replacement. One can smell the desperation, there's nothing even remotely resembling enthusiasm for Biden as a candidate.


I’m sure republicans would have preferred Obama endorsing Biden earlier but strategically it would have been stupid doing it before Sanders was still in. And it’s pretty evident that Obama and Biden actually like each other.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-04-15 2:07 AM



OBAMA:
"You don't have to do this, Joe..."
Where is that quote from?
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-04-18 9:04 AM




N Y TIMES: OBAMA REPORTEDLY ENCOURAGED BIDEN NOT TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, "YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS JOE..."

 Quote:
by Mike Brest, Washington Times
August 16, 2019

Former President Barack Obama reportedly told his former Vice President Joe Biden that he didn't "have to" run for president in 2020.
“You don’t have to do this, Joe, you really don’t,” Obama told Biden earlier this year, according to The New York Times.

Their report goes on to say that Obama quietly tried to convince his vice president to sit out of the 2016 presidential race, arguing that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a better chance to build upon his eight years as president. He was also worried about Biden's state of mind following the death of his son, Beau.
In response to Obama telling him he didn't have to run, Biden, who believes he would've beaten President Trump in 2016, said that he wouldn't be able to live with himself if he didn't take this opportunity the second time around.

Since then though, Obama has quietly chided Biden, saying that his advisers and inner circle are "too old and out of touch with the current political climate," The Times' report added.
Obama met with two of Biden's advisers in March and told them regardless of the outcome of the election, the most important thing was that Biden doesn't “embarrass himself” or “damage his legacy."


Anonymous source by a newspaper you only believe when it benefits your partisan interests. On the other hand there’s Obama’s very public support and endorsement of Biden. But I know for Trump supporters who think “I take no responsibility “ is wonderful leadership it really doesn’t matter.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-04-26 7:13 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Anonymous source by a newspaper you only believe when it benefits your partisan interests. On the other hand there’s Obama’s very public support and endorsement of Biden. But I know for Trump supporters who think “I take no responsibility “ is wonderful leadership it really doesn’t matter.


So you admit that the New York Times is a liberal-partisan propaganda weapon?

I posted using the N Y Times as a source, so that you couldn't label it as a "right wing" source. This is the liberal media, and even they see what a lousy candidate Biden is, that even Obama wants to distance himself from.

I’ve seen Obama’s endorsement of Biden now and he’s always maintained that choosing Biden as VP back in 2008 was his best decision. It’s pretty apparent how Obama really feels towards Biden. I can’t see the original reporting from the Times without paying but given Obama’s clear public support for Biden trump whatever private reservations Obama might have had.

Let me also point out that you make it clear that anonymous sourced NYT articles are credible only when you like what they say. It’s fairly evident that the Times isn’t a “liberal propaganda weapon” as they run stories like this.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-06-15 11:49 PM


Even a broken watch is right twice a day. And similarly, the New York Times.

Kind of like how Factcheck and Politifact sites target Republicans and conservatives 75% of the time, but a mere 25% of the time factcheck Democrats, to give some semblance of balanced coverage.


Somewhere along the line, almost imperceptibly, Biden in the last week through some kind of osmosis gathered enough delegates needed to offiicially become the Democrat nominee.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-goes-over-the-top-clinching-democratic-nomination


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-06-29 4:56 AM



This editorial from Monday, June 22, on Laura Ingraham's show:

Ingraham: Rallying for America - June 22, 2020, Monday



Citing how Biden is hiding in his basement, despite Trump's return to conducting rallies, with an appearance in Tulsa, Oklahoma last Saturday.
And how Democrats are attacking Trump for going public again, because they know it will be the death of Biden's chances at getting elected. How Dems condemn Republicans for opening businesses, churches, and Trump rallies, as a way to shut down their political oppossition.

Ingraham in the latter half cites the states with the worst economic recovery (all but one Democrat), and the ten that are doing the best (all ten Republican states).

