2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And yet we have Trump.

Yes....in a squeaker of an election that came down to ~70,000 votes in three states.

...and that was against an establishment candidate in an era when much of the electorate is fed up with establishment candidates, yet you want to try going with the establishment candidate again for some reason.

[JoeMorgue]

They didn't vote for Trump as an outside the establishment candidate. They voted for Trump to punish the establishment. Everything going wrong isn't a bug, it's a feature.

I don't know how to keep saying this to people. Trump wasn't elected as a candidate. He was elected as a punishment. He's a troll writ large.

Why is Trump going to be re-elected? Because how much he's broken the country is the point, not a side effect.

Trump was a reckoning. A brick thrown the window of a country that had left everyone more then walking distance from two Starbucks and a vinyl record store behind.

It's not them saving themselves or making things better for themselves anymore. They're past that. Way past that. When you put a bag of flaming dog poop outside your exe's door and ding-dong-ditch them... it's not in hope of you getting back with them. And Trump is America Conservative's Bag of Flaming Dog Poop. They don't even necessarily like the Flaming Dog Poop themselves. I'm sure some do and some don't but in the end it's just a tool to hurt people with more then anything else.

This is a dying, scared, and angry people trying to do as much damage as they can as they die off.

Need proof of this? Look at the board. Notice how almost none of the major Trumpers have any goddamn interest in anything beyond pure trolling? You think that's just an insular problem here on the board? I assure it's not. It manifests in different ways out in the real world, but it's same base mentality. They know things aren't going to get better for them.

They don't want things to get better. They have no hope. And nobody is trying to give them any. Trump is selling a perfect coded message of "Let's burn this place to the ground while we can, at least they won't win either" and his opponents have tossed them to the wind as racists and rednecks not worth saving. Whatever good people are left in the margins isn't numbered or organized enough to make a difference.

When your opponent is playing "Flip the board over" and not chess it doesn't matter how many moves ahead of him you're thinking.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

They didn't vote for Trump as an outside the establishment candidate. They voted for Trump to punish the establishment. Everything going wrong isn't a bug, it's a feature.

To be fair, not a lot is actually going wrong.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

A frisbee lost in a field, being drooled on by a cow would make a better president than Trump. That doesn’t mean an intelligent person should promote the idea.

Ahhh.

What about a deliberately obtuse person?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

They didn't vote for Trump as an outside the establishment candidate. They voted for Trump to punish the establishment. Everything going wrong isn't a bug, it's a feature.

I don't know how to keep saying this to people. Trump wasn't elected as a candidate. He was elected as a punishment. He's a troll writ large.

Why is Trump going to be re-elected? Because how much he's broken the country is the point, not a side effect.

Trump was a reckoning. A brick thrown the window of a country that had left everyone more then walking distance from two Starbucks and a vinyl record store behind.

It's not them saving themselves or making things better for themselves anymore. They're past that. Way past that. When you put a bag of flaming dog poop outside your exe's door and ding-dong-ditch them... it's not in hope of you getting back with them. And Trump is America Conservative's Bag of Flaming Dog Poop. They don't even necessarily like the Flaming Dog Poop themselves. I'm sure some do and some don't but in the end it's just a tool to hurt people with more then anything else.

This is a dying, scared, and angry people trying to do as much damage as they can as they die off.

Need proof of this? Look at the board. Notice how almost none of the major Trumpers have any goddamn interest in anything beyond pure trolling? You think that's just an insular problem here on the board? I assure it's not. It manifests in different ways out in the real world, but it's same base mentality. They know things aren't going to get better for them.

They don't want things to get better. They have no hope. And nobody is trying to give them any. Trump is selling a perfect coded message of "Let's burn this place to the ground while we can, at least they won't win either" and his opponents have tossed them to the wind as racists and rednecks not worth saving. Whatever good people are left in the margins isn't numbered or organized enough to make a difference.

When your opponent is playing "Flip the board over" and not chess it doesn't matter how many moves ahead of him you're thinking.

On the nose, sir.

