2020

Tecumsehsbones
+1 / -1
#1
20 bucks says the Democrats blow it by running a candidate even more unattractive than Trump.
 
Kreskin
-1
#2
You can take that to the bank.
 
Walter
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

20 bucks says the Democrats blow it by running a candidate even more unattractive than Trump.

It's all they got.
 
Hoid
#4
Trump is probably not going to be the candidate.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#5
Some are saying Hillary is positioning herself for another swipe at the brass ring .
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
+1 / -2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

20 bucks says the Democrats blow it by running a candidate even more unattractive than Trump.

Not sure that is possible.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
-1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Trump is probably not going to be the candidate.

Would certainly HOPE not....but that is probably wishful thinking.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+2
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

Not sure that is possible.

Hillary .
 
Tecumsehsbones
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

Not sure that is possible.

They already did it once.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#10
Republican analyst who said Trump ‘won midterms’ now sees ‘many bad omens for the GOP in 2020’

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/rep..._notifications
 
Hoid
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

They already did it once.

would make more sense if hillary had not won the popular vote by a landslide.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

would make more sense if hillary had not won the popular vote by a landslide.

Yeah. Less than five percent.

Here's the news, Canuck. A "landslide" wins the electoral vote.

Seriously, you can pretend with your Canadian friends that you know what's going on all you like, but that shit don't fly down hereabouts.

And I say that as someone who is generally fairly sympathetic to your viewpoint, if not your habit of spewing every random thought you have as fact.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Yeah. Less than five percent.

Here's the news, Canuck. A "landslide" wins the electoral vote.

Seriously, you can pretend with your Canadian friends that you know what's going on all you like, but that shit don't fly down hereabouts.

And I say that as someone who is generally fairly sympathetic to your viewpoint, if not your habit of spewing every random thought you have as fact.

Ah, come on. Don't think anyone pretends to understand what is going on down there. Some DO understand it and others don't but are trying to. Others don't give a darn.
One thing is evident.......and that is : there is a new "norm" in the US now. What was unacceptable before.....has become acceptable. Social/cultural change. Where this new norm meets the legal boundaries are yet to be determined. No one can project the type of country it will be ......and even IS for that matter ,
Last edited by Ocean Breeze; Nov 30th, 2018 at 09:43 PM..
 
Hoid
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Yeah. Less than five percent.

Here's the news, Canuck. A "landslide" wins the electoral vote.

Seriously, you can pretend with your Canadian friends that you know what's going on all you like, but that shit don't fly down hereabouts.

And I say that as someone who is generally fairly sympathetic to your viewpoint, if not your habit of spewing every random thought you have as fact.

3 million votes
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

Ah, come on. Don't think anyone pretends to understand what is going on down there. Some DO understand it and others don't but are trying to. Others don't give a darn.
One thing is evident.......and that is : there is a new "norm" in the US now. What was unacceptable before.....has become acceptable. Social/cultural change. Where this new norm meets the legal boundaries are yet to be determined. No one can project the type of country it will be ......and even IS for that matter ,

It's not hard if you remember that the U.S. was not set up as a country like France. It was set up as a union of independent states, actually kinda like the EU. There are NO national elections in the U.S. There is not a single Congressional district that crosses a state line. ALL elections are state elections, and the states elect the President. They aren't even required to hold a popular vote.

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors. . ."
U.S. Const., Art. II, sec. 1 (emphasis mine).

And I see it differently. What was unacceptable for a while has become acceptable again, for now.

I'm getting a lot of Schadenfreude from seeing the asswits let their freak flags fly on what they think of as Presidential permission, only to get fired and/or prosecuted.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

3 million votes

Actually about 2.8 million, which is less than 3 percent of the votes cast.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

would make more sense if hillary had not won the popular vote by a landslide.

Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Yeah. Less than five percent.

Here's the news, Canuck. A "landslide" wins the electoral vote.

Seriously, you can pretend with your Canadian friends that you know what's going on all you like, but that shit don't fly down hereabouts.

And I say that as someone who is generally fairly sympathetic to your viewpoint, if not your habit of spewing every random thought you have as fact.

Don't be too hard on him

He's been taking lesson in mathematics from flossy ...


 
Hoid
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Actually about 2.8 million, which is less than 3 percent of the votes cast.

Oh. Only 2.8 million.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Oh. Only 2.8 million.

I know that seems like a lot to you, being Canadian.
 
Hoid
-2
#20
We will defer to your knowledge of numbers.

