DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

mtierney said:

 I “hop” you understand that I have been asked by a few posters, when possible, to offer a complete article, or longer excerpts, due to  paywall issues. 

If you had been paying attention, you would  know I have, for sometime here, posted a variety of links of interest to me and others on animals, gardening, senior interests, religion, health, etc.

There’s no Politico paywall.

When you paste a complete article, or longer excerpts, I hop you take “sometime” to credit the source publication.

ml1 said:

 it should go without saying that Twitter isn't the real world.  In 2016, roughly 40% of Democratic primary voters cast a ballot for Sanders.  Almost all of the them were normal mainstream Democrats who just had a different view of what the party should stand for, compared to Clinton supporters. It's the same thing this year, the loudest voices notwithstanding.  Comparing Sanders supporters to MAGAs is both counter productive to the unity so many mainstream Democrats are calling for, as well as wildly inaccurate.  Sanders isn't my guy at this time, but I don't see what's gained by stereotyping them all with a largely inaccurate description.

 This.  I am not supporting Bernie this time around but the amount of hate that is thrown at him and his supporters is unwarranted, especially in the context of this forum where those who would defend him have all been banned.

DaveSchmidt said:

mtierney said:

 I “hop” you understand that I have been asked by a few posters, when possible, to offer a complete article, or longer excerpts, due to  paywall issues. 

If you had been paying attention, you would  know I have, for sometime here, posted a variety of links of interest to me and others on animals, gardening, senior interests, religion, health, etc.

There’s no Politico paywall.

When you paste a complete article, or longer excerpts, I hop you take “sometime” to credit the source publication.

 If I were to make a 99 page list of things that mtierney could be criticized for this one would be on page 100.

Klinker said:

 This.  I am not supporting Bernie this time around but the amount of hate that is thrown at him and his supporters is unwarranted, especially in the context of this forum where those who would defend him have all been banned.

 Ms. Nan isn't banned.  Paul isn't banned, and while he may defend Bernie, that's only because he's a Gabbardine so hates any candidate she hates.

Also, speaking for myself I have negative views of Bernie's tactics, and those supporters who follow and use those same tactics.

Klinker said:

A lot of hate for Bernie supporters here.

BG9 said:

Many far right and left purists are highly socially disaffected. Which is why they can be easily manipulated and led. Its emotion.

 An interesting point in the context of Biden and the "electability" issue.  It seems to me that more than a few Biden supporters are "easily manipulated and led".  There are tools and halfwits in every faction although, it must be said, most factions don't choose a halfwitted tool for their leader.

Not hate, but extreme dislike for "purists." The ones who will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee if its not Bernie. Extremists, the always Trumpers or always Bernie are pathological.

I won't vote for Bernie in the primaries but I will vote for him in the general should he be nominated.

Klinker said:

 If I were to make a 99 page list of things that mtierney could be criticized for this one would be on page 100.

Noted. Please don’t let my comment interrupt your progress toward Page 99.

DaveSchmidt said:

Noted. Please don’t let my comment interrupt your progress toward Page 99.

 Oh, I finished that novella a while ago.

nohero said:

 Ms. Nan isn't banned.  Paul isn't banned, and while he may defend Bernie, that's only because he's a Gabbardine so hates any candidate she hates.

Also, speaking for myself I have negative views of Bernie's tactics, and those supporters who follow and use those same tactics.

 Paul last posted at 9:56pm on 12/28/19 and Nan last posted at 12:15 am on 12/29/19.  You think they just formed a pact to boycott MOL?  Maybe in response to the thread Jaimie ran shortly before that about banning them?

Will Sanders survive? Now, we have Hillary Clinton commenting:

I will say, however, that it’s not only him, it’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it. And I don’t think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don’t know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you’re just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or after Elizabeth [Warren]. I think that that’s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions.

He was in Congress for years; he had one senator support him, Clinton said. Nobody likes him; nobody wants to work with him; he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney, and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/21/clinton-savages-bernie-sanders-points-sexism-his-campaign/#comments-wrapper

nohero said:

Also, speaking for myself I have negative views of Bernie's tactics, and those supporters who follow and use those same tactics.

 ^This! 