About the simplest way I've put it to a few friends is along the lines of "watch about 5 hours of videos about rust belt stagnation and opioid addiction, then watch that last scene from planet of the apes and cap it off with Aenema by Tool at max volume. Tell me where your headspace is after that.

Now imagine living in that headspace for several decades.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Belz...

...what?

In my opinion, they are walking dead. They have not maintained their momentum; if anything Harris is going in reverse. Buttigieg has much the same problem: Negligible support among African-Americans. Here's the Quinnipiac poll I mentioned earlier. Harris and Mayor Pete both are running at margin of error levels of support (1%) among blacks. I don't think you can do that badly among blacks and make up for it elsewhere.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

Which of the candidates that are "splitting the vote" does as well as Biden against Trump?

If you are basing your preferred candidate on straw polls against Trump more than a year out from the election .... I suggest you reconsider.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Yes....in a squeaker of an election that came down to ~70,000 votes in three states.

Yes, very successful target marketing.

Originally Posted by Cabbage

...and that was against an establishment candidate in an era when much of the electorate is fed up with establishment candidates, yet you want to try going with the establishment candidate again for some reason.

This is a bit hard to parse. Who is my establishment candidate? I'm certainly not for Biden.

Are you claiming only Sanders and Warren are non-establishment candidates? You do know they are both Senators right?

After Harris appears to be fizzling out, and Warren made the glaring mistake in the last debate saying she'd abolish all private health insurance, I'm starting to lean toward Steyer.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

To be fair, not a lot is actually going wrong.

Sure, if you don't give a **** about the environment, the increasing rich/poor income gap, trade wars based on Trump's ego, personal vendettas as the business norm, corruption gone mad, turning a faux disaster at the border into a real one, ... etc.

Mind boggling how convenient denial is on the right.

Back to the Democratic candidates discussion.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This is a bit hard to parse. Who is my establishment candidate? I'm certainly not for Biden.

That was my impression (you support Biden) at the time of my post. Sorry about that. I have no problem with who you support, of course; I simply believe you are naively dismissive of candidates like Sanders and Warren.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

That was my impression (you support Biden) at the time of my post. Sorry about that. I have no problem with who you support, of course; I simply believe you are naively dismissive of candidates like Sanders and Warren.

Oh heavens! I have never supported Biden.

I get it, it's hard to keep it straight who supports whom. But seriously, calling people against Sanders and Warren naive, puhleese.

I have clearly and specifically stated multiple times why I don't support either of them. I posted at length about it in support of Clinton in 2016.

I was seriously considering Warren until she screwed up with the banning private health insurance comment.

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are naive.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Oh heavens! I have never supported Biden.

I get it, it's hard to keep it straight who supports whom. But seriously, calling people against Sanders and Warren naive, puhleese.

I have clearly and specifically stated multiple times why I don't support either of them. I posted at length about it in support of Clinton in 2016.

I was seriously considering Warren until she screwed up with the banning private health insurance comment.

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are naive.

I never called anyone against Sanders and Warren naive. What I called naive is your default notion that they have no chance against Trump. That's a rather significant distinction. It's your prerogative to support who you choose; your support does not necessarily reflect the support of the general public and to think otherwise is naive.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

I never called anyone against Sanders and Warren naive. What I called naive is your default notion that they have no chance against Trump. That's a rather significant distinction. It's your prerogative to support who you choose; your support does not necessarily reflect the support of the general public and to think otherwise is naive.

It's a well thought out notion and you're still calling people naive for not sharing your POV.

I could say Sanders and Warren supporters are naive for believing Bernie's movement is ever going to manifest. It isn't.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Yes, very successful target marking.

This is a bit hard to parse. Who is my establishment candidate? I'm certainly not for Biden.

Are you claiming only Sanders and Warren are non-establishment candidates? You do know they are both Senators right?

After Harris appears to be fizzling out, and Warren made the glaring mistake in the last debate saying she'd abolish all private health insurance, I'm starting to lean toward Steyer.

