Democrat candidates so far. . .

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 18045
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Jimbo » 05 Feb 2020, 01:05

Behind the app that delayed Iowa’s voting results is a dark money operation funded by anti-Bernie Sanders billionaires. Its top donor Seth Klarman is a Buttigieg backer who has dumped money into pro-settler Israel lobby groups.

By Max Blumenthal

.....As Democratic elites like the Sussmans braced for a Bernie Sanders triumph in Iowa, a mysterious piece of technology spun out by a group they supported delayed the vote results, preventing Sanders from delivering a victory speech.

And the politician many of them supported, Pete Buttigieg, exploited the moment to declare himself the winner.

In such a strange scenario, the conspiracy theories write themselves.
kath wrote: *which is the real reason he can fucque off and rot for the rest of time.

Jimbo wrote: So Kath, put on your puka love beads ... Then go fuque yourself.

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 18045
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Jimbo » 05 Feb 2020, 21:55

Go Mayor Pete! Kicking butts in Iowa and next he'll be kicking 'em in New Hampshire. President Pete. I like the sound of that.
kath wrote: *which is the real reason he can fucque off and rot for the rest of time.

Jimbo wrote: So Kath, put on your puka love beads ... Then go fuque yourself.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Count Machuki » 06 Feb 2020, 02:55

Jimbo wrote:Go Mayor Pete! Kicking butts in Iowa and next he'll be kicking 'em in New Hampshire. President Pete. I like the sound of that.


Jimbo, at least Jimbo properly if you're gonna Jimbo, ffs

https://fortune.com/2019/10/24/pete-but ... -business/

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019 ... orate-tool
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

Sam Stone
Posts: 2347
Joined: 25 Aug 2016, 17:12

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Sam Stone » 06 Feb 2020, 09:01

Get set for four more years of the orange buffoon (assuming humanity lasts that long).

The Dems have fucked themselves every which way from Sunday with their wreckless impeachment, disastrous mismanagement in Iowa and Nancy Pelosi's playing right into Trump's hands with her on-screen ripping up of the SotU address.

User avatar
Dr. Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 44275
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Dr. Baron » 06 Feb 2020, 14:15

I don’t think the impeachment was reckless. I think it was necessary. I also don’t think Pelosi’s actions will factor in much, if at all, in the election.

The troublesome issue is the candidates.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
GoogaMooga wrote:It's a film I have waited 39 years to see. Now I have the chance, but I may just crap out.

Sam Stone
Posts: 2347
Joined: 25 Aug 2016, 17:12

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Sam Stone » 06 Feb 2020, 16:58

Still Baron wrote:I don’t think the impeachment was reckless. I think it was necessary. I also don’t think Pelosi’s actions will factor in much, if at all, in the election.

The troublesome issue is the candidates.


To paraphrase your missus, you come at the Quim, you better not miss...

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 18045
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Jimbo » 07 Feb 2020, 03:25

The Myth Of Incompetence: DNC Scandals Are A Feature, Not A Bug
Caitlin Johnstone

The flaw in this expectation is its premise that Democratic Party elites care if their party wins in November. They do not.

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the- ... 264352d4f7

Caitlin nails it hard again.

At this time it looks, however, like Bernie has won in Iowa. Is it official? I don't know but had Bernie not had the overwhelming numbers of supporters he'd have lost. Let's just see what shenanigans await progressives in New Hampshire.
kath wrote: *which is the real reason he can fucque off and rot for the rest of time.

Jimbo wrote: So Kath, put on your puka love beads ... Then go fuque yourself.

Sam Stone
Posts: 2347
Joined: 25 Aug 2016, 17:12

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Sam Stone » 08 Feb 2020, 14:38

Jimbo wrote:

...it looks like Bernie has won in Iowa...had Bernie not had the overwhelming numbers
of supporters he'd have lost.



Cheers, J. Bet they don't get this level of tell-it-like-it-is political analysis over at Preludin!

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69135
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Diamond Dog » 08 Feb 2020, 15:01

Powehi wrote:
Jimbo wrote:

...it looks like Bernie has won in Iowa...had Bernie not had the overwhelming numbers
of supporters he'd have lost.



Cheers, J. Bet they don't get this level of tell-it-like-it-is political analysis over at Preludin!


And he even managed to get that wrong.

Pete Buttigieg 26.2%
Sanders 26.1%
Warren 18%
Biden 15.8%
Klobuchar 12.3%
Yang 1.0%
I have put the ignorant, inflammatory bore on ignore.

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 18045
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Jimbo » 09 Feb 2020, 01:33

Diamond Dog wrote:
Powehi wrote:
Jimbo wrote:

...it looks like Bernie has won in Iowa...had Bernie not had the overwhelming numbers
of supporters he'd have lost.



Cheers, J. Bet they don't get this level of tell-it-like-it-is political analysis over at Preludin!


And he even managed to get that wrong.

Pete Buttigieg 26.2%
Sanders 26.1%
Warren 18%
Biden 15.8%
Klobuchar 12.3%
Yang 1.0%


Despite what you read in the lying, unquestioning, roll-over and play dead news, do you seriously believe that Buttigieg got more votes than Sanders? Even you can't be that naive. When I say that Sanders numbers were overwhelming I mean there were - and had to be - so many voters for him that there could be no dispute. All the polls said Sanders. And even then the cheating Democratic scumbags placed that CIA shill Buttigieg at the top. How dumb must you be to so unabashedly and uncritically criticize my post. Yeah, maybe some shitheel somewhere says Buttigieg squeaked by but phuck dat shit. Sanders won and you know it. :roll:
kath wrote: *which is the real reason he can fucque off and rot for the rest of time.

