Sign up  |  Log in

Elizabeth ”Pocahontas” Warren running for president

How many times will Donald bring up the ancestry debacle if they end up going toe to toe? 

If you're the first out the door, that's not called panicking

1/1024 chance of victory

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

It is pretty Sad that the Democrats haven’t scraped together a more compelling 2020 campaign package. Elizabeth Warren is the front runner for their nomination, but probably lacks the mainstream appeal and charismatic personality to win against Trump. Her claim of Native American heritage is embarrassing and her career vendetta against corporatism and capitalism is far from the foremost concern of most US voters. ”Medicare for All” at this point, is too vague and conceptual, and lacks the emotional impact of other issues, like immigration, gun control, terrorism, taxes, etc. These hags and geezers are trying to repeat 2016, rather than invigorate their platform with an innovative new direction. 

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

ohai wrote:

It is pretty Sad that the Democrats haven’t scraped together a more compelling 2020 campaign package. Elizabeth Warren is the front runner for their nomination, but probably lacks the mainstream appeal and charismatic personality to win against Trump. Her claim of Native American heritage is embarrassing and her career vendetta against corporatism and capitalism is far from the foremost concern of most US voters. ”Medicare for All” at this point, is too vague and conceptual, and lacks the emotional impact of other issues, like immigration, gun control, terrorism, taxes, etc. These hags and geezers are trying to repeat 2016, rather than invigorate their platform with an innovative new direction. 


It’s 2018. The election is 20+ months away. Not having a coherent package for the 2020 election now is kinda normal.

Trump just needs another money laundering tool, now that his foundation is gone. It’s not normal to have everything set-up this early.

Codtrawler87 wrote:
How many times will Donald bring up the ancestry debacle if they end up going toe to toe?

I have no idea.

But here’s a good video for anyone named Codtrawler:

Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.

Financial Exam Help 123: The place to get help for the CFA® exams
http://financialexamhelp123.com/

Codtrawler87 wrote:

How many times will Donald bring up the ancestry debacle if they end up going toe to toe? 

In 2016 Dems suffered the most embarrassing defeat in the US politics to date. We are slowly inching towards 2020 and Dems are yet to bring forth any serious candidate to face Mr.Trump. Tells everything you need to know about degradation of the Democratic party. 

*Disclosure: I’m an old school democrat. However I’m not a modern democrat who would identify himself with a party which concentrates on petty race and identity politics and whether there are 2 or 6 genders and should each public building have a bathroom for each gender. 

It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

TrackSuitInvestor wrote:

Codtrawler87 wrote:

How many times will Donald bring up the ancestry debacle if they end up going toe to toe? 

In 2016 Dems suffered the most embarrassing defeat in the US politics to date. We are slowly inching towards 2020 and Dems are yet to bring forth any serious candidate to face Mr.Trump. Tells everything you need to know about degradation of the Democratic party. 

*Disclosure: I’m an old school democrat. However I’m not a modern democrat who would identify himself with a party which concentrates on petty race and identity politics and whether there are 2 or 6 genders and should each public building have a bathroom for each gender. 

Just so you know, there are democrats outside of what you see on Fox news.

The modern democrats focus on: Medicare for all, the green new deal, campaign finance reform, ethics reform, and voting rights reinstatement.

The modern republicans focus on: Tax cuts, entitlement cuts, and anti-immigration.

For 2020 it’s not hard for me to pick a side.

Schopenhauer wrote:

TrackSuitInvestor wrote:

Codtrawler87 wrote:

How many times will Donald bring up the ancestry debacle if they end up going toe to toe? 

In 2016 Dems suffered the most embarrassing defeat in the US politics to date. We are slowly inching towards 2020 and Dems are yet to bring forth any serious candidate to face Mr.Trump. Tells everything you need to know about degradation of the Democratic party. 

*Disclosure: I’m an old school democrat. However I’m not a modern democrat who would identify himself with a party which concentrates on petty race and identity politics and whether there are 2 or 6 genders and should each public building have a bathroom for each gender. 

Just so you know, there are democrats outside of what you see on Fox news.

The modern democrats focus on: Medicare for all, the green new deal, campaign finance reform, ethics reform, and voting rights reinstatement.

