Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

To discuss all things relating to the election. We know Trump will get the Republican nomination, Who do you guys think will be the Democratic nomination?

I'd like to see Gabbard get it, but it'll never happen.

Biden and Sanders are white males, so they won't get it. Honestly I think it will go to Harris.

"Only a white male will win in 2020" Michael Avenatti

Originally posted by Surtur
I'd like to see Gabbard get it, but it'll never happen.

Biden and Sanders are white males, so they won't get it. Honestly I think it will go to Harris.
Agreed on everything.

I'd like to see Andrew Yang get it. But that will also not happen.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
To discuss all things relating to the election. We know Trump will get the Republican nomination, Who do you guys think will be the Democratic nomination?

After two awful years of Trump, why are you people nominating him again? There's really no one else?

I'd prefer someone else, but I think a lot of people recognize it would be a strategically terrible move to try and primary him and split the voter base.

A lot of us are content watching the DNC candidate tear each other apart.

That happens every mid cycle, the side not having a primary watches the other side sling mud at each other.

Though I'd bet the Dems won't get as dirty as Trump did in the last Rep primary.

Originally posted by Robtard
After two awful years of Trump, why are you people nominating him again? There's really no one else?

Country is running along just fine besides his lack of social skills.

I for one look forward to Voting for ...
KLOBUCHAR!!!!


https://media.giphy.com/media/3ornkdJZxMoLRg4xz2/giphy-downsized-large.gif

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'd prefer someone else, but I think a lot of people recognize it would be a strategically terrible move to try and primary him and split the voter base.

A lot of us are content watching the DNC candidate tear each other apart.

Because it is far better to have a demonstrably terrible Republican in office than any Democrat, amirite? Party before country!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because it is far better to have a demonstrably terrible Republican in office than any Democrat, amirite? Party before country!

Wow... Adam is a Big Hypocrite right there....

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because it is far better to have a demonstrably terrible Republican in office than any Democrat, amirite? Party before country!
I mean, the 2020 primary candidates are pretty awful.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because it is far better to have a demonstrably terrible Republican in office than any Democrat, amirite? Party before country!

Pretty telling when the Bush family voted for Clinton over Trump, knowing the damage Trump would do to their party and the country far outweighed their reservations over four years of Clinton.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean, the 2020 primary candidates are pretty awful.

Very True.

I won't vote in the polls until a year out from the general election. Because it is too soon to know all the candidates and I will likely vote libertarian or Sanders...depending on the candidates.

What has sanders done to show he can run a capitalist economy when all he thinks about is massive government socialism?

Well He did spend 30 years sleeping on his wife's couch.

DDM, in a global work force, why would any company care about employee health?

Retail in particular WANTS high turnover rates, so they can get maximum performance out of someone, that burns out in three-five years, and gets replaced by the next minimum wager.


Who wants a healthy low wage employee that stays for years, and keeps getting raises?

Originally posted by cdtm
DDM, in a global work force, why would any company care about employee health?

Retail in particular WANTS high turnover rates, so they can get maximum performance out of someone, that burns out in three-five years, and gets replaced by the next minimum wager.


Who wants a healthy low wage employee that stays for years, and keeps getting raises?
That's exactly what happens, but it is also highly unethical.

Originally posted by cdtm
DDM, in a global work force, why would any company care about employee health?

All of them if they knew how to run a proper business.

Healthy employees equals productive employees. Productive employees have better ideas, produce more work, work longer hours, have higher job satisfaction, and give you as the employer a better bang for your buck.

It's a widely studied topic.

https://academic.oup.com/occmed/article/58/8/522/1466121



Why do you think we have not implemented a very much highly favorable capitalistic Universal Healthcare Option? If it saves money for companies, improves employee morale, improves employee productivity, and saves Americans trillions in taxpayer dollars, why aren't we implementing it pronto? Seems like a no-brainer, right?

Originally posted by cdtm
Retail in particular WANTS high turnover rates, so they can get maximum performance out of someone, that burns out in three-five years, and gets replaced by the next minimum wager.

I don't have the data but that's not actually how it works in the real world. In the real world, low-wage jobs do not keep raises on pace with longevity in positions unless the individual is particularly pesky about raises. The short of it is you are better off continually changing employers in low-wage jobs to keep up with the pace for what new-employees get paid.

It's only when you inject unions into the equation (unions are primarily anti-capitlistic in nature and are what you're hinting at), that's when you get overly inflated wages based on position longevity.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-new-low-wage-reality-for-older-americans/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3813007/

Originally posted by cdtm
Who wants a healthy low wage employee that stays for years, and keeps getting raises?