2.8 million is not a lot.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#21
Staffers of Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign allege 'sexual violence and harassment'

Quote:

The #MeToo movement is catching up with staffers on Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
Two dozen ex-Sanders staffers sent a letter Sunday seeking a meeting with the former candidate — who might run again in 2020 — to “discuss the issue of sexual violence and harassment” in the Vermont senator’s 2016 run.
“We — the people who worked on Bernie 2016 — know that much of the success of our campaign was due to the intense commitment, passion and sacrifice of women, people of color and LGBT staffers,” says the letter, acquired by Politico.
“In recent weeks there has been an ongoing conversation on social media, in texts, and in person, about the untenable and dangerous dynamic that developed during our campaign.”
The letter did not make any specific allegations of misconduct. But one unidentified organizer told Politico that the letter “is just a start.”
“We are addressing what happened on the Bernie campaign but as people that work in this space we see that all campaigns are extremely dangerous to women and marginalized people and we are attempting to fix that,” the staffer said.
Among the written requests were “a productive statement on harassment in the campaign environment,” “a follow-up plan for implementing sexual harassment policies and procedures” and “a commitment to hiring diverse leadership to pre-empt the possibility of replicating the predatory culture from the first presidential campaign.”
The candidate himself, campaign manager Jeff Weaver; Sanders’ chief of staff, Caryn Compton, deputy chief of staff Ari Rabin-Havt, Shannon Jackson, the campaign manager for Sanders' 2018 re-election effort, and top communications official Arianna Jones were all asked to attend the meeting.
In a response, the senator’s campaign committee, Friends of Bernie Sanders, thanked the writers “for their willingness to engage in this incredibly important discussion.”
The committee acknowledged “a number of HR actions taken” during the 2016 run, with consequences ranging from “employee counseling to immediate termination.”
During Sanders’ 2018 re-election campaign in Vermont, his staff employed “more robust policies and processes regarding discrimination and harassment,” said the response letter, which was also obtained by Politico.
“Harassment of any kind is intolerable. Hearing the experiences and thoughts of individuals who worked on Bernie’s 2016 campaign is a vital part of our commitment to work within our progressive community to improve the lives of all people,” the response letter says.
Joey Jordan Salsbury, the president of American University Students for Bernie in 2015, previously alleged harassment by an unnamed intern during the campaign.
Salsbury claimed that the intern, another college student and her point of contact in the campaign, made unwanted advances toward her, but she said she felt that she had nowhere to report.
It was “a culture that didn’t discuss office policies with volunteers or make it clear that harassment wasn’t tolerated,” she told the Huffington Post last year.
Arturo Carmona, the failed California congressional candidate and former deputy political director in the Sanders campaign, was also accused of sexism and mistreatment, as well as allegations that he “covered up” an accusation of sexual harassment.
Sanders — who ended his 2016 presidential run when he endorsed Hillary Clinton shortly before the Democratic convention — has not announced his plans for 2020, though some of his backers have hinted at the possibility of another presidential run.

 
Walter
#22
Former Obama HUD Secretary Julián Castro Announces 2020 Run For President
https://www.dailywire.com/news/42108...ces-frank-camp

No one by the name of Castro can be bad.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
+1 / -1
#23
Trump could call 2020 election ‘fake news’ and ‘refuse to leave’

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/tru..._notifications

..........and THAT behavior would fit his psychological profile.... very neatly.
 
Hoof Hearted
#24
I already bet Johnnny $100.00 that Trump will win a second term. The only problem? Johnnny and I can't figure out how we will pay each other as we both live at no fixed address.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#25
Paypal just need an email address
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#26
Kamala Harris: ‘I am running for president of the United States’

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/kam...united-states/
 
Tecumsehsbones
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean Breeze View Post

Kamala Harris: ‘I am running for president of the United States’
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/kam...united-states/

She'll have a job explaining:

1. After the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata (2011) declared California's prisons so overcrowded they inflicted cruel and unusual punishment, Harris fought federal court supervision, explaining "I have a client, and I don't get to choose my client." After California failed to fully implement the court's order to reduce crowding, and was ordered to implement new parole programs, lawyers for Harris appealed the decision on grounds that if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool. The prisoners were earning between 8 and 37 cents per hour.

2. Harris refused to take any position on criminal sentencing-reform initiatives Proposition 36 (2012) and Proposition 47 (2014), arguing it would be improper because her office prepares the ballot booklets. Former California Attorney General John Van de Kamp considered her explanation "baloney."