The modern republicans focus on: Tax cuts, entitlement cuts, and anti-immigration.

For 2020 it’s not hard for me to pick a side.

I don’t watch Fox News; it’s not a major station in Europe where I’m based.

But while you’re at it, please name a serious modern Dem contender for 2020. Who will it be? Bernie? Ocasio-Cortez? Clinton? Warren? Bloomberg?

It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

TrackSuitInvestor wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

TrackSuitInvestor wrote:

Codtrawler87 wrote:

How many times will Donald bring up the ancestry debacle if they end up going toe to toe? 

In 2016 Dems suffered the most embarrassing defeat in the US politics to date. We are slowly inching towards 2020 and Dems are yet to bring forth any serious candidate to face Mr.Trump. Tells everything you need to know about degradation of the Democratic party. 

*Disclosure: I’m an old school democrat. However I’m not a modern democrat who would identify himself with a party which concentrates on petty race and identity politics and whether there are 2 or 6 genders and should each public building have a bathroom for each gender. 

Just so you know, there are democrats outside of what you see on Fox news.

The modern democrats focus on: Medicare for all, the green new deal, campaign finance reform, ethics reform, and voting rights reinstatement.

The modern republicans focus on: Tax cuts, entitlement cuts, and anti-immigration.

For 2020 it’s not hard for me to pick a side.

I don’t watch Fox News; it’s not a major station in Europe where I’m based.

But while you’re at it, please name a serious modern Dem contender for 2020. Who will it be? Bernie? Ocasio-Cortez? Clinton? Warren? Bloomberg?

Then I don’t know where you get your opinion from on the left in the USA, but i’d recommend you diversify a bit.

It’s 2018, the election doesn’t happen tomorrow. There’s a lot of time to decide.

But I’ll bite: Most of those aren’t going to run. (AOC is too young, clinton has stepped out of politics). I’d also add, Booker, Harris, Hirono. I’m not really sure which one has the best ideas since well, it’s still super early. There’s also probably a few more i don’t even know of.

There hasn’t been a debate yet, hell I only know of 1 person who has declared that they are interested in running.

Wait until June 2020 before you complain about the Dem’s chances in Nov 2020. Trump wasn’t taken seriously this early for 2016 and look how that turned out.

Schopenhauer wrote:

TrackSuitInvestor wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

TrackSuitInvestor wrote:

Codtrawler87 wrote:

How many times will Donald bring up the ancestry debacle if they end up going toe to toe? 

In 2016 Dems suffered the most embarrassing defeat in the US politics to date. We are slowly inching towards 2020 and Dems are yet to bring forth any serious candidate to face Mr.Trump. Tells everything you need to know about degradation of the Democratic party. 

*Disclosure: I’m an old school democrat. However I’m not a modern democrat who would identify himself with a party which concentrates on petty race and identity politics and whether there are 2 or 6 genders and should each public building have a bathroom for each gender. 

Just so you know, there are democrats outside of what you see on Fox news.

The modern democrats focus on: Medicare for all, the green new deal, campaign finance reform, ethics reform, and voting rights reinstatement.

The modern republicans focus on: Tax cuts, entitlement cuts, and anti-immigration.

For 2020 it’s not hard for me to pick a side.

I don’t watch Fox News; it’s not a major station in Europe where I’m based.

But while you’re at it, please name a serious modern Dem contender for 2020. Who will it be? Bernie? Ocasio-Cortez? Clinton? Warren? Bloomberg?

Then I don’t know where you get your opinion from on the left in the USA, but i’d recommend you diversify a bit.

It’s 2018, the election doesn’t happen tomorrow. There’s a lot of time to decide.

But I’ll bite: Most of those aren’t going to run. (AOC is too young, clinton has stepped out of politics). I’d also add, Booker, Harris, Hirono. I’m not really sure which one has the best ideas since well, it’s still super early. There’s also probably a few more i don’t even know of.

There hasn’t been a debate yet, hell I only know of 1 person who has declared that they are interested in running.

Wait until June 2020 before you complain about the Dem’s chances in Nov 2020. Trump wasn’t taken seriously this early for 2016 and look how that turned out.

