abolish the senate tia

 

 

Met Booker today. Definitely has the perfect mix of fight+optimism that we need right now. Don't have a horse in the race, yet, but if I HAD to pick it'd probably be him right now.

59 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Met Booker today. Definitely has the perfect mix of fight+optimism that we need right now. Don't have a horse in the race, yet, but if I HAD to pick it'd probably be him right now.

There is almost no living politician I despise more than that snake oil salesman. Which is why you like him, since you like snakes that eat chocolate cakes.  

Reddy, you got kool aid stains all over your face.

Be careful.

41 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

There is almost no living politician I despise more than that snake oil salesman. Which is why you like him, since you like snakes that eat chocolate cakes.  

Reddy, you got kool aid stains all over your face.

Be careful.

Lol this sounds like a story I gotta hear.

His staff loves him. The same can't be said about many of the current hopefuls, and that gives you an inside look into who the person really is. Who are they when the cameras aren't on and they're just running an office? 

And honestly - all policy aside - I think he's one of the candidates with the best chances to win, and y'all know that's all I really care about.

15 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Lol this sounds like a story I gotta hear.

His staff loves him. The same can't be said about many of the current hopefuls, and that gives you an inside look into who the person really is. Who are they when the cameras aren't on and they're just running an office? 

And honestly - all policy aside - I think he's one of the candidates with the best chances to win, and y'all know that's all I really care about.

Win at all costs is largely why we are where we are as a nation. It's also why a good majority of our electorate votes party, and not candidate ... and that's a problem.

Allow me to give a reason why you shouldn't vote party -- let's take me for example. Yeah, me. We may disagree on some things, but I'm sure we'd agree on others. I could likely say that for most of the people that post here. I could never run as a Democratic candidate in Chicago on any level. Why? Glad you asked! Because they already have their established base of candidates and insiders, so there is no way for me to get that necessary letter next to my name. You know what that means? I can run -- but as a republican or an independant, and only because they're far less established.

And ... I'd also lose because I have the wrong letter next to my name, regardless of policy.

And ... from the bottom up, that's largely how our government runs itself these days.

It's to the point that even the politicians vote along party lines, almost regardless of what their constituents think (unless it's in an election year, because win at all costs)!

The only way I could break myself into the Democratic party in Chicago and actually run for anything is if I somehow say something borderline insane that somehow resonates with the people and it goes viral.

Anywayyyyyy ... Daley's staff "loved him" too, until he was gone. And why wouldn't they? He kept them employed.

EDIT: Oh, and good to see you again Reddy -- hope you're doing well.

Edited October 9, 20187 yr by Y2HH

15 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Lol this sounds like a story I gotta hear.

His staff loves him. The same can't be said about many of the current hopefuls, and that gives you an inside look into who the person really is. Who are they when the cameras aren't on and they're just running an office? 

And honestly - all policy aside - I think he's one of the candidates with the best chances to win, and y'all know that's all I really care about.

I can't believe you turned your back on Martin O'Malley. 

I have a feeling Booker would be a lot like Obama. Plenty of soaring rhetoric, in practice a lot of middling at best accomplishments while being way too friendly with certain industries (pharma/finance for Booker).

Just now, StrangeSox said:

I have a feeling Booker would be a lot like Obama. Plenty of soaring rhetoric, in practice a lot of middling at best accomplishments while being way too friendly with certain industries (pharma/finance for Booker).

Based on what I've seen of Booker thus far, it'd be WAY more soaring rhetoric than Obama. At least Obama came across as genuine. Booker comes across as a person that will say whatever an audience wants to hear, so long as you let him say it and keep all the focus and attention on him. And if it's not on him for some reason, he'll just get louder and turn up the rhetoric even more until everyone is paying attention to him again.

Obviously this is just my opinion of the man, so whatever.

