The 2020 Presidential Election Primary Thread

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not sure Avenatti is a narcissist. He might just be a lawyer from L.A.

What's the difference?

[frank ryan]

No. Sanders wouldn't have even been in the picture as any more than an insignificant footnote had almost all of the party not stepped aside to let Clinton run.

An atheist Jewish Socialist is not electable on a national scale. The right withheld going after him because Hillary was the favoured candidate.

[creekster]

Still better than the current bafoon who occupies the White House.

Since we are talking about their qualities as candidates your statement is demonstrably untrue.

[frank ryan]

Since we are talking about their qualities as candidates your statement is demonstrably untrue.

No, it’s not. I know you were pleased Trump beat Hillary, but he is an unmitigated disaster. Hillary was also more qualified for the job.

[creekster]

No, it’s not. I know you were pleased Trump beat Hillary, but he is an unmitigated disaster. Hillary was also more qualified for the job.

So I hear. The most intelligent and most prepared candidate in history. And, yet, she lost. So her qualities, whatever they were, fell short.

[frank ryan]

So I hear. The most intelligent and most prepared candidate in history. And, yet, she lost. So her qualities, whatever they were, fell short.

I’m not talking about how wonderful she is, I’m asserting she’s better than Trump. That’s not saying much. Low bar.

[creekster]

I’m not talking about how wonderful she is, I’m asserting she’s better than Trump. That’s not saying much. Low bar.

She might have been as a president. We will likely never know. But we are here talking about what sort of a candidate she made. As compared to Trump she was not as good. We know this because Trump the "bafoon" beat her. You might argue she is nicer or smarter or more experienced or more coherent or would be a better president or makes better cookies or looks better in a pantsuit but you cannot argue she was a better candidate, unless your taste in candidates runs to the losing side..

[Uncle Ted]

She might have been as a president. We will likely never know. But we are here talking about what sort of a candidate she made. As compared to Trump she was not as good. We know this because Trump the "bafoon" beat her. You might argue she is nicer or smarter or more experienced or more coherent or would be a better president or makes better cookies or looks better in a pantsuit but you cannot argue she was a better candidate, unless your taste in candidates runs to the losing side..

Creek, you forget that the Russians colluded with Drumpf and hacked all the voting machines. That is how he won. Ask Frank and BK. This is all going to come out in Mueller’s report and Drumpf will be impeached. Then MC Pence will be our prez. I don’t know what Mueller is waiting for! Release the report!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BlueK]

Creek, you forget that the Russians colluded with Drumpf and hacked all the voting machines. That is how he won. Ask Frank and BK. This is all going to come out in Mueller’s report and Drumpf will be impeached. Then MC Pence will be our prez. I don’t know what Mueller is waiting for! Release the report!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ah, can you reference a post from me where I said the Russians hacked voting machines?

nice strawman.

But it's a lot harder these days to argue that the Russians didn't hack into emails and give them to wikileaks, or use fake facebook accounts to spread propaganda, or work with Trump to secure financing for Trump tower in Russia many months after Trump continued to deny he was trying to do any business in Russia while trying to secure the money from a sanctioned Russian bank, or that his transition team had numerous secret meetings with Russian officials and then tried to lie about it, or meet to set up a secret back channel to the Kremlin in the Russian embassy....Remember, Flynn was caught lying about not having talked with the Russians about sanctions because the CIA had that conversation on tape.

None of that stuff is under dispute anymore. Maybe it truly means less than it might seem on the surface, but I don't know how you could reasonably argue it doesn't look kind of suspicious.

[frank ryan]

Creek, you forget that the Russians colluded with Drumpf and hacked all the voting machines. That is how he won. Ask Frank and BK. This is all going to come out in Mueller’s report and Drumpf will be impeached. Then MC Pence will be our prez. I don’t know what Mueller is waiting for! Release the report!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do us all a favor and quit pretending you’re not a Trump worshipper. Trolling so consistently about Trump being picked on or liberals persecuting him. has rotted your political brain. Also you’re a terrible missionary for Libertarianism.

[frank ryan]

She might have been as a president. We will likely never know. But we are here talking about what sort of a candidate she made. As compared to Trump she was not as good. We know this because Trump the "bafoon" beat her. You might argue she is nicer or smarter or more experienced or more coherent or would be a better president or makes better cookies or looks better in a pantsuit but you cannot argue she was a better candidate, unless your taste in candidates runs to the losing side..

Trump winning does not mean he was the better candidate. It means he was elected. He didnt win with a big mandate. For one, he lost the popular vote.

[falafel]

Trump winning does not mean he was the better candidate. It means he was elected. He didnt win with a big mandodate. For one, he lost the popular vote.

How do you judge candidates if not by success at the polls?

[BlueK]

Do us all a favor and quit pretending you’re not a Trump worshipper. Trolling so consistently about Trump being picked on or liberals persecuting him. has rotted your political brain. Also you’re a terrible missionary for Libertarianism.

Most libertarians are not fans of Trump. But Ted isn't the only libertarian who Trump has seduced to the dark side. Tucker Carlson would be one of the more well-known ones. When he was at Cato.org or before that at MSNBC his opinions were completely different. Then again, he has financial reasons to be a Trump cheerleader now given who his current employer is.

[frank ryan]

How do you judge candidates if not by success at the polls?

By who I think is more qualified. Don’t you vote for who you think is the best candidate, even if they might lose?

I don’t view someone campaigning more effectively or winning as the measurement of whom is the better candidate for the job. That shouldn’t seem weird to anyone. I guess your just being contradictory or something.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How do you judge candidates if not by success at the polls?

That’s funny.