Surely if electability is your concern than choosing Steyer (I mean, who?) over Sanders and Warren is surely a mistake. He polls at one or two percent:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ratic-primary/

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

A Roomba put on a Ouiji board would make a better President then Trump.

The tweets would be more entertaining.

[ArchSas]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I could say Sanders and Warren supporters are naive for believing Bernie's movement is ever going to manifest. It isn't.

Why do you think that? Sanders consistently polls as one of the top three candidates, and (per the map posted earlier in this thread) has by far the most individual donors of any of them, with his support pretty constantly spread across the country. Anecdotally, as a person in my 20s, most people I know have been more excited about Bernie in both elections than anyone else by far. He even managed to pull of a wildly success town hall on Fox news.

He's still not my top pick (Warren still has more of a chance of getting establishment support), but I don't see how you could claim that Bernie has no momentum. Fundamentally, he's a populist, and he's been able to build very active followings in two national elections now.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's a well thought out notion and you're still calling people naive for not sharing your POV.

I could say Sanders and Warren supporters are naive for believing Bernie's movement is ever going to manifest. It isn't.

It's not a well thought out notion; it's oversimplistic and speculative. You seem to act as if your opinion concerning this is a given fact. It's not.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Surely if electability is your concern than choosing Steyer (I mean, who?) over Sanders and Warren is surely a mistake. He polls at one or two percent:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ratic-primary/

That will change. He has an extensive organization set up.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That will change. He has an extensive organization set up.

We shall see. He has to stand out in a crowded field by offering something others are not. From a marketing point of view, what does he offer that would make me change my vote from any of the other candidates?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by ArchSas

Why do you think that? Sanders consistently polls as one of the top three candidates, and (per the map posted earlier in this thread) has by far the most individual donors of any of them, with his support pretty constantly spread across the country. Anecdotally, as a person in my 20s, most people I know have been more excited about Bernie in both elections than anyone else by far. He even managed to pull of a wildly success town hall on Fox news.

He's still not my top pick (Warren still has more of a chance of getting establishment support), but I don't see how you could claim that Bernie has no momentum. Fundamentally, he's a populist, and he's been able to build very active followings in two national elections now.

I didn't say he has no momentum. He has a significant core following. I said his revolution wasn't going to happen.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

It's not a well thought out notion; it's oversimplistic and speculative. You seem to act as if your opinion concerning this is a given fact. It's not.

You don't even know what my position is, yet you've stereotyped it to fit your current beliefs.

I know the difference between facts and opinions. It's a fact, Sanders didn't win the 2016 primary. It's a fact Sanders continues to repeat that his plan will work because all these people who didn't vote before are going to show up.

Quote:

"Call out the instigators
Because there's something in the air
We've got to get together sooner or later
Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right
And you know that it's right"

It's a fact I grew up in Bernie's era. It's a fact we had a ton of power, got the government to pull out of Vietnam, made great progress in civil rights and women's rights.

It's my opinion said revolution of voters is not going to happen at this time to change the US to democratic-socialist government.

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

They didn't vote for Trump as an outside the establishment candidate. They voted for Trump to punish the establishment. Everything going wrong isn't a bug, it's a feature.

I don't know how to keep saying this to people. Trump wasn't elected as a candidate. He was elected as a punishment. He's a troll writ large.

Why is Trump going to be re-elected? Because how much he's broken the country is the point, not a side effect.

Trump was a reckoning. A brick thrown the window of a country that had left everyone more then walking distance from two Starbucks and a vinyl record store behind.

It's not them saving themselves or making things better for themselves anymore. They're past that. Way past that. When you put a bag of flaming dog poop outside your exe's door and ding-dong-ditch them... it's not in hope of you getting back with them. And Trump is America Conservative's Bag of Flaming Dog Poop. They don't even necessarily like the Flaming Dog Poop themselves. I'm sure some do and some don't but in the end it's just a tool to hurt people with more then anything else.

This is a dying, scared, and angry people trying to do as much damage as they can as they die off.