Jimbo wrote: So Kath, put on your puka love beads ... Then go fuque yourself.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Count Machuki » 09 Feb 2020, 04:45

On Wednesday you loved "CIA Shill" Mayor Pete, Jimbo.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 18045
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Jimbo » 09 Feb 2020, 05:34

Count Machuki wrote:On Wednesday you loved "CIA Shill" Mayor Pete, Jimbo.


I was trying for irony. I don't like him at all.
Fun fact: the most dangerous synthetic material ever invented in a laboratory for public consumption is Pete Buttigieg.
kath wrote: *which is the real reason he can fucque off and rot for the rest of time.

Jimbo wrote: So Kath, put on your puka love beads ... Then go fuque yourself.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69135
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Diamond Dog » 09 Feb 2020, 07:45

Jimbo wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:
Powehi wrote:
Cheers, J. Bet they don't get this level of tell-it-like-it-is political analysis over at Preludin!


And he even managed to get that wrong.

Pete Buttigieg 26.2%
Sanders 26.1%
Warren 18%
Biden 15.8%
Klobuchar 12.3%
Yang 1.0%


Despite what you read in the lying, unquestioning, roll-over and play dead news, do you seriously believe that Buttigieg got more votes than Sanders? Even you can't be that naive. When I say that Sanders numbers were overwhelming I mean there were - and had to be - so many voters for him that there could be no dispute. All the polls said Sanders. And even then the cheating Democratic scumbags placed that CIA shill Buttigieg at the top. How dumb must you be to so unabashedly and uncritically criticize my post. Yeah, maybe some shitheel somewhere says Buttigieg squeaked by but phuck dat shit. Sanders won and you know it. :roll:


Jeez.... :lol: :lol:

Where I come from from 26.2 is always larger than 26.1 but it seems where I come from has had that wrong all along. Sigh.
I have put the ignorant, inflammatory bore on ignore.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Count Machuki » 11 Feb 2020, 19:16

Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Count Machuki » 12 Feb 2020, 01:57

We're now Yangless, I understand?
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Dr. Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 44275
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Dr. Baron » 12 Feb 2020, 02:10

So my phone says!
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
GoogaMooga wrote:It's a film I have waited 39 years to see. Now I have the chance, but I may just crap out.

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Count Machuki » 12 Feb 2020, 02:14

Man, I was gonna buy a whole mess of drugs with my Yangbucks, too. What a bummer.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

User avatar
Count Machuki
BCB Cup Champion 2013
Posts: 39534
Joined: 11 Jun 2005, 15:28
Location: HAIL, ATLANTA!

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Count Machuki » 12 Feb 2020, 02:30

Oh, Biden. He's talking race in SC. He's just so embarrassing and desperate.
Let U be the set of all united sets, K be the set of the kids and D be the set of things divided.
Then it follows that ∀ k ∈ K: K ∈ U ⇒ k ∉ D

Jimbo
Dribbling idiot airhead
Posts: 18045
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Jimbo » 23 Feb 2020, 19:48

I shit you not. The NYT sez Putin is now helping Trump and the WAPO sez Putin is now helping Bernie.

Thank god for Caitlin for setting the matter straight: All Candidates Are Russian Agents But Pete Buttigieg
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/inte ... fa80b17ae5
kath wrote: *which is the real reason he can fucque off and rot for the rest of time.

Jimbo wrote: So Kath, put on your puka love beads ... Then go fuque yourself.

User avatar
Dr. Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 44275
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: Democrat candidates so far. . .

Postby Dr. Baron » 23 Feb 2020, 21:31

I'll say that I've obviously definitely been wrong about these things before, but I still think Bernie is a disaster. It has never been at all clear to me that he would've beat Trump in 2016. If anything, I think it could have happened, but it could have also been a real bloodbath.

Among the liberal candidates, Elizabeth Warren is, to me, vastly, vastly superior. First, I think he is eminently beatable. Trump will absolutely have a field day with him and he will be able to speak in language that voting Americans are intuitively receptive to (after 50 years of conditioning). The only difference I perceive between Bernie and Corbyn is that Bernie has some fire in his belly. But apart from that, he is a greater target than George McGovern, Walter Mondale, or Mike Dukakis ever were. That's what I see---him getting absolutely creamed.

OK, so maybe America has changed. Maybe Bernie's sincerity and strong message will bring out people who haven't voted in the past, or will turn people who voted for Obama and then Trump. Maybe the world is fundamentally different nowadays. Maybe Trump isn't Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan.

But then, I also think he could very possibly be a terrible President who sets "the cause" back another few decades. I guess I understand people being enthusiastic about Bernie always having been Bernie and Bernie staying true to himself and everything else, but what the shit is he going to DO when he's President? Everything he talks about is something Congress (and the Courts) must sign off on. He's not talking about the things a President actually has control over and then where will his famous principles lead him? Has he ever cut a deal with ANYONE? Maybe Bernie will turn the page on 50 years of shit, but I think the chances are better that it'll be a missed opportunity. The thing is, I think his principles, his policies, his views, in general, could be sold to the American people (and I'm basically in favor of most of them), but it has to be from someone with magnetism and social intelligence. Not by a guy who comes off as a cranky high school government teacher who has never stopped shouting and bellowing at people for being wrong.

I hope I'm wrong, of course. We'll see what the next states bring.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
GoogaMooga wrote:It's a film I have waited 39 years to see. Now I have the chance, but I may just crap out.