Hi @Dinner, I don't want to drag this thread off-topic with a lot of back and forth posts about what seems like a pretty straightforward claim on your part so I've made a new thread so other pisters can help us find when it happened.
Fact checking the Democrats, basically they’re full of shit. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pb...t-2-of-the-2020-democratic-debates-in-detroit
It's just a crazy, crazy world where 'foot-in-mouth', crazy, creepy, decrepit Uncle Joe is the leading democratic contender for the Dem nomination. For fuck's sake, aren't there any Kennedys left out there who haven't raped anyone?
Yes, but the republicans run a party where if you accidentally cough the wrong way you are a traitor attacking the party. They have lost all sense of not walking lock step with everyone or being able to have a different opinion on how to get things done. This is causing some of them some real problems considering trump does not always side with their big money when he helps out Putin.
Did you read all of that? The first one seems to call trump out for being full of shit. A couple of them are obviously poorly worded and confusing. There is not even a lot of points there to fact check. It also seems like fact check merely means corrections as I am sure there was a lot more correct statements that the article did not address. If we are to fact check your statement we would have to find you wrong and misleading.
About fucking time. But maybe he should have spent a little less time expounding publicly on how terrible a job he thinks the Senate is?
Still waiting for ONE Republican to be asked "how do you think voters will respond to your party's lurch to the right?" or perhaps type ot a 1200 word NYT Opinion peice bemoaning that GOP having abandoned the reasonable voters in the middle. I packed a lunch.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...G922WDxk&noredirect=on&utm_term=.a12e07478f26 How Elizabeth Warren won both nights of the Democratic debate There were two nights of debate this week among the Democratic presidential candidates but only one winner: Elizabeth Warren. A flurry of polls in the coming days will show the numbers for the 20 contenders nudged temporarily up or down as a result of how they performed here, but no one did a better job than the Massachusetts senator in laying out a purpose for seeking the presidency and offering a clear picture of what she will do with it if she wins. The most memorable line of either night was Warren’s brush-back of rival John Delaney’s suggestion that she was running on “impossible promises.” “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for,” Warren answered. Her presence lingered on the stage of the Fox Theatre on Wednesday — so much that former vice president Joe Biden was asked to respond to her declaration the night before that “spinelessness” would not solve the nation’s big problems. Biden’s answer was not to look forward, but backward, at the Obama administration’s efforts to revive the economy a decade ago in the wake of the financial collapse. Where Warren offers a vision for her candidacy and frames it in a compelling way, Biden has a rationale: the increasingly fragile supposition that he is the most electable candidate in the field. That has been enough to put him at the top of the polls — and keep him there thus far. But the more opportunities people have to see him as an actual candidate, the sharper the contrast against what they had assumed about him.
Warren makes inroads into Sanders’s world, one backer at a time TEMPE, Ariz. — Onstage at a packed theater here Thursday night, Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) praised Sen. Elizabeth Warren, saying she’s “got guts and she’s got a vision.” About a week earlier, sweating under the bright sun before 400 guests in his New Hampshire backyard, immigration attorney Ron Abramson gushed about Warren’s “illustrious senate career.” And a month before that in Iowa, Johnson County Board of Supervisors Vice Chair Rod Sullivan declared that “nobody has more big ideas” than the Massachusetts senator. Besides their enthusiastic backing of Warren, they all have one thing in common: Each provided key early support to Warren’s current liberal rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in his 2016 bid for the White House. Grijalva was Sanders’s first congressional endorser in 2015, while Abramson was a Sanders delegate to the Democratic convention and Sullivan was among his early backers in Iowa. Now all of them, and others in the same position, are signaling to their followers and allies that Warren is the better pick, quietly providing her an extensive network to build support in early states. ..... Warren’s aides declined to discuss their endorsement strategy, but several people close to the campaign said she is eager to use local networks to get her message in front of voters, many of whom are not as familiar with her as with Sanders. But her success with former Sanders devotees also suggests that some liberal activists now see Warren as a better bet than Sanders. And Warren has been carefully wooing Sanders’s key endorsers, often calling them personally. This approach has helped recruit people like Abramson, who hosted a house party at his Bow, N.H., home four years ago for Sanders. Last week he invited friends and neighbors, along with people contacted by the Warren campaign, to throw his support behind the Massachusetts senator. “I respect and admire Sanders — I just don’t feel like it’s his time,” Abramson said as he watched supporters line up in his lush backyard to take photos with Warren, adding that “2020 is not 2016. Because it’s a different time we need a different person.” ..... Another factor cited by several Democrats for changing their allegiance is Sanders’s demeanor, which they said they find gruff and off-putting. Wayne Burton, a New Hampshire Democratic official who endorsed Sanders four years ago and is now backing Warren, recalled being with Sanders ahead of a veterans’ forum during the last primary. Sanders was in a foul mood, he said, seemingly because a campaign staffer had accidentally brought him to the wrong door. “That was a small item, but he came in crabby, nasty, and he was about to face this crowd of several hundred people, mostly veterans,” recalled Burton, who is a member of the Durham, N.H., town council. “And I was saying, ‘Holy crap, I hope he calms down before he gets to the microphone.’ ” By contrast, he’s known Warren for years and hasn’t ever seen her snap. “If you’re a leader, being liked is not a bad thing,” he said. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f36ff92706e_story.html?utm_term=.6fe169ebd198
Hillary is still running. She's just waiting for the field to thin and for the chosen few to look so bad that she actually looks like the sane one. Warren has no chance because the DNC is going to cheat her and the others to help Hillary because they know Warren sucks.
WAPO is already maneuvering to sink Warren: Even Liberal WaPo says Warren and Sanders proposals don’t “meet a baseline degree of factual plausibility” Mocks Warren’s debate line: “Why go to the trouble of running for president to promote ideas that can’t work?”
I think relying on the polls, or taking any comfort in polls that say what you'd like, is a big mistake, Nova. In fact, even without any bias in the selection of the population, and even if a polling company got really good at eliminating the biases inherent in the question order, wording, questioner, etc., I'd expect *more* people to misrepresent their mind than at any time in the past that I can recall.
Why didn't you link to the actual WaPo page instead of excerpts on something called "Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion"? (I like how it breaks the big words down into syllables, though. Cute.)
Because WAPO likes to block people from reading it. I've hit the limit of my free articles. You can click on a link in the article and it will take you to WAPO's article.
WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos. I’m not surprised that they believe Warren’s plans are implausible. I mean, they’re quite plausible, but billionaires like Bezos will have to pay more money and so they are against her campaign. I mean, poor Jeff, he’s just making a living, like his employees. Poor, tax burdened Bezos. Will no one think of his happiness?
what kind of a name is Hickenlooper? It sounds made up to me. Still better than Beetlejuice or however you pronounce that one joker's name.
Possibly. Her dick has a few inches to spare, I'm sure she could dedicate a few microns to that shit.
You can get around it if you turn off your ad blocker. Annoying, but whatcha gonna do? And if you can't find a less amateur source than Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion (an oxymoron, BTW), you're not trying very hard.