Anyone who knows anything about the negative costs of attrition and hiring. Gartner has done research on this particular topic for decades and it costs anywhere between $8,000 and $50,000 to acquire a new employee.

Attrition is one of the least favorable outcomes for any capitalist system. It costs far too much to recruit and hire people even at the lowest of low jobs. The higher your attrition, the more it costs you, per person, to hire.

Originally posted by cdtm
DDM, in a global work force, why would any company care about employee health?

Retail in particular WANTS high turnover rates, so they can get maximum performance out of someone, that burns out in three-five years, and gets replaced by the next minimum wager.


Who wants a healthy low wage employee that stays for years, and keeps getting raises? Companies in America lose billions of dollars every year due to people calling out, going on medical leave etc. It's actually a huge problem from both an operating cost and efficiency perspective, and it's part of why a lot of companies have over years been slowly relaxing the pressure they put on making you come to work even if you don't feel well. If you're sick and you come to work anyway you risk making other workers sick.

"If you're sick, STAY HOME" signs are plastered all over the building I work in, as an anecdote.

I think we're going to see a repeat of 2016 DNC with Warren replacing Hillary and splitting the vote between Sanders.

If he knew what was good for the Dems with that following of his, Bernie wouldn't be jeopardizing the primaries again.

Bernie refuses to call Maduro a dictator then deflects to Teump.

This guys time has past and socialism has gotten to his head


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-refuses-to-call-venezuelas-maduro-dictator-says-democratic-operations-taking-place

Originally posted by Chuck_Schumer
I think we're going to see a repeat of 2016 DNC with Warren replacing Hillary and splitting the vote between Sanders.

If he knew what was good for the Dems with that following of his, Bernie wouldn't be jeopardizing the primaries again. Why should he be so dedicated to a party that ****ed him over?

Also, why's he so much more of a liability than Warren?

Still holding out hope for a Kanye West throwing his hat in.

Did anyone see Bernie saying bread lines were a good thing?

zJBjjP8WSbc

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Did anyone see Bernie saying bread lines were a good thing?

zJBjjP8WSbc

Wow.

Try talking to literally anyone who lived it.

His viewpoints have only solidified. He refuses to call Maduro a dictator.

Yeah that was pretty bad lol

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Did anyone see Bernie saying bread lines were a good thing?

zJBjjP8WSbc

Sounds like he's praising the public services available for the needy, not the conditions of poverty and hunger themselves.

Ha!

My early guess is Harris will be the nominee. Though I think Biden would probably have the easiest time beating Trump in the general election.

i think when 2020 rolls around, america will be ready to elect an underripe avacado for president over donald trump (assuming his term isn't over by then)

Old white man vs old white man. Hmmm

Michelle has the most votes.

and another from me. i said it long ago that i think she should run

Originally posted by BackFire
My early guess is Harris will be the nominee. Though I think Biden would probably have the easiest time beating Trump in the general election.
Kamala Harris is easily my least favorite among them. If she wins the primary I will unironically buy a MAGA hat and wear it to the voting booth in 2020

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Kamala Harris is easily my least favorite among them. If she wins the primary I will unironically buy a MAGA hat and wear it to the voting booth in 2020

^ Mark it on your calendars, KMCers. November 3rd 2020 is the day DMB will reach his final form.

We all knew it was coming, but still.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Kamala Harris is easily my least favorite among them. If she wins the primary I will unironically buy a MAGA hat and wear it to the voting booth in 2020 Dunno much about her... What's so bad about her?

If Michelle Obama actually runs I think she'd be borderline unstoppable. I don't think she will, though.

Originally posted by mike brown
Dunno much about her... What's so bad about her?
Oh where to begin...

1. Pandering further to the economic left- almost every candidate is doing this, it's not really a surprise or unique to her, but it is a tick against her in my book. When she goes so far on healthcare that she says she wants to eliminate private health insurance as an option. She also openly supports and defends the Green New Deal which is one of the most radical economic proposals to come out of the democratic party that I've witnessed in my lifetime.

2. She is the candidate of intersectionality in this race- So a lot of people on the left are advocates of the intersectional identitarian ideology, which I find personally abhorrent, and she is pushing this harder than any other 2020 primary candidate. I'm not a fan of identitarian ideologies, not when the alt-right does it, and not when the intersectional left does it, I think it's toxic, I think it supports governmental and corporate policies that discriminate against people based on their race/sex/etc. (which she also supports), and I think it is divisive and destructive to the cultural fabric of America. I have my problems with Bernie Sanders, but at the end of the day he's someone with the integrity to say don't judge people or vote for people based on their race or sex, which Kamala Harris disagrees with for some ****ing reason.