I really hope you’re right but I doubt it. Dems lack leadership. No real strong characters who would be able to stand up against Trump. 

The fact is that tomorrow is 2019 and Dems don’t have a single strong candidate for 2020. Evicting the sitting President from the White House is a difficult even with a strong candidate, never mind with run-of-the-mill candidate. 

It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

Crooked Hillary should run again.

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

hpracing007 wrote:

Crooked Hillary should run again.

Read a ny times opinion piece in November in which some pundit claimed that her latest political moves point into that direction. Personally, I’d love to see whether the 3rd time is the charm.   

If you're the first out the door, that's not called panicking

Lots of these people probably have steps in place for the 5% probability that they will take some campaign action. You know someone like Hillary probably still has an office running her day-to-day stuff, including political commitments. Plus the Clinton IT division still needs to run, amiright?

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

Texas has two politicians that the Dems should consider: Julian Castro and Beto. 

Edit - just to note—I’m a libertarian who leans more republican than democrat. 

82 > 87
Simple math.

It’s interesting how much out of state support and news coverage Beto got.

We’re gonna win so much, you may even get tired of winning. And you’ll say, 'Please, please. It’s too much winning. We can’t take it anymore. Mr. President, it’s too much.' And I’ll say, 'No, it isn’t!' We have to keep winning!

You were saving this one for a long time.  But still pretty funny.

hpracing007 wrote:

1/1024 chance of victory

A Biden-Beto ticket is a potential dynasty in the making.  Beto can unite the left, and biden will crush trump with centrists.  All those bizarre joe biden quirks will seem charming next to the awful human being that is trump.  Trump’s base of Israel first evangelicals, supreme court religious fanatics, and immigration hawks are just too small, even with 100% turnout.

Biden is legit getting too old.  Also, who wants to spend their last years in a mudslinging ugly campaign risking their legacy.  I think Trump is his greatest defense, Hillary had her legacy ruined to “the lady who lost ot Trump” and even sullied Bill in the process.  Even if you win, you probably come out with mud on you.  I think anybody reasonable with stuff to lose is probably thinking about waiting a term.  You couldn’t pay me to put my family through that, especially if I was already a high profile person.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Why Biden specifically though? There have to be like 20 Democrat Senators, Governors, or similar, who have all the same qualities, but not the political baggage of being associated with Obamacare or other policies that will galvanize right leaning voters. Nowadays, a long political record is a liability. Just look at Hillary - not one of her political achievements shone as positive to her campaign, but lots of things became negative, like Benghazi, emails, and so on. 

“Visit the Water Cooler forum on Analyst Forum. It is the best forum.”
- Everyone

It’s more of the fake pearl-clutching the right loves.

Warren isn’t unpopular due to the myth of the ancestral claim, but something else.

Why don’t we have the same outrage when Trump lies all of the time? This isn’t up for debate, Donald Trump lies more often than he tells the truth: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ .  Clearly the lies/truth doesn’t matter. It can’t be race since y’all think Warren is white and so is Trump.

Similar to Hilary, there’s enough propaganda coming from Fox that people think Warren is unlikable, despite not being able to point to anything particularly wrong with her. That this creates a false dislike, rather than something concrete.
 

You just made the case for Biden, Obamacare isn’t baggage anymore, turns out it’s something people wanted but wanted it delivered better. Emails and benghazi, really?  No chance emails comes up, given ivanka and jared and kelly all used personal emails.  Benghazi, was a total swift-boat, and now trump has his own benghazi with those special forces killed in Mali, except the incompetent dems can’t exploit it.  Not to mention, Ordinary Joe isn’t really connected to the big negatives.  Biggest bet though is that after trump, i bet americans don’t go for more hyper-partisanship, they push toward the center – that dings kamala, booker, and warren – Joe doesn’t scare middle of the road conservatives or reagan dems.  Not sure how much wishful thinking is in that bet.  Like BS said tho, age is an issue – Biden at 75 vs trump at 72…that’s why I think a youthful Beto  can be a good combo. 

ohai wrote:

Why Biden specifically though? There have to be like 20 Democrat Senators, Governors, or similar, who have all the same qualities, but not the political baggage of being associated with Obamacare or other policies that will galvanize right leaning voters. Nowadays, a long political record is a liability. Just look at Hillary - not one of her political achievements shone as positive to her campaign, but lots of things became negative, like Benghazi, emails, and so on. 