Trump’s MAGA supporters and Twitter Bernie Bros have this ugly tactic in common

"Bernie Twitter operates under the self-righteous guise of being the true progressives of the internet. But their harassing tactics are anything but progressive.

The attacks against Warren come from the same corners of social media that disparage Democrats (like myself) as being “puppets,” “centrist,” “anti-Semitic, and “ageist” for having the audacity to question or scrutinize their chosen leader. People of color and women who dare to disagree with Sanders’ political assertions have often borne the brunt of this abuse."

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-maga-supporters-twitter-bernie-bros-have-ugly-tactic-ncna1117901

Klinker said:

nohero said:

 Ms. Nan isn't banned.  Paul isn't banned, and while he may defend Bernie, that's only because he's a Gabbardine so hates any candidate she hates.

Also, speaking for myself I have negative views of Bernie's tactics, and those supporters who follow and use those same tactics.

 Paul last posted at 9:56pm on 12/28/19 and Nan last posted at 12:15 am on 12/29/19.  You think they just formed a pact to boycott MOL?  Maybe in response to the thread Jaimie ran shortly before that about banning them?

Perhaps.  Either that or they individually decided to cut back 100%.

nohero said:

Perhaps.  Either that or they individually decided to cut back 100%.

 Within the course of a two hour period? 

Well, in an infinite universe, anything is possible. Either way, it has left the ranks of the Bernie supporters pretty thin on the ground here. Honestly, I have never had any use for Paul, I would support his restoration on a Free Speech basis but I don't anticipate reading his posts.  I do miss Nan.

nohero said:

Klinker said:

 This.  I am not supporting Bernie this time around but the amount of hate that is thrown at him and his supporters is unwarranted, especially in the context of this forum where those who would defend him have all been banned.

 Ms. Nan isn't banned.  Paul isn't banned, and while he may defend Bernie, that's only because he's a Gabbardine so hates any candidate she hates.

Also, speaking for myself I have negative views of Bernie's tactics, and those supporters who follow and use those same tactics.

 Just mentioning that there's indication now on a profile page whether someone has been banned or not. 

Klinker said:

ml1 said:

 it should go without saying that Twitter isn't the real world.  In 2016, roughly 40% of Democratic primary voters cast a ballot for Sanders.  Almost all of the them were normal mainstream Democrats who just had a different view of what the party should stand for, compared to Clinton supporters. It's the same thing this year, the loudest voices notwithstanding.  Comparing Sanders supporters to MAGAs is both counter productive to the unity so many mainstream Democrats are calling for, as well as wildly inaccurate.  Sanders isn't my guy at this time, but I don't see what's gained by stereotyping them all with a largely inaccurate description.

 This.  I am not supporting Bernie this time around but the amount of hate that is thrown at him and his supporters is unwarranted, especially in the context of this forum where those who would defend him have all been banned.

 they are not banned - a few users were given a timeout.  It was based on feedback by several other regular posters as well as the flagging system.  So I just needed a few days to review these accounts.  As a moderator it's a tricky call, at least I can see the result which has been interesting. 

jamie said:

Klinker said:

ml1 said:

 it should go without saying that Twitter isn't the real world.  In 2016, roughly 40% of Democratic primary voters cast a ballot for Sanders.  Almost all of the them were normal mainstream Democrats who just had a different view of what the party should stand for, compared to Clinton supporters. It's the same thing this year, the loudest voices notwithstanding.  Comparing Sanders supporters to MAGAs is both counter productive to the unity so many mainstream Democrats are calling for, as well as wildly inaccurate.  Sanders isn't my guy at this time, but I don't see what's gained by stereotyping them all with a largely inaccurate description.

 This.  I am not supporting Bernie this time around but the amount of hate that is thrown at him and his supporters is unwarranted, especially in the context of this forum where those who would defend him have all been banned.

 they are not banned - a few users were given a timeout.  It was based on feedback by several other regular posters as well as the flagging system.  So I just needed a few days to review these accounts.  As a moderator it's a tricky call, at least I can see the result which has been interesting. 

 Thanks for clarifying.

Where's @basil and @LOST?

Morganna said:

Where's @basil and @LOST?

 the cats took them

Klinker said:

 I think she does it for people who can't get through the pay wall.