There is no longer any logic or "science" to Democrat lockdowns. The only rationale is to stop Trump, to leverage their own political advantage.
3 weeks of Black Lives Matter rallies in cities nationwide, the Bolshevik-Democrat party deems as good. It rallies the Democrats politically, while torching the country.
A week later a Trump rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Ohh this is terrible, crazy! You're spreading coronaviruss.

Gotta love that double standard. Trump's supporters didn't tear down 20 Covid-19 testing centers, by the way. Biden's did.
Vive le resistence!
Before the protesters Florida had packed beaches. Most of the protesters I saw wore masks unlike those at the beaches. Both groups were outdoors though and I wonder if that made a difference as neither Florida or Minnesota saw a big spike a week or two after. Florida is seeing their rate skyrocket to the point where I believe your republican governor is having to backtrack. What I find illogical is Trump putting out guidelines and you trying to blame democrats for following them to a degree. In truth all states have reopened faster than what the guidelines Trump originally put out. Granted it didn’t take long for him to abandon them unofficially but the Trump administration still uses them officially. Besides Florida, Texas and California are also seeing huge gains. Trump after his failed Tulsa rally where his people removed social distancing that was in place with the seating before letting the public in, has now canceled the next rally.

It’s just bizarre seeing your spin WB with all that going on. You know these things just as well as I do. Why bother?
Florida closes bars after explosion of COVID-19
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-06-29 9:00 AM



LIBERAL MEDIA HYPERVENTILATES WITH NEW CORONAVIRUS NARRATIVE, DENIES GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS LED TO COVID-19 SPIKE IN NEW CASES NATIONWIDE


Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-06-29 9:35 AM


Further, as reported on the Daily Ledger on OAN, the ratio of new cases could entirely be due to the massive uptick in new testing, and the percentage of new cases, though up, is less as a percentage in proportion to the vastly increased new testing. The nation currently tests about 500,000 people a day. In Florida alone, almost 50,000 per day.

Further, there are two major areas of new testing that account for much of the spike:
1) Many companies, with now-available massive testing available, are testing every employee in their office, and this is turning up unsymptomatic cases. Many of whom are not contageous, or often unknowingly had it and now are long past it and have antibodies.
and
2) Now that hospitals are seeing patients again for every other kind of illness and elective surgery, all are tested before entering the hospital, and similarly are testing positive despite having no symptoms and not being contageous. It was cited that the spike in "hospitalizations" cases are possibly because they are listing cases that are not for Covid-19 illness, as if they were hospitalizations for serious Covid-19 illness. In truth, the level of Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. is down 90% from what it was 2 months ago in April. (i.e., it's a deceitful liberal narrative, calculated to undermine Trump). The average age of infected cases is now 35 (down from age 45 average) and overwhelmingly young hispanics. And obviously young people are at far lower risk of dying and having complications.

Again, if you look at nations like Britaain, France, Germany, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austraalia, even South Korea and China, all have had similar random outbreaks and setbacks. But according to the liberal media and the piece-of-shit Democrat leadership, it's unprecedented in the U.S., and is somehow Trump' fault, personally.

As Steve Hilton cited on his show tonight (Sunday), The United States has the lowest death rate for Covid-19 of any nation, with the one exception of Germany. Something you definitely won't see on CNN, MSNBC, or any other propaganda networks of the hate-Trump media.




I know Trump and Pence tried saying that it was because of increased testing but not even your governor is willing to push that lie. As I cited he shut your bars down because of the skyrocketing spread of COVID-19. I hope Minnesota is avoiding a spike like Florida is seeing because more people are following the guidelines as the state continues to reopen. Otherwise we will have to backtrack like Florida has to now do.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-07-04 10:05 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I know Trump and Pence tried saying that it was because of increased testing but not even your governor is willing to push that lie. As I cited he shut your bars down because of the skyrocketing spread of COVID-19. I hope Minnesota is avoiding a spike like Florida is seeing because more people are following the guidelines as the state continues to reopen. Otherwise we will have to backtrack like Florida has to now do.



Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) said that the reason there were two days of around 9,000 caes per day was because of a "document dump", that there were multiple cases from many days cumulatively built up that were all reported on one day, despite that they were not all actually from that day.

Actually, two months ago, when I called the Palm Beach County commissioner's office, the secretary was very specific, long before this recent controversy, that the reported daily cases are not all from the day reported, and can be delayed reportings from multiple sources that can be from a day ago or several days ago or even up to 2 weeks ago, depending on the source submitting those statistics. That it can create the illusion that one particular day has an unusually high or low number of reported daily cases.
Coronavirus cases rise by record 11,458 cases in Florida

And yesterday was another 9,000. I don’t think the huge numbers can all be attributed to document dumps. And unless I’m missing something even your governor is slowing things down in reopening the state. If he were a democrat you would be attacking him for that. Really horrible politics when a pandemic is sweeping through. This is where Trump is failing in leadership too. The country needs a unifier not a gas lighter.
Posted By: Wonder Boy Re: the 2020 Democrat primary candidates - 2020-07-05 2:20 AM
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Coronavirus cases rise by record 11,458 cases in Florida

And yesterday was another 9,000. I don’t think the huge numbers can all be attributed to document dumps. And unless I’m missing something even your governor is slowing things down in reopening the state. If he were a democrat you would be attacking him for that. Really horrible politics when a pandemic is sweeping through. This is where Trump is failing in leadership too. The country needs a unifier not a gas lighter.


Desantis has only closed down targeted counties where there are the most cases, such as Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. The three counties that consistently over the last 2 months have had 60% of all cases in Florida. Consistently, even when beaches were re-opened, these counties were still partially locked down, not taken through all the phases of re-opening.
The majority of new cases are young hispanic people under 35, and the average age of all races of new-tested cases is under 35. So these are not a new wave of deaths, and we are experiencing periodic resurgences and clusters of outbreaks just like every other country.
The common deniminator in outbreak pockets nationwide is that they are border regions with a high ratio of illegal immigrants, in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Florida.

The goal from the beginning was never to completely stop new cases, it was to slow the spread, flatten the curve, until we had preparation in hospitals to care for those infected, and we flattened the curve, and are still improving therapies. But the deaths are a tiny fraction of what they were just 2 months ago. The Democrats are again changing the goalposts and politicizing the Covid-19 pandemic. If Biden were elected, Dems would suddenly say, with nothing changing, "Oh, no big deal, the crisis is over."

And as proof of that, I point to 2008-2009 with the economic crisis. The media were hyping the Great Recession as "the worst recession since the great depression" and constantly blaming W.Bush for it, when Democrats actually had primary blame for the housing collapse. Then suddenly Obama is elected, and the unemployment actually deepened, considerably, in the millions of more job losses, and the stock market tanked, way below what it was under Bush. But the media immediately after the election was saying: "We're actually already in recovery, unemployment is just a lagging indicator! Everything's great!"
Keep in mind that not the slightest sign of economic recovery happened for the first 2 years under Obama. But the media was immediately spinning it as a recovery, as soon as Obaama won the 2008 election.

Likewise, the Swine Flu outbreak. Hannity one night showed all the clips. The media was saying hey, tens of thousands dead, but hey, it's under control, nothing to worry about. After Hannity ran the clips, he hilariously came back onscreen and said "Do ya see a little difference in the coverage between then and now?"
Oh yeah.
And for the record, as I cited before, 60 million cases across the U.S. population got Swine Flu, and yet the medis never sounded the alarm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_States#History

It’s very clear Trump is the one who moved the goal posts. His administration still has it’s guidelines up for reopening while he blasts democrats for any semblance of following them. Most states have actually reopened faster than the Trump guidelines so I don’t even know how you think you make sense. And we still have the threads from the great recession and no it’s not how you spin it. When the stock market came back but unemployment lagged it was very much a recognized problem for the nation. And republicans like yourself were very aware and vocal of the deficit. Bailouts were unacceptable. Trump’s legacy will be record division and debt. Unfit and a dangerous threat to our democratic principles.
© RKMBs