What's new
By:

2020 Presidential election

Stoked said:
But to date no one has provided a single legit answer. Not one. So again.

What the hell am I missing?
Click to expand...

Since I agree more with The Thriller politically than you, it's likely bias on at least one (probably both) of our parts that we see him differently.

I do see one major different between The Thriller and Heathme, that if you engage with The Thriller on the content of his posts, he will try to rationally defend his position. However, I do agree he does a lot of spam posts as well (though usually not from satire sites, which Heathme uses).

I see another kind of difference between The Thriller and the poster formerly known as dutchjazzer: dutchjazzer seemed quite paranoid about people being out to get him, the government taking over and shutting down citizens, etc. Also, The Thriller attacks people as a group; dutchjazzer attacker posters as individuals.
 
The Thriller said:
And abc is fine being used like that? Again, I’d be disappointed but not surprised if Fox News did this. But ABC? They’re one of our major news networks.
Click to expand...

Once the networks decided news had to be a profit center, instead of a public service, their news became unreliable. They are about money, period, and if this ad makes them more money than it lose, they will run it.
 
The Thriller said:
Wow. So hateful. ;) I mean, I get that 35 percent of the country eats this up. But does this really work on everyone else? It immediately turned me off. Why?

1. Because I’m not stupid enough to conflate universal health care and student financial aid, the stuff AOC advocates with the Khmer Rouge taking over the public education system and economy while rounding up and killing millions of people. I mean, I’m old enough to remember a few months ago when the right was mocking her for crying outside of an internment camp on the border.

2. The ad was so extreme (skulls, bodies, burning) and so demeaning that it turned me off. It could’ve been made by Warren herself, and it probably would've motivated me to donate to her biggest rival and never vote for her again. Are Americans really so desensitized to this stuff? Judging by the backlash this caused on social media, I guess the answer is no. Lots of people seemed turned off by it. So what was it’s purpose? Give fresh meat to the Breitbart and Shapiro boys? Is that what abc is doing now? Throwing fresh meat at the dumbest and most hateful among us?

But I agree, the hyperbolic obsession of falling everything “socialism” is in full effect. It’s the boogeyman. But isn’t it losing its effect? It’s the boy who cried wolf by now, right? I remember when Obamacare was called socialism.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't think it's losing its effect. I think tons of Americans still get scared as hell and triggered like a ************* by the word socialism. It's like the scariest thing ever to many people despite the fact that those same scared people use socialist services all the time without realizing it.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Heathme said:
Click to expand...

The green new deal doesn't eliminate the energy industry. That's one of the stupidests comments I've ever heard.

Is "Texas Medical Center" a specific place? If so, how exactly is Medicare for all going to harm it? Unless it's an insurance company I don't see what having more insured patients is going to do to harm it.

On this one I think it's incredibly stupid for Democrats to talk about mandatory buy-backs or anything like that, when such a thing hasn't come close to passing the test as far as legality or logistics. So needless to say, whatever a politician says they would like to do in regard to taking away people's guns, they've got to get that past the House and Senate first, which would be hard, but still the easy part. Then they'd have to get it past legal challenges that our current Supreme Court would be extremely unlikely to uphold.

So, yet another dumb as **** share by mommy bird.
 
Gameface said:
The green new deal doesn't eliminate the energy industry. That's one of the stupidests comments I've ever heard.

Is "Texas Medical Center" a specific place? If so, how exactly is Medicare for all going to harm it? Unless it's an insurance company I don't see what having more insured patients is going to do to harm it.

On this one I think it's incredibly stupid for Democrats to talk about mandatory buy-backs or anything like that, when such a thing hasn't come close to passing the test as far as legality or logistics. So needless to say, whatever a politician says they would like to do in regard to taking away people's guns, they've got to get that past the House and Senate first, which would be hard, but still the easy part. Then they'd have to get it past legal challenges that our current Supreme Court would be extremely unlikely to uphold.

So, yet another dumb as **** share by mommy bird.
Click to expand...
The guns stuff was dumb. I think the Democrats should ease up on that one. Way too many gun owners in america to talk about doing anything extreme at this point. Stick to background checks and magazine capacity and stuff.
I heard Beto say something to the effect of we are coming for your guns. That's just gonna role people up and get them paranoid and do no good whatsoever.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Gameface said:
Is "Texas Medical Center" a specific place? If so, how exactly is Medicare for all going to harm it? Unless it's an insurance company I don't see what having more insured patients is going to do to harm it.
Click to expand...