3. Criminal Justice- Criminal justice is actually one of the few areas I agree with the democrats more than the republicans on, however even with this I don't really trust Kamala Harris on this given her record as a state attorney general where she desired to criminally prosecute parents for truancy. The fact that I prefer the democrats to the republicans on this issue makes this worse for her, since she's beneath the baseline of one of the few things I look at the democrats favorably on.

4. Typical Democrat Social Issues (Abortion and Gun Control)- I'll address gun control first, not uniquely to Kamala Harris she's not someone I would trust to uphold the second amendment very well and spews the ridiculous unsophisticated rhetoric about "banning assault weapons." Abortion now... oh ho ho where to begin, she believes in a woman's "unrestricted right to choose" is in favor of late term abortions and thinks they should be paid for by the taxpayer, and as one of the Democrat 2020 candidates currently in the senate voted against a bill to protect the life of babies after they're born in botched abortion attempts. That just quite frankly disgusts me.

5. She gives me a Hillaryesque feel- Other democrats like Obama, or Bernie Sanders, or Beto, or even AOC as much as I dislike her, all feel sincere and all possess a sort of human charisma, they seem actually convicted by their ideals and seem to actually be able to relate to the public. But with Kamala Harris whenever I see a video of her or hear her speak, she has this really unsettling plastic or manufactured feel to her. She feels more like someone who will be propped up and extolled by the corporate media than someone who will ride a wave of sincere grassroots enthusiasm. This in conjunction with her obvious pandering to the criminal justice sensibilities of the left as a 2020 candidate, yet pursuit of some sketchy law enforcement shit to her own ideological ends and professional career as an attorney general, gives me the impression that she is more of a political opportunist and career politician than a more principled and sincere political actor. She feels like a manufactured corporate media candidate, a career politician, and an elitist.


Now most of these aren't unique to her, but the way they stack up for her specifically make her a uniquely horrible candidate from my vantage point.

Looking at the other candidates for example...

I could definitely ascribe 1 and 4 to someone like Bernie Sanders, he is pretty far to the left economically (likely moreso than anyone else running), and he's also very in favor of gun control and is one of the senators who voted against the Bill to protect the lives of those born in failed abortions. However he doesn't feel like a manufactured elitist career politician, I actually trust him with criminal justice, and though he rants about racism and sexism he's not the same kind of intersectional lunatic Kamala Harris is.

I could ascribe 4 to Beto O'Rourke, though at least he's not on ****ing record voting against the bill the democrats in the senate voted against. Any of the democrats are too far to the left economically for my liking, but Beto did actually support lower corporate tax rates in his senate run in 2018 so there's some hope there, he doesn't feel manufactured and actually has grassroots support, he's not a divisive intersectional nut, and I would actually trust him with criminal justice. He's the candidate I least dislike on the left.

I could definitely ascribe 2 4 and 5 to Kirsten Gillibrand, half of her twitter is just her spewing feminist nonsense about shit like the mythical wage gap, she's also extremely pro-choice, and she's a very flip floppy candidate on a lot of issues who strikes me as a political opportunist. I'm not familiar enough with her economic or criminal justice policies to make a judgment on 1 or 3.

I could tick Elizabeth Warren with at least 2 3 and 4, given her absurd stance on abortion as well, her wage gap and diversity quota shit, and she doesn't make me feel the most comfortable on criminal justice. I could maybe slap 1 on her as well, but I'm not feeling the 5 as much.

Cory Spartacus Booker I could slap a 1 2 and 4 on, given his pandering further to the left on, his repeated identity baiting, and again the vote against an unobjectionable bill to protect the lives of babies after they're born. But he's not giving me the 3 or 5 vibes.

And that's kinda the basic idea.

I hope the poor horses can take a 4 years of President....