3. On August 24, 2012, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial calling on Harris to release Daniel Larsen from prison. Larsen, who was sentenced to 28 years to life under California's three strikes laws for possession of a concealed weapon in 1999, was declared "actually innocent" by a federal judge in 2009 and ordered released. Evidence in favor of Larsen included that of a former chief of police and the actual owner of the knife. Larsen's original lawyer, who failed to call a single witness, has since been disbarred. Larsen remained in prison because Harris's office objected to his release on the grounds that he missed the deadline to file his writ of habeas corpus. The California Innocence Project, which had taken up Larsen's case, said this amounted to a paperwork technicality. The Times editorial stated that if Harris was not willing to release Larsen, Governor Jerry Brown should pardon him. In March 2013, Larsen was released on bond with the case on appeal by order of Attorney General Harris "on technical grounds". In September 2013, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, and on January 27, 2014, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office dismissed the charge.

4. In 2013, Harris did not prosecute Steve Mnuchin's bank OneWest despite evidence "suggestive of widespread misconduct" according to a leaked memo from the Department of Justice.[83] In 2017, Harris said that her office's decision to not prosecute Mnuchin was based on "following the facts and the evidence...like any other case." In 2016, Mnuchin donated $2,000 to Harris's campaign, making her the only 2016 Senate Democratic candidate to get cash from Mnuchin, but as senator, Harris voted against the confirmation of Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury. As a result of the donation, she has faced criticism for not prosecuting Mnuchin and OneWest Bank when she was Attorney General.

5. In 2015, Harris defended convictions obtained by county prosecutors who had inserted a false confession into an interrogation transcript, committed perjury, and withheld evidence. Federal appeals court Judge Alex Kozinski threw out the convictions, telling Harris's lawyers, "Talk to the attorney general and make sure she understands the gravity of the situation."

6. In March 2015, a California superior courts judge ordered Harris to take over a criminal case after Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas was revealed to have illegally employed jailhouse informants and concealed evidence.[8] Harris refused, appealing the order and defending Rackauckas.

7. Harris appealed the dismissal of an indictment when it was discovered a Kern County prosecutor perjured in submitting a falsified confession as court evidence. Harris asserted that prosecutorial perjury was not sufficient to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct. In the case, Harris argued that only abject physical brutality would warrant a finding of prosecutorial misconduct and the dismissal of an indictment, and that perjury was not sufficient.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

She'll have a job explaining:

1. After the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata (2011) declared California's prisons so overcrowded they inflicted cruel and unusual punishment, Harris fought federal court supervision, explaining "I have a client, and I don't get to choose my client." After California failed to fully implement the court's order to reduce crowding, and was ordered to implement new parole programs, lawyers for Harris appealed the decision on grounds that if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool. The prisoners were earning between 8 and 37 cents per hour.

2. Harris refused to take any position on criminal sentencing-reform initiatives Proposition 36 (2012) and Proposition 47 (2014), arguing it would be improper because her office prepares the ballot booklets. Former California Attorney General John Van de Kamp considered her explanation "baloney."

3. On August 24, 2012, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial calling on Harris to release Daniel Larsen from prison. Larsen, who was sentenced to 28 years to life under California's three strikes laws for possession of a concealed weapon in 1999, was declared "actually innocent" by a federal judge in 2009 and ordered released. Evidence in favor of Larsen included that of a former chief of police and the actual owner of the knife. Larsen's original lawyer, who failed to call a single witness, has since been disbarred. Larsen remained in prison because Harris's office objected to his release on the grounds that he missed the deadline to file his writ of habeas corpus. The California Innocence Project, which had taken up Larsen's case, said this amounted to a paperwork technicality. The Times editorial stated that if Harris was not willing to release Larsen, Governor Jerry Brown should pardon him. In March 2013, Larsen was released on bond with the case on appeal by order of Attorney General Harris "on technical grounds". In September 2013, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, and on January 27, 2014, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office dismissed the charge.

4. In 2013, Harris did not prosecute Steve Mnuchin's bank OneWest despite evidence "suggestive of widespread misconduct" according to a leaked memo from the Department of Justice.[83] In 2017, Harris said that her office's decision to not prosecute Mnuchin was based on "following the facts and the evidence...like any other case." In 2016, Mnuchin donated $2,000 to Harris's campaign, making her the only 2016 Senate Democratic candidate to get cash from Mnuchin, but as senator, Harris voted against the confirmation of Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury. As a result of the donation, she has faced criticism for not prosecuting Mnuchin and OneWest Bank when she was Attorney General.