Need proof of this? Look at the board. Notice how almost none of the major Trumpers have any goddamn interest in anything beyond pure trolling? You think that's just an insular problem here on the board? I assure it's not. It manifests in different ways out in the real world, but it's same base mentality. They know things aren't going to get better for them.

They don't want things to get better. They have no hope. And nobody is trying to give them any. Trump is selling a perfect coded message of "Let's burn this place to the ground while we can, at least they won't win either" and his opponents have tossed them to the wind as racists and rednecks not worth saving. Whatever good people are left in the margins isn't numbered or organized enough to make a difference.

When your opponent is playing "Flip the board over" and not chess it doesn't matter how many moves ahead of him you're thinking.

That is the most depressing thing I've read all week. Sadly, I think its mostly true. I think there are a lot of Trump voters who love him for the fact that he is the most despised candidate by liberals.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

We shall see. He has to stand out in a crowded field by offering something others are not. From a marketing point of view, what does he offer that would make me change my vote from any of the other candidates?

Interesting, if you search Google or DuckduckGo, the first hit is a rightwing attack site. The echo/troll/bot machine does that by manipulating Google's algorithm.

Guardian: Tech-savvy rightwingers have been able to ‘game’ the algorithms of internet giants and create a new reality where Hitler is a good guy, Jews are evil and… Donald Trump becomes president


But I digress. Moving on, I have found Start Page search is getting better results.

https://ballotpedia.org/Thomas_Steyer
https://www.tomsteyer.com/about-tom/
Mother Jones: Tom Steyer Has a Big Advantage in the 2020 Race: Your Email Address - It could help him qualify for the debates.

He has mine, I gave it to him when he started: https://www.needtoimpeach.com/

Inside Sources: Tom Steyer Has Organization and Money. But Does He Have a Shot?
You'll find some criticism on the site but also:

Quote:

Perhaps, but a billionaire who’s given more to Democratic campaigns than anyone else can’t be dismissed as a “gadfly.” According to the campaign cash trackers at OpenSecrets, Steyer is America’s top liberal donor, contributing nearly $248 million to candidates, PACs and other political organizations. That’s more than mega-donors Michael Bloomberg or George Soros.

When Steyer isn’t paying for Democratic TV ads, he’s starring in them, promoting a #NeedToImpeach movement supported by 67 percent of self-identified Democrats. More than 8 million Americans have signed Steyer’s petition calling on Congress to remove President Trump from office, according to the NTI website.

Quote:

In his announcement, Steyer said he’s resigning from both the Need to Impeach and NextGen America organizations, but he’s still giving them $50 million to continue their work. And while that “work” may not technically be “getting primary voters to support Tom Steyer,” it’s unlikely they’ll be using those millions to support Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg.

In the key early primary state of New Hampshire, Steyer’s political investments have already paid off. Granite State NextGen activists claim credit for tipping the electoral scales in the two previous election cycles. At a rally in Bow, N.H. last year, Steyer claimed the NextGen-inspired 2016 turnout increase at a single University of New Hampshire campus was larger than Democrat Maggie Hassan’s margin over incumbent GOP U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Interesting, if you search Google or DuckduckGo, the first hit is a rightwing attack site. The echo/troll/bot machine does that by manipulating Google's algorithm.

Guardian: Tech-savvy rightwingers have been able to ‘game’ the algorithms of internet giants and create a new reality where Hitler is a good guy, Jews are evil and… Donald Trump becomes president

But I digress. Moving on, I have found Start Page search is getting better results.

https://ballotpedia.org/Thomas_Steyer
https://www.tomsteyer.com/about-tom/
Mother Jones: Tom Steyer Has a Big Advantage in the 2020 Race: Your Email Address - It could help him qualify for the debates.