KLOBULCHER!!!!!!
https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y45/Christopher4myspace/YFS/temp-320-92249937.gif

Originally posted by Emperordmb
5. She gives me a Hillaryesque feel- Other democrats like Obama, or Bernie Sanders, or Beto, or even AOC as much as I dislike her, all feel sincere and all possess a sort of human charisma, they seem actually convicted by their ideals and seem to actually be able to relate to the public. But with Kamala Harris whenever I see a video of her or hear her speak, she has this really unsettling plastic or manufactured feel to her. She feels more like someone who will be propped up and extolled by the corporate media than someone who will ride a wave of sincere grassroots enthusiasm. This in conjunction with her obvious pandering to the criminal justice sensibilities of the left as a 2020 candidate, yet pursuit of some sketchy law enforcement shit to her own ideological ends and professional career as an attorney general, gives me the impression that she is more of a political opportunist and career politician than a more principled and sincere political actor. She feels like a manufactured corporate media candidate, a career politician, and an elitist.
Ah **** I just remembered she's the one who slept her way into political relevance. **** lol. Shit.

Who did she ****?

Willie Brown, who admits to giving her favorable career treatment as a result. (And he was married at the time)

Seems both Kamala and Trump are both morally deficient when it comes to adultery.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Ive read stories and seen talk on reddit about how Harris was a big time **** in SF in her earlier years, and she was sleeping around to get to the top.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Ah **** I just remembered she's the one who slept her way into political relevance. **** lol. Shit.

"Former S.F. Mayor Willie Brown writes about dating Kamala Harris, appointing her to posts"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/27/willie-brown-kamala-harris-san-francisco-chronicle-letter/2695143002/

Notice how the most morally deficient person (Harris) already has 4 votes and the only reason she doesn't have more is that Michelle Obama is on the poll.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Seems both Kamala and Trump are both morally deficient when it comes to adultery. I honestly expect nothing less from anyone who wants to call themselves my president. JFK >>>>

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Notice how the most morally deficient person (Harris) already has 4 votes and the only reason she doesn't have more is that Michelle Obama is on the poll.
Well tbf, are those votes of favoritism or votes of expectation for her to win the primary?

I feel like Putinbot actually supports her, though I'll give Robtard the benefit of the doubt.

Can you a story about Putinbot meeting Harris for the first time

The left will say she earned her way to the Top, her former boyfriend with influence and power basically said she slept her way to the top, who do you think the left will believe, her or him?

****'s sake Robtard, stop using that ****ing apostrophe.

Well what I'm saying is it means she doesn't get a character advantage in that regard.

My biggest problems with Trump are his protectionist trade policy, his character, and the general stance of the republican party on criminal justice reflected in his original appointment of Jeff Sessions.

Those are criticisms I have of Trump, and given my disdain for a lot of the Democrats' platform if they don't cut the other way on the things I disagree with the Trump administration on they are going to find it nearly impossible to earn my vote since they aren't offering anything I find to be better.

Kamala Harris seems to be something of a protectionist herself rather than a free trade person, her moral character as someone with virtually the same sexual ethics as Trump and her obsessively racial lens through which she views the world isn't a winning point for me, and I don't trust her with criminal justice given her record.

Beto on the other hand is actually in favor of free trade and (at least in his Texas run) lower corporate taxes because he's not economically illiterate to how economic growth works, and he's given me no reason to doubt his character or his sincerity when it comes to criminal justice.

Honestly, you're painting Harris is be a lot like Trump, so if he's fit for office, why not her.

I don't know a lot about her aside from the top layer stuff you see/hear. I will be looking very closely into her soon though, if she comes out as a serious contender, which seems to be what people expect/believe in the Dem primary.

Originally posted by Robtard
Honestly, you're painting Harris is be a lot like Trump, so if he's fit for office, why not her.

I don't know a lot about her aside from the top layer stuff you see/hear. I will be looking very closely into her soon though, if she comes out as a serious contender, which seems to be what people expect/believe in the Dem primary.
It's not a matter of "SUCH A PERSON SHALL NOT DISGRACE THE WHITE HOUSE" it's a matter of whether or not she's fit for my vote.

Kamala Harris is a candidate who differs from Trump in the areas that I agree with Trump on, and mirrors Trump in the areas in which I am critical of him.

Therefore in the viewpoint of who I am willing to vote for, Trump has redeeming qualities for me in terms of my political standpoints, Kamala doesn't.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
It's not a matter of "SUCH A PERSON SHALL NOT DISGRACE THE WHITE HOUSE" it's a matter of whether or not she's fit for my vote.

Kamala Harris is a candidate who differs from Trump in the areas that I agree with Trump on, and mirrors Trump in the areas in which I am critical of him.

Therefore in the viewpoint of who I am willing to vote for, Trump has redeeming qualities for me in terms of my political standpoints, Kamala doesn't.

Fair enough then

Biden announced he's running.

Biden was "95% sure" a week or two ago, so it was expected.