The Texas Medical Center is actually a specific place - it's essentially the medical district for Houston (I believe the largest in the world) tons of universities around Texas have a base there as well (visited a couple times while I was in grad school). 100,000 some people employed there.

Though I don't think Medicare For All would cause it any real problems.
 
The Castro vs Biden dustup seems to be the main talk of last night, and while Castro came out looking like a bit of an *** I think Biden was worse.

Castro misheard Biden's quote, but Biden appears to be straight up lying about his policy. People will not automatically qualify for his policy as currently construed, there is means testing involved and not everyone will qualify (you have to be below some percentage of the poverty line, I want to say 138%).
 
Jazzta said:
Yang. And Warren was good last night too.
Click to expand...

What does Yang have to offer? Is he a civil rights advocate? Does he promote prison reform? Gun reform? What legislation has he sponsored? Is he promoting economic equality legislation? Is he a former General? Is he a foreign policy womp?

I just don’t see what he offers other than not being a politician. And we all see how that’s working out... After Trump, don’t we kinda want someone who like... knows stuff about government?
 
The Thriller said:
What does Yang have to offer? Is he a civil rights advocate? Does he promote prison reform? Gun reform? What legislation has he sponsored? Is he promoting economic equality legislation? Is he a former General? Is he a foreign policy womp?

I just don’t see what he offers other than not being a politician. And we all see how that’s working out... After Trump, don’t we kinda want someone who like... knows stuff about government?
Click to expand...
Yang's appeal is that he takes a technocratic approach to problems instead of an ideological one. While I would certainly prefer a candidate with at least come public service background, his policy ideas aren't bad imo.
 
fishonjazz said:
The guns stuff was dumb. I think the Democrats should ease up on that one. Way too many gun owners in america to talk about doing anything extreme at this point. Stick to background checks and magazine capacity and stuff.
I heard Beto say something to the effect of we are coming for your guns. That's just gonna role people up and get them paranoid and do no good whatsoever.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I’m going to disagree and agree here.

Disagree that talking about guns is off putting. Not anymore. Public opinion has moved so far that I think even in key battleground states democrats should discuss openly about gun regulation. People want regulation. They’re tired of the stores, theaters, and schools becoming bloodbaths. They’re tired of being held hostage by the NRA.

I will agree that talking about gun buybacks or confiscation is dumb.

Furthermore, why is Beto doing this?



This makes him look scripted, fake, and making a profit over stuff he shouldn’t. He makes the entire DNC and democratic process look cheap. We’re trying to find out who should be president. This should be taken serious. I’d say only Bernie, Joe, and Warren seem to be treating this with as much seriousness as they should. Yang, Beto, even Kamala at times give me the impression that they’re not ready to be considered serious candidates.
 
Zombie said:
Yang's appeal is that he takes a technocratic approach to problems instead of an ideological one. While I would certainly prefer a candidate with at least come public service background, his policy ideas aren't bad imo.
Click to expand...

Ugh. That’s the opposite of what I want. I guess he might have some good ideas. I’ll take your word for it since I honestly haven't Cared enough to look at his stances.

I want someone who actually knows stuff. Government, allies, foreign policy. I want a politician. I don’t want some smart *** who shoots from the hip. Or someone treating government like a business. I’d rather see someone try and work something through Congress than tweet out nonsense or body surf.

I’m eager for serious politicians in the mold of Bush I, Johnson, Eisenhower, FDR more than “cool guys that I can have a beer with.”

Give me Warren.
 
The Thriller said:
Ugh. That’s the opposite of what I want. I guess he might have some good ideas. I’ll take your word for it since I honestly haven't Cared enough to look at his stances.

I want someone who actually knows stuff. Government, allies, foreign policy. I want a politician. I don’t want some smart *** who shoots from the hip. Or someone treating government like a business. I’d rather see someone try and work something through Congress than tweet out nonsense or body surf.

I’m eager for serious politicians in the mold of Bush I, Johnson, Eisenhower, FDR more than “cool guys that I can have a beer with.”

Give me Warren.
Click to expand...
For sure, Warren is at the top of my list by a mile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top