He has mine, I gave it to him when he started: https://www.needtoimpeach.com/

Inside Sources: Tom Steyer Has Organization and Money. But Does He Have a Shot?
You'll find some criticism on the site but also:

It seems to me that his main strengths could also be a weakness: he’s a hedge fund billionaire who has been the leading Democratic donor. That’s fine for raising money and putting out ads, but it could put off voters who balk at super rich establishment types. Of course money is necessary to run for President but there is little support for the idea that it is sufficient. Trump was also independently wealthy but he was a big name already and won over voters because of what they thought of as his charismatic personality and his audacious attacks on the Republican establishment as well as his liberal opponents. Trump also wasn’t even one of the biggest spenders among presidential candidates because the TV networks were so enthralled by him they gave him all the free air time he needed. Steyer, on the other hand, has none of this name recognition and he has no experience campaigning.

From what I can see he has two main ideas and neither one are going to win him the presidency - climate change and impeaching Trump (the latter of course would be a superfluous campaign pledge anyway).

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Oh really? Well the last 200 polls I saw in Oct, 2016 had Hillary winning the election.

No. They did not. They showed her getting more votes but being at real risk of losing because of where those votes were, and that prediction was right. She lost ignoring what the polls really said.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You don't even know what my position is, yet you've stereotyped it to fit your current beliefs.

I know it to the extent you've presented it in this thread: Namely, that someone like Warren or Sanders has no chance in the general election. That is an opinion, not a fact, and I consider it a rather naive opinion.

Quote:

I know the difference between facts and opinions. It's a fact, Sanders didn't win the 2016 primary. It's a fact Sanders continues to repeat that his plan will work because all these people who didn't vote before are going to show up.

It's also a fact that none of this is sufficient evidence to support your opinion that I referenced above.

Quote:

It's a fact I grew up in Bernie's era. It's a fact we had a ton of power, got the government to pull out of Vietnam, made great progress in civil rights and women's rights.

It's my opinion said revolution of voters is not going to happen at this time to change the US to democratic-socialist government.

I agree: It's your opinion. It is most definitely not established fact.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It should be noted that unlike Marianne Williamson, none of the regulars on this forum have earned the campaign donations or the polling numbers necessary to even be relevant to the question.

Clearly, a lot of people here are not posting under their real names, so who knows?

Maybe TragicMonkey is actually Elizabeth Warren, and Brainster is actually Joe Biden, and The Big Dog is actually Mayor Pete, and Skeptic Ginger is actually Corey Booker, and you...you are not fooling us. You are Marianne Williamson!

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Maybe TragicMonkey is actually Elizabeth Warren

Well, she is the sexiest one so I'm taking it as a compliment.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Well, she is the sexiest one so I'm taking it as a compliment.

Can't be you: There are no monkeys native to North America.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Can't be you: There are no monkeys native to North America.

It depends on your definitions of "North America" and "native". There are monkey populations living in the wilds of South Carolina right now, several generations having been born there. And if you consider the North American continent to begin at the Isthmus of Panama then there are lots of native monkeys. Central America is a region, not a separate continent in itself.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Maybe TragicMonkey is actually Elizabeth Warren, and Brainster is actually Joe Biden, and The Big Dog is actually Mayor Pete, and Skeptic Ginger is actually Corey Booker, and you...you are not fooling us. You are Marianne Williamson!

theprestige is Tulsi Gabbard!

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Can't be you: There are no monkeys native to North America.

You forgot about Donald Trump. Ooops!

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

You forgot about Donald Trump. Ooops!

Donald Trump isn't native to North America.

Kind of like Elizabeth Warren.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Venom

theprestige is Tulsi Gabbard!

Well, she is the sexiest one so I'm taking it as a compliment.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

It seems to me that his main strengths could also be a weakness: he’s a hedge fund billionaire who has been the leading Democratic donor. That’s fine for raising money and putting out ads, but it could put off voters who balk at super rich establishment types. Of course money is necessary to run for President but there is little support for the idea that it is sufficient. Trump was also independently wealthy but he was a big name already and won over voters because of what they thought of as his charismatic personality and his audacious attacks on the Republican establishment as well as his liberal opponents. Trump also wasn’t even one of the biggest spenders among presidential candidates because the TV networks were so enthralled by him they gave him all the free air time he needed. Steyer, on the other hand, has none of this name recognition and he has no experience campaigning.