This is really his only chance, running against someone like Trump. If the Republicans try and dig up something shitty and inappropriate he's said 10-20-30 years ago, they'll look foolish as Trump says shitty and inappropriate comments on a nigh daily basis and they pretend it's not happening.

Kamela's morals are nowehere near as weak as Trump.

False equivocation,

She does not lie anywher enear as much per multiple factcheckers, she has not done things as shitty as Trump has.

I'm still sad that Richard Ojeda decided against campaigning. It was the right move, since he had no chance of actually winning, but it would still have been a treat to see a guy like him on the debate floor.

Of those who are still in the running, Andrew Yang is the only one who's managed to grab my attention. I'm not certain that I'm actually on board with his policy direction, but if nothing else he's talking about some interesting things. The rest strike me as either completely unremarkable or outright nauseating, although in fairness there's a couple names up there that I don't recognize.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Kamela's morals are nowehere near as weak as Trump.

False equivocation,

She does not lie anywher enear as much per multiple factcheckers, she has not done things as shitty as Trump has.

Nope, wrong again, Libtard. Fact: she had an affair with a married man, she's literally Hitler

Beto is in the race now, so exciting

Speaking of Beto, seems the hoopla today about Beto is he ate some of that holistic heal thyself dirt, it's all over the Far-Right/Alt-Right news networks; they're pushing hard.

Will say again, if a 20+ year old DUI and now some dirt nonsense is the best mud the opposition can dig up to throw against Beto politically, he's doing fine on that front.

It was on fox.

foaming hard today huh? started posting at 7am

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
It was on fox.

foaming hard today huh? started posting at 7am Rob said the alt right networks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/11/29/tucker-carlson-neo-nazi-favorite/

How did I use it incorrectly here, sport?

Donald Trump.

He'll find a way to run against himself.

This was already covered, from an opposition standpoint, Biden is already cleared here. If trump/Trump's campaign or the Cult of Trump starts in with "Biden has a questionable history of being inappropriate with women" as a means of attack, then they fist themselves in the ass considering Trump's 20+ accusations of sexual misconduct, his endless sexist comments and you know, that time he was caught on a hot mic bragging about being able to get away with being a sexual predator because he's rich and famous, all of which they counldn't have cared less about.

Frankly, I'm looking forward to seeing the Cult of Trump try this on Biden. Hopefully they'll lambast him for being an adulterer as well; will be hilarious to see them not see the irony.

Originally posted by Robtard
This was already covered, from an opposition standpoint, Biden is already cleared here. If trump/Trump's campaign or the Cult of Trump starts in with "Biden has a questionable history of being inappropriate with women" as a means of attack, then they fist themselves in the ass considering Trump's 20+ accusations of sexual misconduct, his endless sexist comments and you know, that time he was caught on a hot mic bragging about being able to get away with being a sexual predator because he's rich and famous.

Frankly, I'm looking forward to seeing the Cult of Trump try this if Biden. Hopefully they'll lambast him for being an adulterer as well; will be hilarious to see them not see the irony.

You had way too much of an emotional reaction to this story lol.

If that's how you need to cope with the facts I laid out. Cool. It's Friday after all.

I don't need to cope with anything, I just posted the story. I found it humorous. Don't be so angry.

Plus...if Biden ends up getting the Dem nomination stories like this won't even be necessary for Trump to win.

Rob sure does like to project his frustrations out on here for the world to see. Maybe he should seek therapy sessions.

Originally posted by Robtard
This was already covered, from an opposition standpoint, Biden is already cleared here.

If you want to stan for Creepy Joe, expect to fail hard in 2020 like you did in 2016 and with the Mueller Probe.



We can throw those out just like we can when Kavanaugh's last minute.com accusers. Claims of rape mean literally nothing in the modern era when every woman will make them without recourse for a laundry list of motivations. Bandwagoning seems to be one, like we saw in the Kavanaugh case. We have video footage Joe feeling up prepubescent kids, even when they're reeling. Yet the evidence that our Chief ever did rape a women is naught. Much like your dreams of Russia pulling the strings. On the other hand the fact we see Joe with his paws all over young girls in the most public of settings is a tell tail sign of what he's done in private.



Which we don't care about. Sexism is a precursor to wisdom. The leftist mantra of the sexes being equal is antithetical to wisdom. Trump doesn't have to hide the fact he believes in the former. While Joe has to appeal to democrats, who believe in the latter, despite being a creep who assaults young girls.



No we couldn't care less. Because no where does Trump's comment imply a lack of consent here.



Cute.