 OK. I didn't know that. I guess it's good.

mtierney said:

 I “hop” you understand that I have been asked by a few posters, when possible, to offer a complete article, or longer excerpts, due to  paywall issues. 

 I'm a poor typist. 

It just seemed to me that that was an awfully long post. It's now been explained by one person that you did it because some people can't get past the 'Pay Wall". But another person said that the publication from which the article was taken doesn't have such a pay wall.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Post the nut graf, and if people consistently want more, encourage them to subscribe.

So, say some extraordinary turn of events results in the Senate removing Trump from power.  Would that increase or decrease his chances of being elected in 2020?

I am thinking it would increase them.

Klinker said:

So, say some extraordinary turn of events results in the Senate removing Trump from power.  Would that increase or decrease his chances of being elected in 2020?

I am thinking it would increase them.

 Removal includes disqualification from holding any other elected office.

STANV said:

 I'm a poor typist. 

It just seemed to me that that was an awfully long post. It's now been explained by one person that you did it because some people can't get past the 'Pay Wall". But another person said that the publication from which the article was taken doesn't have such a pay wall.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

 Sorry for my snippy response to the typo. My typos are legion since I began typing with one finger on the iPad and iPhone screens. Auto correct is a whole other issue!  

I will be more mindful to include the sources — it is something I understand to be significant to the reader and the publication. 

nohero said:

 Removal includes disqualification from holding any other elected office.

 When it is a President, running for an election just months away, what would be the outcome? Delaying the election a year to allow for Republicans to nominate someone else? Leaving  Pence to mind the store in the interim? 

Desperation and partisan action have put this nation into the fix it is in. Can’t win at the polls? The voters are disenfranchised in this scenario.

mtierney said:

nohero said:

 Removal includes disqualification from holding any other elected office.

 When it is a President, running for an election just months away, what would be the outcome? Delaying the election a year to allow for Republicans to nominate someone else? Leaving  Pence to mind the store in the interim? 

Desperation and partisan action have put this nation into the fix it is in. Can’t win at the polls? The voters are disenfranchised in this scenario.

 Voters should be able to decide at the polls. Trump is trying to rig the election to deny them a fair choice.

mtierney said:

nohero said:

 Removal includes disqualification from holding any other elected office.

 When it is a President, running for an election just months away, what would be the outcome? Delaying the election a year to allow for Republicans to nominate someone else? Leaving  Pence to mind the store in the interim? 

Pence becomes the 46th President of the United States.  He wouldn't be "minding the store".  He or somebody else can run as the GOP candidate in November 2020. 

mtierney said:

nohero said:

 Removal includes disqualification from holding any other elected office.

 When it is a President, running for an election just months away, what would be the outcome? Delaying the election a year to allow for Republicans to nominate someone else? Leaving  Pence to mind the store in the interim? 

Desperation and partisan action have put this nation into the fix it is in. Can’t win at the polls? The voters are disenfranchised in this scenario.

Yes, that "impeachment is a partisan effort to deny the will of the people at the polls" bs. Actually, the will of the people was for Clinton by over 3 1/2 million votes.

Trump abused the power of the presidency. His legal team practically admits this by now saying that abuse of power is not impeachable, only real criminal violations are. However, his justice department argues that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution. Accepting both Team Trump arguments would immunize him from impeachment.

A president who abuses should be impeached. To prevent impeachment using "its partisan because they didn't win at the polls" is to argue for stupidity and the gullibility.

Enjoying reports from Davos, where the most powerful man in the world was engaged in a shadow debate with a 16-year-old and losing. Maybe he'll trash her looks. Or intellect. Or say "she's not my type."

GL2 said:

Enjoying reports from Davos, where the most powerful man in the world was engaged in a shadow debate with a 16-year-old and losing. Maybe he'll trash her looks. Or intellect. Or say "she's not my type."

 the creepy thing is that if she isn't his "type", it's not because of her age.

Tulsi is suing Hillary:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/22/politics/tulsi-gabbard-hillary-clinton-lawsuit/index.html

Tulsi should be thanking Hillary - it was probably her only time she was actually in the spotlight.  

Tulsi's name wasn't even mentioned.  I suppose Tulsi needs some $ because she'll be out of a job shortly.