Kansas Crimson

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:39 pm**

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:58 pm
lobster wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:33 pm Sad, sad deterioration into identity politics. That's not going to help convince voters.
Isn't that what the candidates you seem to like have been doing?

Delaney didn't do that.

No. I didn't say I liked Warren, I said she performed the best last night. The only two people I would vote for of this bunch are Gabbard and Yang. Yang is by far the best option the democrats have. Gabbard is the only one who is talking about getting us away from the wars the Middle East. Also, notice how when Gabbard was asked about the "pay gap" she dodged the question. Why? She doesn't believe in that nonsense or the identity politics b.s.

Delaney wasn't bad at all, and I agree with you that he was one of the better options. However, he doesn't really stand out enough.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:44 pm**

I dunno, just made it up.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:50 pm**

lobster wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:41 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:05 am
lobster wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 11:15 pm Who I would want: Yang / Gabbard

Who I think will be it: Sanders / Warren

I really don't think Trump has much of a chance of winning, unless Biden is chosen as the Democrat. That would be sure win for Trump.
I think you vastly underestimate the number of people who will be simply voting against Trump. None of the most likely Dem candidates would be a sure win for Trump.
I am just guessing -- obviously I do not know what is going to happen. My theory is that whenever people are "voting against someone", the other person usually wins. This happened in 2004 when Kerry lost, and in 2016 when Clinton lost. You've got to have someone who people can feel excited about in the beginning. Yang, Gabbard, Warren, Sanders -- all of them represent something new. If you have just the old VP as the guy as damage control, he probably won't win.

People didnt know enough to vote against Trump in 2016. My guess is the he was the beneficiary of many votes from people voting against Clinton.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:51 pm**

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:19 pm I dont care about the Spanish speaking one way or another, I just find it unnecessary and think it comes off looking like purely a ploy for voters.

Isnt the whole point of televised debates to appeal to potential voters?

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:54 pm**

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:19 pm I think it's great they speak Spanish. I don't tune in to the debates to see that. It comes across as pandering. And to say "They're fucking policians, aren't they?"? Warren and Delaney managed to have a discussion on the issues. So no, they don't all do it.

I was going to be a Biden voter in the primaries before tonight. I've switched to Delaney (if he makes it to my state, which he won't).

So you only want them to pander to you and pandering to people not like you is annoying?

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:58 pm**

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:50 pm
lobster wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:41 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:05 am
I think you vastly underestimate the number of people who will be simply voting against Trump. None of the most likely Dem candidates would be a sure win for Trump.
I am just guessing -- obviously I do not know what is going to happen. My theory is that whenever people are "voting against someone", the other person usually wins. This happened in 2004 when Kerry lost, and in 2016 when Clinton lost. You've got to have someone who people can feel excited about in the beginning. Yang, Gabbard, Warren, Sanders -- all of them represent something new. If you have just the old VP as the guy as damage control, he probably won't win.
People didnt know enough to vote against Trump in 2016. My guess is the he was the beneficiary of many votes from people voting against Clinton.

You're not wrong. There was definitely a lot of that. But a lot of Trump's support came from people who liked that he spoke his mind and didn't try to act like a traditional politician. A lot of people were genuinely excited by his ideas. Other voters chose him because they felt like they were part of the blue-collar group who was left behind. In other words, it was a little complex in how he got support.

One other really important thing that helped Trump win was his support on the internet and Youtube. Some of the new democrats are going on shows like Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin because they realize the internet has more power these days than the news outlets. Don't underestimate the importance of Youtube, Reddit, and all the internet sites that spread information.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:08 pm**

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:51 pm
TDub wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:19 pm I dont care about the Spanish speaking one way or another, I just find it unnecessary and think it comes off looking like purely a ploy for voters.
Isnt the whole point of televised debates to appeal to potential voters?

You and oussie should put your heads together, huddle up and see if you can figure this out.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:28 pm**

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:58 pm
twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:50 pm
lobster wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:41 am

I am just guessing -- obviously I do not know what is going to happen. My theory is that whenever people are "voting against someone", the other person usually wins. This happened in 2004 when Kerry lost, and in 2016 when Clinton lost. You've got to have someone who people can feel excited about in the beginning. Yang, Gabbard, Warren, Sanders -- all of them represent something new. If you have just the old VP as the guy as damage control, he probably won't win.
People didnt know enough to vote against Trump in 2016. My guess is the he was the beneficiary of many votes from people voting against Clinton.
You're not wrong. There was definitely a lot of that. But a lot of Trump's support came from people who liked that he spoke his mind and didn't try to act like a traditional politician. A lot of people were genuinely excited by his ideas. Other voters chose him because they felt like they were part of the blue-collar group who was left behind. In other words, it was a little complex in how he got support.

One other really important thing that helped Trump win was his support on the internet and Youtube. Some of the new democrats are going on shows like Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin because they realize the internet has more power these days than the news outlets. Don't underestimate the importance of Youtube, Reddit, and all the internet sites that spread information.

The Russians sure agree.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:34 pm**

Funny how you believe conspiracy when it's in your best interest, but deny it when it's obvious.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 3:34 pm**

WTC 7 is obviously a conspiracy theory.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:50 pm**

I was just making a point. I actually agree with you that there was some Russian influence on the election. Perhaps you should not stop researching there. People really do conspire to hide and do illegal things. The stigma of conspiracy is used until people can prove it really happened.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:32 pm**

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:50 pm I was just making a point. I actually agree with you that there was some Russian influence on the election. Perhaps you should not stop researching there. People really do conspire to hide and do illegal things. The stigma of conspiracy is used until people can prove it really happened.

The intelligence community has proven countless times that it happened and yet Trump's supporters still deny it.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:02 pm**

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 1:54 pm
Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:19 pm I think it's great they speak Spanish. I don't tune in to the debates to see that. It comes across as pandering. And to say "They're fucking policians, aren't they?"? Warren and Delaney managed to have a discussion on the issues. So no, they don't all do it.

I was going to be a Biden voter in the primaries before tonight. I've switched to Delaney (if he makes it to my state, which he won't).
So you only want them to pander to you and pandering to people not like you is annoying?

You consider discussing policy issues to be pandering? Wtf?

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:09 pm**

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:32 pm
lobster wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:50 pm I was just making a point. I actually agree with you that there was some Russian influence on the election. Perhaps you should not stop researching there. People really do conspire to hide and do illegal things. The stigma of conspiracy is used until people can prove it really happened.
The intelligence community has proven countless times that it happened and yet Trump's supporters still deny it.

but drumpf won, so you should just get over it

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:10 pm**

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:09 pm
twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:32 pm
lobster wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 4:50 pm I was just making a point. I actually agree with you that there was some Russian influence on the election. Perhaps you should not stop researching there. People really do conspire to hide and do illegal things. The stigma of conspiracy is used until people can prove it really happened.
The intelligence community has proven countless times that it happened and yet Trump's supporters still deny it.
but drumpf won, so you should just get over it

JFC

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:11 pm**

your words, bud

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:59 pm**

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 7:11 pm your words, bud

Or... maybe the words of someone else who never responds with an argument.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:56 pm**

Sanders hurt himself by saying he'll raise taxes on the middle class. Big no no, Bernie. Yang is by far the best option. A Yang president, Gabbard vice-president would be the best combination. I'm not expecting this to happen, but I hope it does.

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:03 pm**

Fuking "feminist"!:

Posted: **Thu Jun 27, 2019 9:10 pm**

Biden choking. Harris rising. Sometimes I hate debates. It's like a job interview - tests how well you perform under pressure, not how well you do what you're actually interviewing to do.

Kansas Crimson

who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?