Kansas Crimson

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:42 am**

Why not delete it? She already explained to all you idiots "what it is." It's not up to her to listen to you pissants respond to "what it is." If you don't get "what it is," that's on you, not her.

You should be thanking her, Gutman.

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:52 am**

chiknbut wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 9:42 am Why not delete it? She already explained to all you idiots "what it is." It's not up to her to listen to you pissants respond to "what it is." If you don't get "what it is," that's on you, not her.

You should be thanking her, Gutman.

I would have preferred to thank her for deleting them before I took the time to respond.
She was originally looking for attention and I gave it to her.
Forgetting me, there were a lot of others who responded in support of - and against her.
I felt there was legitimate potential for SOME respectful and meaningful dialogue between those who were open to it. Of course there were some who I assume had no interest in having a discussion with anyone who feels differently than they do.

* ON HERE, I am going to delete her post and my and the other woman's response. Out of respect to Tamara. Clearly she didn't want others to see what either she had posted or other's responses.

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:56 am**

The one part of Michelle Obama's speech that made me cringe was when she said that Biden had "given his personal cell phone number to kids suffering with a severe stutter". As soon as she said it, I cringed at the inevitable ignorant blowback from the #SaveOurChildren loonies and they have lived up to my expectations.

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:06 am**

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:56 am The one part of Michelle Obama's speech that made me cringe was when she said that Biden had "given his personal cell phone number to kids suffering with a severe stutter". As soon as she said it, I cringed at the inevitable ignorant blowback from the #SaveOurChildren loonies and they have lived up to my expectations.

You're not wrong. But I also think it was intentionally included, to remind people that he has a speech impediment.

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:22 am**

I'd still give Biden the edge this time, but... as Obama once said "Don't underestimate Biden's ability to f--- things up."

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:24 am**

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:22 am I'd still give Biden the edge this time, but... as Obama once said "Don't underestimate Biden's ability to f--- things up."

So far, he's doing exactly what he should: not feeding the Trump fire much oxygen. If all Trump has on him is that he "won't come out of his basement," that won't be enough to land a punch.

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:25 am**

trump does enough on his own to garner support for biden

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:31 am**

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:06 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 10:56 am The one part of Michelle Obama's speech that made me cringe was when she said that Biden had "given his personal cell phone number to kids suffering with a severe stutter". As soon as she said it, I cringed at the inevitable ignorant blowback from the #SaveOurChildren loonies and they have lived up to my expectations.
You're not wrong. But I also think it was intentionally included, to remind people that he has a speech impediment.

Agreed but there had to be 10 better ways to share that. It has turned into chum for the kooks.

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:35 am**

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:22 am I'd still give Biden the edge this time, but... as Obama once said "Don't underestimate Biden's ability to f--- things up."

Uh-huh, one obscure anonymous source makes this quote completely true.
Smh.

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:36 am**

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:22 am I'd still give Biden the edge this time, but... as Obama once said "Don't underestimate Biden's ability to f--- things up."

I would love to see Obama and Biden sit down in an interview and talk about their differences. America needs to understand that recognizing the different skills and needs of others is important. Their shtick in this election certainly seems to be an effort to show a uniting of differing opinions and beliefs in an effort to move forward together.

No candidate is perfect because no person is perfect. We just need to get this grifter out of office so we can start actually trying to make some progress again.

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:41 am**

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:36 am
Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:22 am I'd still give Biden the edge this time, but... as Obama once said "Don't underestimate Biden's ability to f--- things up."
I would love to see Obama and Biden sit down in an interview and talk about their differences. America needs to understand that recognizing the different skills and needs of others is important. Their shtick in this election certainly seems to be an effort to show a uniting of differing opinions and beliefs in an effort to move forward together.

No candidate is perfect because no person is perfect. We just need to get this grifter out of office so we can start actually trying to make some progress again.

In a normal election, I'd agree with the sentiment behind the suggestion. Here, I don't think you can risk doing something that might make any number of Obama supporters decline to support Biden.

