Fair call, with the only blip being FDR.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, it's just a repeat of the same two hackneyed anti-Sanders "argument" his opponents have been making for 6 years.Most of the analysis in that article is pretty dense.
Geezus Molly, where did this sudden and (on your part) totally unprecedented concern with "fairness" spring from?
Is that one of the cards they told you to play when things got desperate?
Aahh, but he was "a class traitor", didn't you hear?Fair call, with the only blip being FDR.
Political parties are not sports teamsWhat sort of statement is that?.
Stop barracking for the Eagles, they don't need you, probably don't know you exist.
See you again sometime Molly, sorry if no pay today means you go hungry this week.So that's a no then ?.
and
you still cant back up any of your claims.
TBH, i am pretty sure i can't out child you.
you win ... but nothing.
Political parties are not sports teams
See you again sometime Molly, sorry if no pay today means you go hungry this week.
Bit of back and forth
Yes, it's just a repeat of the same two hackneyed anti-Sanders "argument" his opponents have been making for 6 years.
There is overwhelming evidence that "deliberately hostile" is it."They'll label him a high-taxing socialist".
They call any Democrat that.
"He only won by 2% in New Hampshire".
He faced 9 other opponents instead of 1.
"The NH exit poll demographic data didn't look great for Sanders"
It's New Hampshire.
"We need a centrist!"
Definitely worked in 2016...
There are so many similarities between the Dem primary race of 2019/20 and the Republican race of 2015/16. An establishment media that is at best totally clueless or, more likely, deliberately hostile.
Looking at the polls, the red states will still vote Biden and Florida the Queensland of America, manages to pick the worst candidate again in Bloomberg
It's gonna be a contested convention
This is a pointless distinction because US elections aren't won on the popular vote. As such, I have edited your above statement to make it more concise.Firstly, Republican presidential candidates have won the popular vote just once since 1990. They win electionsdespite that because of the quirks of the electoral college.
Calling Trump a "hostile takeover" is patently ridiculous given that 1,441 delegates representing 60% of all Republican delegates in the 2016 primary voted for him to win the party nomination as their 2016 presidential candidate.Secondly, Trump's hostile takeover of the party involved them abandoning several long-held orthodoxies. How can you say they "stay true to their beliefs"? Conservatives have spent a generation arguing for free trade, the importance of institutions, law and order, US leadership in international affairs and the idea that character in office matters. That's all gone out the window.
So don't tell me that is the party that "stays true to their beliefs". Tax cuts for the wealthy are still on the menu but they've otherwise embraced the most naked, contradictory expedience in the interests of self-preservation and executive power.
If you're talking about culture war issues like guns, abortion and immigration, all wrapped up in racially tinged populist framing, that's just the red meat that gets fed to the low-information base to keep them voting against their own interests. That's not the party "staying true to its beliefs". It's entirely cynical.
These culture war issues may deliver sugar hits to the base but that's not the same as consistent adherence to coherent principles or "beliefs", unless you are talking about some kind of religious dogma informing policy positions. That horse bolted along with all those cherished conservative principles when Trump subverted the party to his own interests and the party's representatives in government embraced it.
And then Trump won the election which should have been a cakewalk for the Democrats but yeah, that approval rating, that's the real legacy at the end of the day.Obama won two terms and left office with an approval rating nudging 60 percent.
If that's "shooting yourself in the foot" then the Democrats should do it over and over.
And we still don't know whether Bloomberg has secretly agreed to finance the DNC like Clinton did.An establishment wet dream. They'd wait til the second round and launch Bloomberg or Biden in to the nomination, guaranteeing Trump a second term.
Anything to avoid Sanders.
And we still don't know whether Bloomberg has secretly agreed to finance the DNC like Clinton did.
If they ever get you in front of a firing squad, simply kick the incoming bullets away with your high quality genuine leather steel-capped aussie made Blundstones. Once they're out of ammo, you know what to do.One of them said I'd be the 'first up against the wall.'
I was so perturbed I had to leave the thread.
It makes the point that Republican candidates aren't necessarily more popular, which is entirely relevant to the point you were making.This is a pointless distinction because US elections aren't won on the popular vote. As such, I have edited your above statement to make it more concise.
It's not ridiculous at all. That's why the Republican establishment, including Fox News, tried to resist his nomination in 2015 and early 2016 before buckling.Calling Trump a "hostile takeover" is patently ridiculous given that 1,441 delegates representing 60% of all Republican delegates in the 2016 primary voted for him to win the party nomination as their 2016 presidential candidate.
That is a selective account of why Trump won.Trump won on a platform of removing Obama-era reforms, curbing the powers of the EPA and a pledge to safeguard the supposed personal rights of middle americans who feel under threat by things like gays getting married, brown people moving into your neighborhood and women having abortions. I'd be shocked if anybody thought those policies were out of step with what the Republicans have been championing since Reagan, let alone the last eight years they spent in the house under Obama. The republicans have always existed as a small government, low taxation, free market political party since they were founded 160 years ago; those are their core principles, not things like free trade which can be accepted or rejected as is convenient to the economy of the day.
Obama wasn't running against Trump. Had he been allowed to run, he most likely would have secured a third term.And then Trump won the election which should have been a cakewalk for the Democrats but yeah, that approval rating, that's the real legacy at the end of the day.
Obama is not responsible for Trump. That's a jarring over-simplification.I have nothing against Obama, I feel he's often unfairly maligned for his lack of action which is due in no part to an extremely hostile house that he endured for six years, but his presidency had a minimal impact on the outcomes of most americans and that was a big factor in why anti-establishment candidates suddenly became vogue in 2016.
An establishment wet dream. They'd wait til the second round and launch Bloomberg or Biden in to the nomination, guaranteeing Trump a second term.
Anything to avoid Sanders.
Sorry to break it to you but Blunnies aren’t Aussie made anymore.If they ever get you in front of a firing squad, simply kick the incoming bullets away with your high quality genuine leather steel-capped aussie made Blundstones. Once they're out of ammo, you know what to do.
#ROADHOUSE
View attachment 823372
They spent 4 years whinging about an independent "taking over their party", but now they're okay with a Republican being their nominee
Oh wait, the republican billionaire would give them millions and millions of dollars
So that's what it's all about in the end, $$$$, that's all the DNC cares about
They spent 4 years whinging about an independent "taking over their party", but now they're okay with a Republican being their nominee
Oh wait, the republican billionaire would give them millions and millions of dollars
So that's what it's all about in the end, $$$$, that's all the DNC cares about
Who is "they"? Clearly there are Democrats uncomfortable with Bloomberg's candidacy. To suggest otherwise is obviously misleading/dishonest.They spent 4 years whinging about an independent "taking over their party", but now they're okay with a Republican being their nominee
Oh wait, the republican billionaire would give them millions and millions of dollars
So that's what it's all about in the end, $$$$, that's all the DNC cares about
If they ever get you in front of a firing squad, simply kick the incoming bullets away with your high quality genuine leather steel-capped aussie made Blundstones. Once they're out of ammo, you know what to do.
#ROADHOUSE
View attachment 823372