The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It got laughs but I really don't think she meant it the way it sounds. She had to point out the gender of the person asking before she made the comment telling them they should marry one woman (or one man). It was on the spot, but it would have sounded less like she was saying "only a man would ask that" if she had said "If the person asking is a man, I would tell him..."

 

I don't think she's stupid enough to purposely try to say a man is more likely to ask a question like that. I think she just worded it badly.

OK...I can possibly see that.  But, I still don't see why people are making such a big deal out of the answer.

 

Oh well....to each their own.

[funhusker]

25 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Your edit was part of what gave me a "meh" about the quote.

 

She could have said the same thing without the juvenile stuff.  Maybe I'm just sensitive because I'm so sick and tired of that kind of stuff (admittedly worse) from Trump.  Just answer the question.

 

So, she "assumes it's a man" That would ask that (why?)....then the dumb comment at the end.

 

Oh well....not a big deal.  Just don't really get all giddy about it like some seem to be doing.

Agree 100%

[Apsu]

This is what happened to Kamala Harris' campaign.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfp_IIdVnXs

[BigRedBuster]

11 minutes ago, Apsu said:

This is what happened to Kamala Harris' campaign.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfp_IIdVnXs

I actually like both of those women.

[NM11046]

40 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

And one more which is pretty crappy in my opinion.  Gotta love who this lady gets in bed with.

 

 

Did you actually read the article?  It was from 2012 and the actual Travellers case was in 2009 and before.  I'm not stupid enough to think that each candidate doesn't have some unsavory career records - but one case more than 10 years ago vs. what she's done before and since would not be a factor that would impact my vote.

[NM11046]

9 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Did you actually read the article?  It was from 2012 and the actual Travellers case was in 2009 and before.  I'm not stupid enough to think that each candidate doesn't have some unsavory career records - but one case more than 10 years ago vs. what she's done before and since would not be a factor that would impact my vote.

And here is a better review of her legal experience outside of teaching and some additional info on the Travellers - it's worth a read, the Globe article seems slanted, which is disappointed as usually they are pretty good.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/while-teaching-elizabeth-warren-worked-on-more-than-50-legal-matters-charging-as-much-as-675-an-hour/2019/05/22/9ce56840-7ce0-11e9-8bb7-0fc796cf2ec0_story.html#comments-wrapper

 

[BigRedBuster]

12 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

I'm not stupid enough to think that each candidate doesn't have some unsavory career records

This is something that every person needs to realize when listening to all of this about any candidate.

[NM11046]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

This is something that every person needs to realize when listening to all of this about any candidate.

Right?  I mean, even the best of us, who have led pretty normal, boring lives would have things that would look sketchy if every move we've made in the last 20-30 years was analyzed.  

 

Past behavior is indicative of future behavior, but I think you have to look at things in bulk.  One client who took actions after you were done with the case doesn't outweigh multiple clients that you fought for that aligned with your beliefs, or the students you taught or the battles you've chosen in the political arena.

 

She may or may not get my vote, but it won't lose it because of one case 10+ years ago.

 

[commando]

2 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

Yeah I read it...I don't care when it was from.  It supports what I posted previously that she vacillates back and forth on issues.  Whatever is more lucrative for her.

now do trump

[BigRedBuster]

Something that I've always appreciated about Bernie is that I believe he really believes what he says.

 

I don't agree with him a hell of a lot of the time so I won't be voting for him.  But, at least I feel that much about him.

 

Interestingly though.  He literally has no working experience outside of government where he actually had to accomplish something that might get him criticized.  

Believe it or not, working in the real world, results in doing things that may appear to be bad later down the road.  It's reality.

[NM11046]

2 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

Yeah I read it...I don't care when it was from.  It supports what I posted previously that she vacillates back and forth on issues.  Whatever is more lucrative for her.

Travllers deciding not to pay out happened after she was gone.  My understanding of this case was that her hours were spent putting together a trust in order to pay current and future victims.  She was a consultant for Travellers, but it wasn't to try and help them avoid paying, it was to do so fairly so that there was money to pay out - and not just on the current situations, but for those that may come up in the future.  She may vacilate but I wouldn't say this is an example of that.

[Apsu]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I actually like both of those women.

 

As someone on the progressive side, I found Harrris' fundraisers at Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons to be troubling, along with her strategy meetings with Hillary Clinton. Despite being an early supporter (post 2016) of M4A, Harris has changed her position on it. I would have a difficult time voting for Kamala for POTUS or on a ticket with her as VP, but I do think that she would make a good Attorney General under a progressive president.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Apsu said:

 

As someone on the progressive side, I found Harrris' fundraisers at Martha's Vineyard and the Hamptons to be troubling, along with her strategy meetings with Hillary Clinton. Despite being an early supporter (post 2016) of M4A, Harris has changed her position on it. I would have a difficult time voting for Kamala for POTUS or on a ticket with her as VP, but I do think that she would make a good Attorney General under a progressive president.

Well, I don't see anything in the clip that was posted that would disqualify Harris for me.

[Moiraine]

15 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Something that I've always appreciated about Bernie is that I believe he really believes what he says.

 

I don't agree with him a hell of a lot of the time so I won't be voting for him.  But, at least I feel that much about him.

 

Interestingly though.  He literally has no working experience outside of government where he actually had to accomplish something that might get him criticized.  

Believe it or not, working in the real world, results in doing things that may appear to be bad later down the road.  It's reality.

 

 

Last paragraph is something I think about whenever someone goes after Harris’s record in California. She had to make a lot of tough decisions in that job. Of course some of them were wrong but it’s the overall picture that matters. It’s kind of a Catch 22. Take a great, important job that gets you good experience and looks good on the resume but people comb through it for anything you did wrong. Or don’t get good experience so your resume looks s#!tty but there’s no negative decisions to find.

[commando]

1 minute ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

I don't follow anything to do with Trump anymore.  All I want to see is him out of the office he's shat on.

yep.    the only thing i care about is whoever is opposite trump is better.   and she is better than him by a lot.  so not going to say anything bad about her now.