The deference between Trump and Joe is there's tangible evidence of one feeling up children. The alone will hurt his chances, among the current paradigm were he risks vying too far to the left on social issues and alienating a ton of white men (and women) who'd vote for him otherwise.

I stopped reading after the first line cos it was a silly strawman-like retort and figured the rest would be your usual nonsense.

But if you're another Surt who doesn't think it's going to look poorly (and hilariously so) on Trump and his Cult when they attack Biden for being creepy, cheating on his wife etc. when Trump's talked about his own daughter as a "piece of ass" and is a serial cheater who pays porn stars for sex, then you're delusional.

Even if one grants the comparison, do you really think it's a good strategy to assume that kind of scandal isn't going to hurt Biden just cause it didn't hurt Trump? Seems like you would avoid that kind of baggage if at all possible.

Originally posted by mike brown
Even if one grants the comparison, do you really think it's a good strategy to assume that kind of scandal isn't going to hurt Biden just cause it didn't hurt Trump?

Seems like you would avoid that kind of baggage if at all possible.

I made no assumption that Biden would grease by no matter what. eg CNN is attacking him over his past behavior. My comment was squarely on from the opposition's point and how hilarious it's going to be seeing Trump/Cult slam Biden for being a creep when he have Trump on video and audio agreeing that his own daughter is a "piece of ass", his long history of cheating on every one of his wives including the current one with a porn star and more.

Another point that will likely come up is slamming Biden in how he handled/reacted to Anita Hill's accusations and how he ultimately failed her, all the while not seeing that if they push the idea that Anita Hill wasn't lying, then Clarence Thomas is indeed a sexual predator.

That 'baggage avoidance' would be the sensible thing to do from either party in a potential Biden Vs Trump lineup (I don't think Biden will get the nom at this point), but that's not going to happen.

All that shit is already out there though and Trump's base doesn't care. He successfully shamed Clinton for her husband's allegations during the debate.. I don't see why he couldn't do the same to Biden.

Originally posted by mike brown
All that shit is already out there though and Trump's base doesn't care. He successfully shamed Clinton for her husband's allegations during the debate.. I don't see why he couldn't do the same to Biden.

Another Women Comes Forward To Accuse Joe Biden Of Inappropriate Touching

Originally posted by Surtur
Another Women Comes Forward To Accuse Joe Biden Of Inappropriate Touching

Weaponized allegations.

Now everyone is accusing everyone of this stuff. It's become a political tool.

Makes me want to carry around a video camera and mic that records me 24/7. That means poopin', too.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Weaponized allegations.

Now everyone is accusing everyone of this stuff. It's become a political tool.

Makes me want to carry around a video camera and mic that records me 24/7. That means poopin', too.

I do question the timing.

In all seriousness, Butigeig may be my favorite of the democratic candidates. I have some serious disagreements with him on certain parts of his political philosophy, but he seems more moderate than the other democrats and he seems like a guy of good moral character.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Weaponized allegations.

Now everyone is accusing everyone of this stuff. It's become a political tool.

Makes me want to carry around a video camera and mic that records me 24/7. That means poopin', too.

So you can use it against the politicians you dislike when they touch you? Good idea

A big-time accuser has just come out on Biden, hes done.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3FQ95qU0AE3hcm.jpg:large

Look at this creep

DwXweiRjckI

And to think Obama picked this creepy old man. He just grabs these girls and totally tries to dominate them physically.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
A big-time accuser has just come out on Biden, hes done.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3FQ95qU0AE3hcm.jpg:large

Look at this creep

DwXweiRjckI

And to think Obama picked this creepy old man. He just grabs these girls and totally tries to dominate them physically. LOL...the guys face on the bottom left is PRICELESS

Originally posted by mike brown
All that shit is already out there though and Trump's base doesn't care. He successfully shamed Clinton for her husband's allegations during the debate.. I don't see why he couldn't do the same to Biden.

Which is hilarious and sad all rolled into one: The 23 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct

While that is correct, not sure the H. Clinton situation and Biden are 100% comparable. But yeah, thinking about it more you're probably correct due to his base's ability to always excuse him on something they'd condemn others for.

Originally posted by Robtard
Which is hilarious and sad all rolled into one: The 23 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct

While that is correct, not sure the H. Clinton situation and Biden are 100% comparable. But yeah, thinking about it more you're probably correct due to his base's ability to always excuse him on something they'd condemn others for.

Why are people supposed to care that he's been accused without evidence?

You cared during the 2016 campaign in regards to Bill Clinton and he wasn't even the one running...

