Politics & Current Events

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 9099
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 380
x 3453

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:43 pm

1 x

User avatar
Derwood
Stall Monitor
Posts: 71799
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: 375 Miles East of Wrigley
x 1392
x 2968

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Derwood » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:04 pm




Commute his sentence, you horsefeathering coward
0 x

Sank888
Role Player
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:22 pm
x 3

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sank888 » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:12 pm

CyHawk_Cub wrote:


The kelly green is a nice touch.
0 x

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 9099
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 380
x 3453

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:54 pm

1 x

User avatar
Regular Show
All-Star
Posts: 3328
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 10:16 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 2433
x 1248

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Regular Show » Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:55 am


Well, this news sucks. I was a big Elizabeth Warren fan and she was always 1B for me.

Like the link above said, I'm thankful she was able to take down Bloomberg and Chris Matthews before dropping out.
1 x
"It was met with, basically, he didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want me to tell him that. I just basically said, 'Well that's why we want an electronic strike zone.'" -- Ben Zobrist

User avatar
SouthSideRyan
is ELL
Posts: 50019
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:08 am
Location: South Loop
x 748
x 1948

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby SouthSideRyan » Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:20 am

jersey cubs fan wrote:bummer, I really wanted to vote for her. Oh well, the NJ primary isn't until freaking June anyway.


At least you don’t live in Indiana
1 x
Exile on Waveland wrote: IU smells like poop.

CubinNY
Hall of Fame
Posts: 23259
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Pike Road, Al
x 364
x 743

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CubinNY » Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:22 am

Mojo, Trump did not say people dying will be good for unemployment numbers, but he did say it was a good thing people are not traveling and spending their money in America. He is undoubtedly a sociopath.

People no longer BST an eyelash that our President is mentally ill.
0 x

big ball chunky time
Formerly imb!
Posts: 33207
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 7:57 am
x 2887
x 7036
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby big ball chunky time » Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:47 am

i think it's a cop out to say he's mentally ill, or all the twitter idiots who say he has dementia. He's an evil person. full stop. He's an evil guy doing evil guy things and having the time of his life while 60 million (and then some) idiots let him pee on their legs and say it's raining. these bad things are not happening by chance, or on accident. they're happening because an evil racist is the most powerful person in the world.
11 x
Duke Silver wrote:You've never been right about anything. You bitch and moan at the slightest hint of things not going right ... Suck my ass, you whiny little bitch.

CubinNY
Hall of Fame
Posts: 23259
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Pike Road, Al
x 364
x 743

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CubinNY » Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:10 am

big ball chunky time wrote:i think it's a cop out to say he's mentally ill, or all the twitter idiots who say he has dementia. He's an evil person. full stop. He's an evil guy doing evil guy things and having the time of his life while 60 million (and then some) idiots let him pee on their legs and say it's raining. these bad things are not happening by chance, or on accident. they're happening because an evil racist is the most powerful person in the world.

I do not disagree. I think evil is probably a better descriptor.
2 x

User avatar
javy knows my name
previously Beertown Cubbie
Posts: 9264
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:46 pm
Location: Chicago
x 1595
x 758

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby javy knows my name » Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:10 am

big ball chunky time wrote:i think it's a cop out to say he's mentally ill, or all the twitter idiots who say he has dementia. He's an evil person. full stop. He's an evil guy doing evil guy things and having the time of his life while 60 million (and then some) idiots let him pee on their legs and say it's raining. these bad things are not happening by chance, or on accident. they're happening because an evil racist is the most powerful person in the world.


Well said. People who are mentally ill are a victim of their illness. Trump is no victim
0 x
neely wrote:but in reality
2006 .364
2007 .351
2008 his one big year
2009 .347
2010 90 games played
2011 .323
what do you call that?

User avatar
TruffleShuffle
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 53858
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: Perth, W.A.
x 1357
x 2349
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby TruffleShuffle » Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:24 am

Jesus this is so much fail.

Image
0 x

User avatar
Regular Show
All-Star
Posts: 3328
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 10:16 am
Location: Chicago, IL
x 2433
x 1248

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Regular Show » Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:32 am

TruffleShuffle wrote:Jesus this is so much fail.

Image


Well, I'm pretty damn sure this guy was not an Andrew Yang supporter lol.
4 x
"It was met with, basically, he didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want me to tell him that. I just basically said, 'Well that's why we want an electronic strike zone.'" -- Ben Zobrist

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 83505
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 14207
x 16774

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:36 pm

CubinNY wrote:Mojo, Trump did not say people dying will be good for unemployment numbers, but he did say it was a good thing people are not traveling and spending their money in America. He is undoubtedly a sociopath.