Warren is a bomb thrower not unlike trump.  She’s entertaining and has more intellectual heft than trump, but I think if she won, then the dems quickly lose both the house and senate and her one-term presidency is mired in gridlock.  It would be entertaining tho, if all we want is a presidency reality show.

Schopenhauer wrote:

It’s more of the fake pearl-clutching the right loves.

Warren isn’t unpopular due to the myth of the ancestral claim, but something else.

Why don’t we have the same outrage when Trump lies all of the time? This isn’t up for debate, Donald Trump lies more often than he tells the truth: https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ .  Clearly the lies/truth doesn’t matter. It can’t be race since y’all think Warren is white and so is Trump.

Similar to Hilary, there’s enough propaganda coming from Fox that people think Warren is unlikable, despite not being able to point to anything particularly wrong with her. That this creates a false dislike, rather than something concrete.
 

Schopenhauer wrote:

Similar to Hilary, there’s enough propaganda coming from Fox that people think Warren is unlikable, despite not being able to point to anything particularly wrong with her. That this creates a false dislike, rather than something concrete.
 

To clarify, are you suggesting that 

1. Hilary was not well-liked by the voting population

2. This was the result of propaganda by Fox

3. There was nothing particularly wrong with Hilary as a candidate?

startuppivot wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Similar to Hilary, there’s enough propaganda coming from Fox that people think Warren is unlikable, despite not being able to point to anything particularly wrong with her. That this creates a false dislike, rather than something concrete.
 

To clarify, are you suggesting that 

1. Hilary was not well-liked by the voting population

2. This was the result of propaganda by Fox

3. There was nothing particularly wrong with Hilary as a candidate?


I’m saying that due to propaganda by Fox Hilary was held to a different standard as a candidate.

That by manufacturing controversies (number of indictments for emails/benghazi = 0, russia-gate: Like 15, so far and it’s not close to being done) HRC is deemed unlikable/untrustworthy while Trump is worse but penalized less.

Schopenhauer wrote:

startuppivot wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Similar to Hilary, there’s enough propaganda coming from Fox that people think Warren is unlikable, despite not being able to point to anything particularly wrong with her. That this creates a false dislike, rather than something concrete.
 

To clarify, are you suggesting that 

1. Hilary was not well-liked by the voting population

2. This was the result of propaganda by Fox

3. There was nothing particularly wrong with Hilary as a candidate?


I’m saying that due to propaganda by Fox Hilary was held to a different standard as a candidate.

That by manufacturing controversies (number of indictments for emails/benghazi = 0, russia-gate: Like 15, so far and it’s not close to being done) HRC is deemed unlikable/untrustworthy while Trump is worse but penalized less.

Agree, liberal media took the high road and avoided casting Trump as unlikeable/untrustworthy and avoided manufacturing controversies and it has backfired.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Schopenhauer wrote:

startuppivot wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Similar to Hilary, there’s enough propaganda coming from Fox that people think Warren is unlikable, despite not being able to point to anything particularly wrong with her. That this creates a false dislike, rather than something concrete.
 

To clarify, are you suggesting that 

1. Hilary was not well-liked by the voting population

2. This was the result of propaganda by Fox

3. There was nothing particularly wrong with Hilary as a candidate?


I’m saying that due to propaganda by Fox Hilary was held to a different standard as a candidate.

That by manufacturing controversies (number of indictments for emails/benghazi = 0, russia-gate: Like 15, so far and it’s not close to being done) HRC is deemed unlikable/untrustworthy while Trump is worse but penalized less.

1. Without opining on whether Hilary “deserved it”, I agree that Fox laid it on pretty thick in regard to Hilary. FOX clearly has a conservative slant.

2. But where I’m not ready to agree is the part where you take it a step further and insinuate Hilary was the victim of some double standard in the media. I feel like we’re not on the same planet right now and am genuinely curious as to where you got to that. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-med...

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/301285-media-and-trump-bias...

