Candidates for 2020 elections.

[Benton]

(03-18-2019, 06:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I too blame Trump for Beto's DUI.

FWIW, you'd think Beto would be able to hack the GOP site and have the meme removed. 

For Beto's DUI, no.

For setting the bar for divisiveness and promoting stereotypes, yes.

FWIW, it wouldn't matter much as the GOP's Russian troll force would just post a new meme. It would be a waste of resources on both sides (Americans and Russians).

[BmorePat87]

The Bernie Braintrust was on full display on twitter yesterday when some random Democratic Central Committee member for Brooklyn tweeted the baseless claim that Beto's $6.1m pull was due in part to $4.5m that the Texas Democratic Party gave back to him.

Well this is awkward! @BetoORourke gave the remaining $4.5+ mill from his Senate race to @TexasDemocrats a few months ago, & the Party sent the money back to him on the day of his announcement. So this is probably why he’s not releasing his individual contribution list. #Beto2020 pic.twitter.com/vCiq0Pdz0s

— Xavier Perez (@XPerezNY) March 18, 2019

The "evidence" he gave was showing that Beto transferred $4.5m to the state party over the 2018 election cycle (though money was going back and forth between the two as the party spent on the election, so it's not like they're just sitting on that cash).

The party can't directly give more than $5,000, so the claim is completely ridiculous from the start, but also there wouldn't be any record until April 15th when the next FEC reports go out to the public. The Senate Campaign and Presidential Campaign are also different legal entities, so the idea that they just sent it back is silly.

This hasn't stopped some from trying to push this lie, with a number saying that there's no proof they DIDN'T do it... lol

[*bfine32*]

(03-19-2019, 01:16 AM)Benton Wrote: For Beto's DUI, no.

For setting the bar for divisiveness and promoting stereotypes, yes.

FWIW, it wouldn't matter much as the GOP's Russian troll force would just post a new meme. It would be a waste of resources on both sides (Americans and Russians).

You might be giving Trump a little too much credit for divisiveness and stereotype. I thought the previous POTUS' comments about if he had a son, set both quite high. I could probably find other examples if motivated to do so. 

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You might be giving Trump a little too much credit for divisiveness and stereotype. I thought the previous POTUS' comments about if he had a son, set both quite high. I could probably find other examples if motivated to do so. 

Yes...showing compassion for a black teen killed by a wannabe tough guy claiming he was "afraid" was very "divisive".

Thank goodness you aren't a DJT SUPPORTER...you'd never be able to rest while defending him and his actions and words at all costs!

Get motivated.

[Belsnickel]

(03-19-2019, 10:35 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Bernie Braintrust was on full display on twitter yesterday when some random Democratic Central Committee member for Brooklyn tweeted the baseless claim that Beto's $6.1m pull was due in part to $4.5m that the Texas Democratic Party gave back to him.

Well this is awkward! @BetoORourke gave the remaining $4.5+ mill from his Senate race to @TexasDemocrats a few months ago, & the Party sent the money back to him on the day of his announcement. So this is probably why he’s not releasing his individual contribution list. #Beto2020 pic.twitter.com/vCiq0Pdz0s

— Xavier Perez (@XPerezNY) March 18, 2019

The "evidence" he gave was showing that Beto transferred $4.5m to the state party over the 2018 election cycle (though money was going back and forth between the two as the party spent on the election, so it's not like they're just sitting on that cash).

The party can't directly give more than $5,000, so the claim is completely ridiculous from the start, but also there wouldn't be any record until April 15th when the next FEC reports go out to the public. The Senate Campaign and Presidential Campaign are also different legal entities, so the idea that they just sent it back is silly.

This hasn't stopped some from trying to push this lie, with a number saying that there's no proof they DIDN'T do it... lol

This certainly isn't anything new. Apparently, Beto is the one that scare Berniecrats the most: https://thedailybanter.com/2018/12/04/david-sirota-unfairly-smears-beto/

It should be noted that the guy who did that one has now been hired by the Sanders campaign. Sirota is known for being a bad liar.

[*bfine32*]

(03-19-2019, 04:36 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Yes...showing compassion for a black teen killed by a wannabe tough guy claiming he was "afraid" was very "divisive".

Thank goodness you aren't a DJT SUPPORTER...you'd never be able to rest while defending him and his actions and words at all costs!

Get motivated.

I fully expected you to miss the point. 

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 07:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I fully expected you to miss the point. 

I totally got the point:

(03-19-2019, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You might be giving Trump a little too much credit for divisiveness and stereotype. I thought the previous POTUS' comments about if he had a son, set both quite high. I could probably find other examples if motivated to do so. 

"Trump isn't so bad...compared to Obama!!"

[*bfine32*]

(03-19-2019, 09:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: I totally got the point:


"Trump isn't so bad...compared to Obama!!"  

Of course you think you totally got the point; but it's has nothing to do with who is "so bad".

Obama stating that a person involved in an unsettled criminal case could be "his son" is divisive and stereotypical. That is the point I was making; not who was "right". Regardless which side of the issue you fall, Obama and previous administration were divisive long before Trump raised his right hand.

Trump just gives some someone else to blame their hate on other than themselves.  

[GMDino]

(03-19-2019, 09:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you think you totally got the point; but it's has nothing to do with who is "so bad".

Obama stating that a person involved in an unsettled criminal case could be "his son" is divisive and stereotypical. That is the point I was making; not who was "right". Regardless which side of the issue you fall, Obama and previous administration were divisive long before Trump raised his right hand.

Trump just gives some someone else to blame their hate on other than themselves.  