15 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Based on what I've seen of Booker thus far, it'd be WAY more soaring rhetoric than Obama. At least Obama came across as genuine. Booker comes across as a person that will say whatever an audience wants to hear, so long as you let him say it and keep all the focus and attention on him. And if it's not on him for some reason, he'll just get louder and turn up the rhetoric even more until everyone is paying attention to him again.

Obviously this is just my opinion of the man, so whatever.

This sounds vaguely familiar for some reason...

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

This sounds vaguely familiar for some reason...

It should.

15 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Win at all costs is largely why we are where we are as a nation. It's also why a good majority of our electorate votes party, and not candidate ... and that's a problem.

Allow me to give a reason why you shouldn't vote party -- let's take me for example. Yeah, me. We may disagree on some things, but I'm sure we'd agree on others. I could likely say that for most of the people that post here. I could never run as a Democratic candidate in Chicago on any level. Why? Glad you asked! Because they already have their established base of candidates and insiders, so there is no way for me to get that necessary letter next to my name. You know what that means? I can run -- but as a republican or an independant, and only because they're far less established.

And ... I'd also lose because I have the wrong letter next to my name, regardless of policy.

And ... from the bottom up, that's largely how our government runs itself these days.

It's to the point that even the politicians vote along party lines, almost regardless of what their constituents think (unless it's in an election year, because win at all costs)!

The only way I could break myself into the Democratic party in Chicago and actually run for anything is if I somehow say something borderline insane that somehow resonates with the people and it goes viral.

Anywayyyyyy ... Daley's staff "loved him" too, until he was gone. And why wouldn't they? He kept them employed.

EDIT: Oh, and good to see you again Reddy -- hope you're doing well.

See Beto O’Rourke in Texas.  He has a better chance to beat Booker than Cruz, realistically.  We’ll find out soon enough.

Any Democrat running in the Deep South, or near west states faces the same odds as you in Chicago...pretty much everywhere between the Heartland and West Coast except Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (aka flyover territory.)  Or all those hundreds of US counties with insignificant populations.

 (North Carolina and Georgia and even TN are trending more Dem as well, even Texas, though.)

We heard yesterday that it’s basically the Dems fault for not successfully running and challenging in those areas (despite gerrymandering and voter rights violations/limited polling stations.)

3 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

See Beto O’Rourke in Texas.  He has a better chance to beat Booker than Cruz, realistically.  We’ll find out soon enough.

Any Democrat running in the Deep South, or near west states faces the same odds as you in Chicago...pretty much everywhere between the Heartland and West Coast except Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico (aka flyover territory.)  Or all those hundreds of US counties with insignificant populations.

 (North Carolina and Georgia and even TN are trending more Dem as well, even Texas, though.)

We heard yesterday that it’s basically the Dems fault for not successfully running and challenging in those areas (despite gerrymandering and voter rights violations/limited polling stations.)

From everything I've seen/read, Beto seems like a good dude.

I just don't like his name.

It's like Beta, but not. ?

There’s no way in hell Booker gets the nomination in this environment...especially post-Kavanaugh (unless Trump starts World War III.)

Much more likely to end up with Warren, Klobuchar, Harris, Gilibrand, etc.

Id even venture O’Rourke, Avenatti or even Garcetti have better openings to win.

Just now, Y2HH said:

From everything I've seen/read, Beto seems like a good dude.

I just don't like his name.

It's like Beta, but not. ?

And Barack Hussein Obama was better?

Well, they’re definitely both memorable...and the fight for Hispanic votes is just as significant as any political battle going on today and in the future.

Just now, caulfield12 said:

There’s no way in hell Booker gets the nomination in this environment...especially post-Kavanaugh (unless Trump starts World War III.)

Much more likely to end up with Warren, Klobuchar, Harris, Gilibrand, etc.

Id even venture O’Rourke, Avenatti or even Garcetti have better openings to win.

Please not Avenatti -- this dude is just slime. And he looks kind of like me, so I really hate him.