Originally posted by Robtard
You cared during the 2016 campaign in regards to Bill Clinton and he wasn't even the one running...

Correction: I brought shit up with Bill Clinton in regards to Trumps accusations being mentioned.

If that's how you need to reimagine it, Surt. Don't really care.

Originally posted by Robtard
You cared during the 2016 campaign in regards to Bill Clinton and he wasn't even the one running...

To be fair, it was because it was to demonstrate how crooked Hillary was: bullying sexual assault victims into silence with threats.

But we talked about that a lot already.

Bernie Sanders: Felons Should Be Able To Vote From Behind Bars

Hmm.

Originally posted by Surtur
Bernie Sanders: Felons Should Be Able To Vote From Behind Bars

Hmm.

And this is one of the reasons democrats are going to have a very hard time in presidential elections with these platforms.

Trumpers attacking Buttigieg for not having enough political experience to be POTUS because he's "only" been a Mayor of a city. Too funny, how they completely forget that they supported and voted for an orange reality TV star clown who had zero political experience. Trumpers, never change.

Hearing Buttigieg speak this weekend, makes me want to know more about him and his politics; he comes off as a genuinely highly intelligent person.

Also looking forward to seeing just how deplorable the Cult of Trump can get if Buttigieg shows himself to be a major player. Expect attacks on his sexuality, his manhood, his religious beliefs, his military service etc.

Yeah but he's got Butt in his name.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trumpers attacking Buttigieg for not having enough political experience to be POTUS because he's "only" been a Mayor of a city. Too funny, how they completely forget that they supported and voted for an orange reality TV star clown who had zero political experience. Trumpers, never change.

Hearing Buttigieg speak this weekend, makes me want to know more about him and his politics; he comes off as a genuinely highly intelligent person.

Also looking forward to seeing just how deplorable the Cult of Trump can get if Buttigieg shows himself to be a major player. Expect attacks on his sexuality, his manhood, his religious beliefs, his military service etc.

Check out Andrew Yang too:

https://www.yang2020.com/

He's another young guy with no political experience but his website spells out his goals.

Will do.

But Buttigeig has political experience, he's a Mayor, if you meant that with your "another" comment.

Originally posted by Robtard
Will do.

But Buttigeig has political experience, he's a Mayor, if you meant that with your "another" comment.

That isn't what I was trying to convey. I'm not really sold on the value of political experience, so it's not of significance to my decision-making process.

I'll keep an eye out for when Buttigeig puts up a website with his platform.

'If America elects a gay for President, America will be the laughing stock of the world.' -Trumpers


Trumpers once again completely unaware that they already did this when they supported and voted for a retarded reality TV start dorito-maninfant. Hilarious.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Check out Andrew Yang too:

https://www.yang2020.com/

He's another young guy with no political experience but his website spells out his goals.

I like Yang. He also had the balls to go do a sit down with Ben Shapiro. I could see myself voting for him more than any other Dem running.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trumpers attacking Buttigieg for not having enough political experience to be POTUS because he's "only" been a Mayor of a city. Too funny, how they completely forget that they supported and voted for an orange reality TV star clown who had zero political experience. Trumpers, never change.

Hearing Buttigieg speak this weekend, makes me want to know more about him and his politics; he comes off as a genuinely highly intelligent person.

Also looking forward to seeing just how deplorable the Cult of Trump can get if Buttigieg shows himself to be a major player. Expect attacks on his sexuality, his manhood, his religious beliefs, his military service etc.
I actually quite like Buttigieg, seems moderate, seems like a chill guy, even if I disagree with him on some things.

Originally posted by Surtur
I like Yang. He also had the balls to go do a sit down with Ben Shapiro. I could see myself voting for him more than any other Dem running.

You're voting for Trump in 2020 (and it's okay, your vote is yours to use as you see fit), no one is falling for your ruse, Surt.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I actually quite like Buttigieg, seems moderate, seems like a chill guy, even if I disagree with him on some things.

You're hardly a Trumper though, despite your disgusting support for the man at times.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're voting for Trump in 2020 (and it's okay, your vote is yours to use as you see fit), no one is falling for your ruse, Surt.

^Triggered.

Despite voting for Trump for 2020 being a factual deplorable act, I would defend your right to cast your vote as you see fit, to the death if need be

Keep melting down.

What if I "insist very strongly", you should believe me then, right

U mad?