5. In 2015, Harris defended convictions obtained by county prosecutors who had inserted a false confession into an interrogation transcript, committed perjury, and withheld evidence. Federal appeals court Judge Alex Kozinski threw out the convictions, telling Harris's lawyers, "Talk to the attorney general and make sure she understands the gravity of the situation."

6. In March 2015, a California superior courts judge ordered Harris to take over a criminal case after Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas was revealed to have illegally employed jailhouse informants and concealed evidence.[8] Harris refused, appealing the order and defending Rackauckas.

7. Harris appealed the dismissal of an indictment when it was discovered a Kern County prosecutor perjured in submitting a falsified confession as court evidence. Harris asserted that prosecutorial perjury was not sufficient to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct. In the case, Harris argued that only abject physical brutality would warrant a finding of prosecutorial misconduct and the dismissal of an indictment, and that perjury was not sufficient.

She sounds like a winner , I wish her luck .
 
Hoid
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Paypal just need an email address

-and a bank account - which requires an address
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

She'll have a job explaining:

1. After the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata (2011) declared California's prisons so overcrowded they inflicted cruel and unusual punishment, Harris fought federal court supervision, explaining "I have a client, and I don't get to choose my client." After California failed to fully implement the court's order to reduce crowding, and was ordered to implement new parole programs, lawyers for Harris appealed the decision on grounds that if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool. The prisoners were earning between 8 and 37 cents per hour.

2. Harris refused to take any position on criminal sentencing-reform initiatives Proposition 36 (2012) and Proposition 47 (2014), arguing it would be improper because her office prepares the ballot booklets. Former California Attorney General John Van de Kamp considered her explanation "baloney."

3. On August 24, 2012, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial calling on Harris to release Daniel Larsen from prison. Larsen, who was sentenced to 28 years to life under California's three strikes laws for possession of a concealed weapon in 1999, was declared "actually innocent" by a federal judge in 2009 and ordered released. Evidence in favor of Larsen included that of a former chief of police and the actual owner of the knife. Larsen's original lawyer, who failed to call a single witness, has since been disbarred. Larsen remained in prison because Harris's office objected to his release on the grounds that he missed the deadline to file his writ of habeas corpus. The California Innocence Project, which had taken up Larsen's case, said this amounted to a paperwork technicality. The Times editorial stated that if Harris was not willing to release Larsen, Governor Jerry Brown should pardon him. In March 2013, Larsen was released on bond with the case on appeal by order of Attorney General Harris "on technical grounds". In September 2013, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, and on January 27, 2014, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office dismissed the charge.

4. In 2013, Harris did not prosecute Steve Mnuchin's bank OneWest despite evidence "suggestive of widespread misconduct" according to a leaked memo from the Department of Justice.[83] In 2017, Harris said that her office's decision to not prosecute Mnuchin was based on "following the facts and the evidence...like any other case." In 2016, Mnuchin donated $2,000 to Harris's campaign, making her the only 2016 Senate Democratic candidate to get cash from Mnuchin, but as senator, Harris voted against the confirmation of Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury. As a result of the donation, she has faced criticism for not prosecuting Mnuchin and OneWest Bank when she was Attorney General.

5. In 2015, Harris defended convictions obtained by county prosecutors who had inserted a false confession into an interrogation transcript, committed perjury, and withheld evidence. Federal appeals court Judge Alex Kozinski threw out the convictions, telling Harris's lawyers, "Talk to the attorney general and make sure she understands the gravity of the situation."

6. In March 2015, a California superior courts judge ordered Harris to take over a criminal case after Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas was revealed to have illegally employed jailhouse informants and concealed evidence.[8] Harris refused, appealing the order and defending Rackauckas.

7. Harris appealed the dismissal of an indictment when it was discovered a Kern County prosecutor perjured in submitting a falsified confession as court evidence. Harris asserted that prosecutorial perjury was not sufficient to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct. In the case, Harris argued that only abject physical brutality would warrant a finding of prosecutorial misconduct and the dismissal of an indictment, and that perjury was not sufficient.

Interesting. Learning about her now that she announced.

The Dem pool is growing. It is good to see the interest level.
 

Similar Threads

159
Trump Guaranteed to win 2020
by Kreskin | 3 weeks ago
69
Next Democrat 2020
by Alternative | 3 weeks ago
62
Where do you see yourself in 2020?
by johai | Aug 15th, 2018
164
Whom Should the Dems Run for President in 2020?
by Tecumsehsbones | Jul 19th, 2018
7
2020 or 2024
by Alternative | Nov 12th, 2017