He's IMO, one of the main things that severely undermined Ford's account against Kavanaugh because he took what looked like a legit claim and just started tossing out obvious lies and tall tales to get attention. Asshole.

1 minute ago, caulfield12 said:

And Barack Hussein Obama was better?

Well, they’re definitely both memorable...and the fight for Hispanic votes is just as significant as any political battle going on today and in the future.

I don't have an issue with Barack's name at all. *shrug*

Is Taylor Swift old enough to run?

Seriously, we don’t need any more Oprah’s or Cuban’s, we actually need candidates who already have a firm grasp on policy issues so they can hit the ground running in areas like education, health care, the environment, technology, infrastructure/retraining and world geopolitics.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/bernie-sanders-midterms-campaign-trip-iowa-south-carolina/index.html

Reddy will love this, Bernie Sanders coming to Iowa and a slew of other states...not for his Reddy Millennial candidate, of course.  He’s getting involved in the effort to wipe out Rep. Steve King instead.

Edited October 9, 20187 yr by caulfield12

2 hours ago, Y2HH said:

There is almost no living politician I despise more than that snake oil salesman. Which is why you like him, since you like snakes that eat chocolate cakes.  

Reddy, you got kool aid stains all over your face.

Be careful.

There could be hundreds that you hate more I am also sure of it. If Warren ran we would hear Pocohantas non-stop for two years.

3 minutes ago, pcq said:

There could be hundreds that you hate more I am also sure of it. If Warren ran we would hear Pocohantas non-stop for two years.

Eh, I'm sure you'll get some of that -- but she brought that little nickname upon herself. That said, no, I don't care for her much, either. But I'd take her over Booker.

1 hour ago, GoSox05 said:

I can't believe you turned your back on Martin O'Malley. 

Choosing between the two would be so painful for me.

1 hour ago, Y2HH said:

Win at all costs is largely why we are where we are as a nation. It's also why a good majority of our electorate votes party, and not candidate ... and that's a problem.

Allow me to give a reason why you shouldn't vote party -- let's take me for example. Yeah, me. We may disagree on some things, but I'm sure we'd agree on others. I could likely say that for most of the people that post here. I could never run as a Democratic candidate in Chicago on any level. Why? Glad you asked! Because they already have their established base of candidates and insiders, so there is no way for me to get that necessary letter next to my name. You know what that means? I can run -- but as a republican or an independant, and only because they're far less established.

And ... I'd also lose because I have the wrong letter next to my name, regardless of policy.

And ... from the bottom up, that's largely how our government runs itself these days.

It's to the point that even the politicians vote along party lines, almost regardless of what their constituents think (unless it's in an election year, because win at all costs)!

The only way I could break myself into the Democratic party in Chicago and actually run for anything is if I somehow say something borderline insane that somehow resonates with the people and it goes viral.

Anywayyyyyy ... Daley's staff "loved him" too, until he was gone. And why wouldn't they? He kept them employed.

EDIT: Oh, and good to see you again Reddy -- hope you're doing well.

There's a difference in entrenched deep Blue cities. That's where the party thing goes out the window. But federally it's gotta be about the D.

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

There’s no way in hell Booker gets the nomination in this environment...especially post-Kavanaugh (unless Trump starts World War III.)

Much more likely to end up with Warren, Klobuchar, Harris, Gilibrand, etc.

Id even venture O’Rourke, Avenatti or even Garcetti have better openings to win.

Why would Booker have a worse shot than Avenatti/Garcetti/ORourke? That's madness. 

55 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/bernie-sanders-midterms-campaign-trip-iowa-south-carolina/index.html

Reddy will love this, Bernie Sanders coming to Iowa and a slew of other states...not for his Reddy Millennial candidate, of course.  He’s getting involved in the effort to wipe out Rep. Steve King instead.

He's the last person we want here in IA01. He's also going to hurt JD. 

Just say no to Corpy Booker.

50 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Just say no to Corpy Booker.

I legit can't tell is this supposed to be an insult?