In the 15 months before the 2016 election, the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Politico, Washington Post, Slate, and the New York Times all reported more favorably to Clinton.

Black Swan wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

startuppivot wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Similar to Hilary, there’s enough propaganda coming from Fox that people think Warren is unlikable, despite not being able to point to anything particularly wrong with her. That this creates a false dislike, rather than something concrete.
 

To clarify, are you suggesting that 

1. Hilary was not well-liked by the voting population

2. This was the result of propaganda by Fox

3. There was nothing particularly wrong with Hilary as a candidate?


I’m saying that due to propaganda by Fox Hilary was held to a different standard as a candidate.

That by manufacturing controversies (number of indictments for emails/benghazi = 0, russia-gate: Like 15, so far and it’s not close to being done) HRC is deemed unlikable/untrustworthy while Trump is worse but penalized less.

Agree, liberal media took the high road and avoided casting Trump as unlikeable/untrustworthy and avoided manufacturing controversies and it has backfired.

I want to clarify that this was sarcasm and I agree with startup.  To act like media bias is why Hillary lost is to live on some other planet where large swaths of media weren’t doing the same crap to Trump.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

startuppivot wrote:

1. Without opining on whether Hilary “deserved it”, I agree that Fox laid it on pretty thick in regard to Hilary. FOX clearly has a conservative slant.

I’d say Fox has a Republican slant…that is really not conservatism these days.

you basically need to come from a target school pedigree/work at prestigious firm in the US/have a really good connection.

- AF hivemind

Tulsi Gabbard with Joe Rogan as her VP 2020 dem ticket. This would win

startuppivot wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

startuppivot wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Similar to Hilary, there’s enough propaganda coming from Fox that people think Warren is unlikable, despite not being able to point to anything particularly wrong with her. That this creates a false dislike, rather than something concrete.
 

To clarify, are you suggesting that 

1. Hilary was not well-liked by the voting population

2. This was the result of propaganda by Fox

3. There was nothing particularly wrong with Hilary as a candidate?


I’m saying that due to propaganda by Fox Hilary was held to a different standard as a candidate.

That by manufacturing controversies (number of indictments for emails/benghazi = 0, russia-gate: Like 15, so far and it’s not close to being done) HRC is deemed unlikable/untrustworthy while Trump is worse but penalized less.

1. Without opining on whether Hilary “deserved it”, I agree that Fox laid it on pretty thick in regard to Hilary. FOX clearly has a conservative slant.

2. But where I’m not ready to agree is the part where you take it a step further and insinuate Hilary was the victim of some double standard in the media. I feel like we’re not on the same planet right now and am genuinely curious as to where you got to that. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-med...

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/301285-media-and-trump-bias...

In the 15 months before the 2016 election, the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Politico, Washington Post, Slate, and the New York Times all reported more favorably to Clinton.

The issue isn’t with legitimate news sources, you’re looking at WSJ/WaPo which aren’t the issue.

IThis is why I think Kanye kind of had a point, to his credit Trump was able to change the rules of how politics works. He manage to fundamentally shift the landscape which is why he won.

You seem reasonable and know Fox has a slant, but so does Breitbart Infowars, etc. Some people actually treat these things at legit news sources.

That’s where I think the flaw in your reasoning is, that you’re not looking at studies that reflect the voters. That we live in different universes from each other.

Here’s a link that explains it a little bit better:

https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2017/08/mediacloud

“We find that the structure and composition of media on the right and left are quite different. The leading media on the right and left are rooted in different traditions and journalistic practices. On the conservative side, more attention was paid to pro-Trump, highly partisan media outlets. On the liberal side, by contrast, the center of gravity was made up largely of long-standing media organizations steeped in the traditions and practices of objective journalism.”

But here’s the actual impact:

“Donald Trump succeeded in shaping the election agenda. Coverage of Trump overwhelmingly outperformed coverage of Clinton. Clinton’s coverage was focused on scandals, while Trump’s coverage focused on his core issues.”

This is the double standard I’m talking about. The ‘grab her by the *****’ tape should have been the end of Trump, but somehow we aren’t talking about it. But Hillary’s emails were talked about plenty.