Elizabeth Warren, Facing Defeat In Dem Primary, Takes To Reviewing 'Game Of Thrones'

https://media.giphy.com/media/1Qdp4trljSkY8/giphy.gif

Listened to Buttigieg last night for about 45mins, I'm liking him more and more.

Bernie's "let people serving prison time vote" is nonsense.

Surt is double posting, my guess = he's triggered again.

Originally posted by Robtard
Listened to Buttigieg last night for about 45mins, I'm liking him more and more.

Bernie's "let people serving prison time vote" is nonsense.
IIRC he's also the only candidate on either side who actually seems to like Free Trade.

I have no idea who it will be but I sincerely hope it's Sanders. It'll be so much fun to watch President Trump chew him up and spit him out in the debates.


OTOH, it'd also be fun to watch him make a fool out of Pocahontas (Warren, the fake indian).

Originally posted by Robtard
Listened to Buttigieg last night for about 45mins, I'm liking him more and more.

Bernie's "let people serving prison time vote" is nonsense.

So far his website doesn't have his policies listed like Andrew Yang. Although I'm under no illusion that Andrew Yang is a FAR FAR stretch for president let alone the primaries.

Pete and a number of the other Democrats running will avoid policies on their websites so perhaps they can be VP material if/when they lose

Originally posted by snowdragon
So far his website doesn't have his policies listed like Andrew Yang. Although I'm under no illusion that Andrew Yang is a FAR FAR stretch for president let alone the primaries.

Anderson pressed him on that and he said it's being worked on and he'll have a function where you can type in any topic/policy and see his views on it.


But for the time being, maybe he should just go with "we'll have the best!", "something better!" and "too much winning!", that was perfectly adequate for nearly 63million voters last time

Anderson:lol

Anyone that takes that guy serious, is

Joe Biden officially announced with a video about charlottlesville and how we "can't forget". More lies that Trump called nazis fine people.

Still, I am looking forward to Joe's next video, "the pulse nightclub shooting, we can never forget". It's coming...

"Millionaire senators are immoral"-Bernie Sanders

Did he really say that?

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Did he really say that?

Yes, when he first ran for senate.

Kamala Harris wants to classify hookers as victims while still charging those who pay for sex with a crime.

So...sexism, essentially.

So drug dealers are victims and the users are predators.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
So drug dealers are victims and the users are predators.

Yup apparently.

Btw: curb your bigotry, don't call them drug dealers. The preferred term is "undocumented pharmacist".

Franklin Graham rails against Buttigieg for calling himself 'gay Christian'

Evangelist Franklin Graham, an outspoken supporter of President Trump, on Wednesday slammed 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg for calling himself a "gay christian," saying that the Bible defines homosexuality as something to be repentant of. -snip


Lol, Trumpers never change. They. Never. Change. If anything, this type of nonsense attack will only help Buttigeig at the polls if he should make it, as the people who care about nonsense like this would never vote for a gay man regardless.

Rob I think in the past I saw someone say you were in your 50s so this means you were not a child in 1991. Do you recall if Anita Hill presented any actual evidence for her claims?

Originally posted by Robtard
Franklin Graham rails against Buttigieg for calling himself 'gay Christian'

Evangelist Franklin Graham, an outspoken supporter of President Trump, on Wednesday slammed 2020 presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg for calling himself a "gay christian," saying that the Bible defines homosexuality as something to be repentant of. -snip


Lol, Trumpers never change. They. Never. Change. If anything, this type of nonsense attack will only help Buttigeig at the polls if he should make it, as the people who care about nonsense like this would never vote for a gay man regardless.

Pear Clutching served with TDS and a side of ongoing butthurt.
https://i.imgur.com/yXZZsea.jpg

Plus the woke progressives will never vote for Buttigeig. He may be gay, but he's also a white male and these folk are deeply racist and sexist.

Originally posted by Surtur
Rob I think in the past I saw someone say you were in your 50s so this means you were not a child in 1991. Do you recall if Anita Hill presented any actual evidence for her claims?

I've said my age multiple times here, so instead of listening to retards, why not just ask me if you want to know? I'm not in my 50's though.

Originally posted by Surtur
Plus the woke progressives will never vote for Buttigeig. He may be gay, but he's also a white male and these folk are deeply racist and sexist.

/edge + /coping

Originally posted by Robtard
I've said my age multiple times here, so instead of listening to retards, why not just ask me if you want to know? I'm not in my 50's though.

This wasn't an attempt to find out your age.

Do you recall any evidence or not? Thanks in advance!

Originally posted by Robtard
/edge + /coping

What is edgy about my correct observation?