From what I can see he has two main ideas and neither one are going to win him the presidency - climate change and impeaching Trump (the latter of course would be a superfluous campaign pledge anyway).

They're all millionaires, just about, including Sanders and Warren.

Sanders is a millionaire.
Yang is almost certainly rich.
DeBlasio, millionaire.
Booker and Klobuchar, both somewhere around a millionaire.
Bullock, a millionaire
Sestak, a millionaire
Williamson, millionaire (shock)
Hickenlooper, millioniare
Warren, very much a millionaire.
O'Rourke, very much a millionaire
The Bidens have millions
and so on and so on...

Is George Soros a progressive? Yes.

"Two main ideas?" "No experience campaigning?" "No name recoginition?" You didn't look very hard.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

I know it to the extent you've presented it in this thread:

No you haven't. You thought I supported Biden. You think I'm poorly informed about Sanders and Warren.


[snip - you ignored what I posted]

I'm not here for a nuh uh, un huh, nuh uh, un huh, waste of time.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

They're all millionaires, just about, including Sanders and Warren.

Sanders is a millionaire.
Yang is almost certainly rich.
DeBlasio, millionaire.
Booker and Klobuchar, both somewhere around a millionaire.
Bullock, a millionaire
Sestak, a millionaire
Williamson, millionaire (shock)
Hickenlooper, millioniare
Warren, very much a millionaire.
O'Rourke, very much a millionaire
The Bidens have millions
and so on and so on...

Is George Soros a progressive? Yes.

"Two main ideas?" "No experience campaigning?" "No name recoginition?" You didn't look very hard.

Tom Steyer is a billionaire, not a millionaire. And I am saying that that is to his advantage (in one sense - he has money to campaign), but also it doesn't make him attractive in the eyes of people who don't want to vote for super-rich establishment-types. The establishment bit is the bit that could count against him.

And the fact that you are rolling your eyes because I "didn't look very hard" is also a point against him.

You are contradicting yourself if you think I should look harder to find his name recognition. If I have to look hard, then he doesn't have it.

It's not as if I have to Google Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. They are known. They have name recognition, run for office and been successful. Steyer has never run for office, and is unknown outside of political junky circles.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Tom Steyer is a billionaire, not a millionaire. And I am saying that that is to his advantage (in one sense - he has money to campaign), but also it doesn't make him attractive in the eyes of people who don't want to vote for super-rich establishment-types. The establishment bit is the bit that could count against him.

And the fact that you are rolling your eyes because I "didn't look very hard" is also a point against him.

You are contradicting yourself if you think I should look harder to find his name recognition. If I have to look hard, then he doesn't have it.

It's not as if I have to Google Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. They are known. They have name recognition, run for office and been successful. Steyer has never run for office, and is unknown outside of political junky circles.

Plus it takes a fundamental misunderstanding of progressive rhetoric. It's not like there's a magic threshold where if you cross over into 10 figures you become an evil James Bond supervillian in the eyes of all the brainwashed cult followers.

If you hold down a good paying job in public service for decades and then write a book about political ideas that sells real well, I probably have no beef with you.

If you float around a number of investment banks and hedge funds and then found your own to make your billions and then start plowing all that into political activity and buying influence (even if it pushes policies I agree with), then I'm already halfway to thinking you're the living embodiment of everything wrong with our entire system.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No you haven't. You thought I supported Biden. You think I'm poorly informed about Sanders and Warren.


[snip - you ignored what I posted]

I'm not here for a nuh uh, un huh, nuh uh, un huh, waste of time.

I never claimed you were poorly informed about Sanders and Warren. I continue to claim you have a poor understanding of their potential to win an election against Trump.

If you're going to complain about me not getting your position, let's reciprocate and I'll wait for you to catch up in your understanding of my position.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Donald Trump isn't native to North America.

Kind of like Elizabeth Warren.

Well, he was born here. His father was born here.

At least you didn't contest his monkeyness. You seem to be learning after all. LOL!