You roll with Obama set the bar "high" for divisiveness and DJT is just taking the "blame" for others.  You said an oath prevents people from questioning the POTUS so I have to take what you say with a grain of salt.

[Au165]

Saw last night the Democrats are flocking to claim the reparations platform...that is a losing platform, especially in today's climate. If they dead set on pushing it they are going to fail spectacularly in 2020.

[BmorePat87]

(03-19-2019, 04:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This certainly isn't anything new. Apparently, Beto is the one that scare Berniecrats the most: https://thedailybanter.com/2018/12/04/david-sirota-unfairly-smears-beto/

It should be noted that the guy who did that one has now been hired by the Sanders campaign. Sirota is known for being a bad liar.

I remember seeing an attack along those lines and someone's response "everyone in Texas works for gas or oil". 

[BmorePat87]

Biden will allegedly name Stacey Abrams as his running mate when he announces his candidacy.

[Benton]

(03-19-2019, 04:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You might be giving Trump a little too much credit for divisiveness and stereotype. I thought the previous POTUS' comments about if he had a son, set both quite high. I could probably find other examples if motivated to do so. 

Sarcasm?

Seriously you aren't going to compare that comment to mocking the handicap, calling for an end to the free press, calling someone the dumbest man on television, accusing an endless number of people dumber than himself, insulting nearly every foreign leader except his bankroll, saying Nazis were fine people, accusing illegal aliens of being murders and rapists, mocking a dead war hero....


Yeah, nevermind there. Obviously, Oabama was wayyyyyy more divisive for saying his kid would be black.

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2019, 12:02 AM)Benton Wrote: Sarcasm?

Seriously you aren't going to compare that comment to mocking the handicap, calling for an end to the free press, calling someone the dumbest man on television, accusing an endless number of people dumber than himself, insulting nearly every foreign leader except his bankroll, saying Nazis were fine people, accusing illegal aliens of being murders and rapists, mocking a dead war hero....


Yeah, nevermind there. Obviously, Oabama was wayyyyyy more divisive for saying his kid would be black.

There was a time when I thought you were better than this; however, that ship has sailed.

No one said who was more divisive; I simply suggested the bar was set long before Trump. And I think most rational folks knew what Obama implied with his "my son" comment. 

[Benton]

(03-22-2019, 12:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There was a time when I thought you were better than this; however, that ship has sailed.

No one said who was more divisive; I simply suggested the bar was set long before Trump. And I think most rational folks knew what Obama implied with his "my son" comment. 

More divisive? No. You said Obama set it quite high. Which, in the context of the things Trump has said, is ridiculous. 

I'll go on record, though: Trump is more divisive than any president of the last century. 

No passive aggressive, no innuendo, no 'I thought you were better than that.' No implications. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-22-2019, 12:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: And I think most rational folks knew what Obama implied with his "my son" comment. 

That, as a black parent, he had the same concerns as Trayvon's parents and that Trayvon could have been any other black parent's son?

I understand that middle America took that as race baiting, but it was just him being real. 

[Dill]

(03-22-2019, 12:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: No one said who was more divisive; I simply suggested the bar was set long before Trump. And I think most rational folks knew what Obama implied with his "my son" comment. 

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Obama the "divider"?  

Treyvon could have been "his son"--SET THE BAR?

ALL LIVES MATTER, I guess

(Grabem by the horseface POW=Loser good people on both sides low IQ individuals locker her up I believe Putin MSB Kim Muslim Ban Mexican rapists separate the children at the border I'll pay your legal bills s-hotel countries)

At least we know where it started.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2019, 09:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obama stating that a person involved in an unsettled criminal case could be "his son" is divisive and stereotypical.

Really?  How exactly were those comments "divisive".  Seems like they are appealing to a universal quality of parenthood to me.


“I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” he said. “And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.”

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”



How would any white person be offended by that?  The only ones that were offended were the ones who let the right wing echo chamber tell them when to be offended.  For example calling the alleged victim of a criminal investigation "a person involved in an unsettled criminal case".

[*bfine32*]

As to those that cannot figure out how Obama's comments were divisive: He was suggesting that Martin was attacked simply because he was black; he was not trying to explain to America what his male offspring would look like other than skin color. He had no more facts than anyone else in the case when he made the assertion.

How's about sending staff to Michael Brown's funeral? How's about when he won his 2nd term and the GOP took over congress and his welcome was "Nanny, Nanny Boo, Boo, I won"/ Do I really need to continue or can we concede a DEM POTUS did divisive shit as well?

The bar is just set by the individual and his/her view of the subject. There are easily those that felt divided over Obama's comments/actions and those of trump's. Now trump's are usually more crass, but that was not the discussion point.

[fredtoast]

(03-22-2019, 03:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to those that cannot figure out how Obama's comments were divisive: He was suggesting that Martin was attacked simply because he was black; he was not trying to explain to America what his male offspring would look like other than skin color. He had no more facts than anyone else in the case when he made the assertion.

Exactly.  That is why he was demanding an investigation.  The reason the Trayvon Martin case became a national issue was the refusal of the police to investigate what had happened.

Obama never said a white man was guilty.  All he was doing was saying that it should be investigated.  Don't know why any white people would be offended by that except the ones who get offended whenever the echo chamber tells them to.

I still remember all the right wing sheep posting stories of white people being shot by black people where there was a police investigation and arrest and trying to act like that was the same as what happened to Treyvon with just the races reversed.  They did not even understand the issue, but they were being told to play their "white man victim cards" so they pulled them out.