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:26 pm**

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:41 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:36 am
Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:22 am I'd still give Biden the edge this time, but... as Obama once said "Don't underestimate Biden's ability to f--- things up."
I would love to see Obama and Biden sit down in an interview and talk about their differences. America needs to understand that recognizing the different skills and needs of others is important. Their shtick in this election certainly seems to be an effort to show a uniting of differing opinions and beliefs in an effort to move forward together.

No candidate is perfect because no person is perfect. We just need to get this grifter out of office so we can start actually trying to make some progress again.
In a normal election, I'd agree with the sentiment behind the suggestion. Here, I don't think you can risk doing something that might make any number of Obama supporters decline to support Biden.

Precisely the reason for what I presume is a BS "leak" of that comment that is not even close to verified.

Posted: **Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:14 pm**

Gotta give AOC credit -- she didn't go with the herd and spoke out in support for Sanders. As flawed as Sanders is, I too would rather have him than Biden.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:07 am**

I find it interesting. AOC has endorsed Biden and serves on his campaign’s climate policy panel.
Her "excuse" was/is....
"If you were confused, no worries!
Convention rules require roll call & nominations for every candidate that passes the delegate threshold.
I was asked to 2nd the nom for Sen. Sanders for roll call".

So the DNC said we will give AOC a minute and a half (which is a minute and a half more than they gave me) to speak and that was what she came up with - and they pre-approved it. Hmmmm.
Since AOC is often all about AOC - I wonder if she felt last night helped or hurt her.
I ask because let's be honest, BO was given about 15-20 minutes at the 2004 DNC and that was what most helped catapult him to national prominence and possibly what most helped his political career.
In other words, perhaps the DNC is not so enamored with AOC?

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:05 am**

I haven't paid much attention to the DNC (at least yet), but if libs are quarreling over ideological purity, go figure.

In a sense, credit libs for even possessing any ideological purity, since it's not a frequent thing to possess any more.

but in the context of this election, I just dunno how much it matters, considering the conservative sense of ideological purity is, Donald Trump.

(which is to say, I'm not sure conservatives ever really had any ideological purity, beyond "owning the libs" and/or a general sense of winning.)

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:09 am**

Grandma wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:07 am I find it interesting. AOC has endorsed Biden and serves on his campaign’s climate policy panel.
Her "excuse" was/is....
"If you were confused, no worries!
Convention rules require roll call & nominations for every candidate that passes the delegate threshold.
I was asked to 2nd the nom for Sen. Sanders for roll call".

So the DNC said we will give AOC a minute and a half (which is a minute and a half more than they gave me) to speak and that was what she came up with - and they pre-approved it. Hmmmm.
Since AOC is often all about AOC - I wonder if she felt last night helped or hurt her.
I ask because let's be honest, BO was given about 15-20 minutes at the 2004 DNC and that was what most helped catapult him to national prominence and possibly what most helped his political career.
In other words, perhaps the DNC is not so enamored with AOC?

This DNC is nothing similar to any before it. No sense comparing it. The Dems have decided to try to make this year about including a lot of different voices. Even Bill Clinton only got 5 minutes.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2020 10:35 am**

Bill probably only wanted 5min.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:32 am**

It was a bit surprising given that she was angry at Sanders for going on the Joe Rogan podcast.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:26 pm**

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:14 pm Gotta give AOC credit -- she didn't go with the herd and spoke out in support for Sanders. As flawed as Sanders is, I too would rather have him than Biden.

Much like your declaration about a housing crisis in 2019, you are dead wrong. Moronically wrong.

AOC "seconded" the nomination of Sanders because of the number of delegates he earned. It's normal procedure in a political convention. This allows Bernie, if he wishes, to pledge his delegates to Biden.

Once again, Walrus/Lobby either knows this and is just trolling or is an idiot.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:27 pm**

Having another bad day?

Kansas Crimson

DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC

Re: DNC