People no longer BST an eyelash that our President is mentally ill.


OK, but why are you telling me?
0 x

CubinNY
Hall of Fame
Posts: 23259
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Pike Road, Al
x 364
x 743

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CubinNY » Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:38 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
CubinNY wrote:Mojo, Trump did not say people dying will be good for unemployment numbers, but he did say it was a good thing people are not traveling and spending their money in America. He is undoubtedly a sociopath.

People no longer BST an eyelash that our President is mentally ill.


OK, but why are you telling me?

about a week ago I wrote that when everyone dies thinks of how low the unemployment rate would be and you said it sounds like something Trump would say.
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 83505
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 14207
x 16774

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:43 pm

Man, a week ago is like a year ago in this damn thread/world.
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 83505
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 14207
x 16774

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Mar 06, 2020 12:47 pm

On my way in to work this morning, I had a random/dumb thought about how disappointing the Democratic candidates have been post-Obama (meaning Clinton and, presumably, Biden). Not for the litany of usual reasons, but just because of how much it follows the Republicans' path post-Reagan. After Reagan, the next 12 years of Republican presidents were just attempts to have the retread-iest retreads as possible; the VP of the previous guy, and then the son of the VP, who proceeded to fill his administration with everyone his dad and Reagan surrounded themselves with.

Say what you will about how Clinton (the first) and Obama turned out; at least the basic fact that they got elected showed that people were willing to go younger and with someone new. And somehow the lesson the Democrats took from those 4 terms was...run the wife of the former, and then the VP of the latter. Like, how do they figure THAT kind of move is the safe option, as opposed to the type of move that gave us two two-term Democratic presidents?

Ugh.
2 x

UK
Hall of Fame
Posts: 21007
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 2:38 pm
x 191
x 534

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby UK » Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:01 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:On my way in to work this morning, I had a random/dumb thought about how disappointing the Democratic candidates have been post-Obama (meaning Clinton and, presumably, Biden). Not for the litany of usual reasons, but just because of how much it follows the Republicans' path post-Reagan. After Reagan, the next 12 years of Republican presidents were just attempts to have the retread-iest retreads as possible; the VP of the previous guy, and then the son of the VP, who proceeded to fill his administration with everyone his dad and Reagan surrounded themselves with.

Say what you will about how Clinton (the first) and Obama turned out; at least the basic fact that they got elected showed that people were willing to go younger and with someone new. And somehow the lesson the Democrats took from those 4 terms was...run the wife of the former, and then the VP of the latter. Like, how do they figure THAT kind of move is the safe option, as opposed to the type of move that gave us two two-term Democratic presidents?

Ugh.


We should be looking at Stacey Abrams leading the nomination as she's the future leader of the party.

Since Obama ran, the party became complacent and probably stagnet.
0 x
"It was kind of weird to look in the mirror the first time I tried my hat on." - Mark Bellhorn

User avatar
WrigleyField 22
Superstar
Posts: 13684
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:48 pm
Location: hnderstabxcwhsg
x 2165
x 1307

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby WrigleyField 22 » Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:42 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:On my way in to work this morning, I had a random/dumb thought about how disappointing the Democratic candidates have been post-Obama (meaning Clinton and, presumably, Biden). Not for the litany of usual reasons, but just because of how much it follows the Republicans' path post-Reagan. After Reagan, the next 12 years of Republican presidents were just attempts to have the retread-iest retreads as possible; the VP of the previous guy, and then the son of the VP, who proceeded to fill his administration with everyone his dad and Reagan surrounded themselves with.

Say what you will about how Clinton (the first) and Obama turned out; at least the basic fact that they got elected showed that people were willing to go younger and with someone new. And somehow the lesson the Democrats took from those 4 terms was...run the wife of the former, and then the VP of the latter. Like, how do they figure THAT kind of move is the safe option, as opposed to the type of move that gave us two two-term Democratic presidents?

Ugh.

Well the establishment was all ready to line up behind Clinton in 2008 but a young charasmatic candidate swung the vote. There wasn't a shorter of young/new candidates this cycle. Maybe they were hurt by there being too many and they all split the vote, I guess.

Also the former VP (Gore) and a Clinton still did get popular vote wins. The Dems have been boned twice by the EC.
0 x
Image

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 83505
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 14207
x 16774

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:45 pm

WrigleyField 22 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:On my way in to work this morning, I had a random/dumb thought about how disappointing the Democratic candidates have been post-Obama (meaning Clinton and, presumably, Biden). Not for the litany of usual reasons, but just because of how much it follows the Republicans' path post-Reagan. After Reagan, the next 12 years of Republican presidents were just attempts to have the retread-iest retreads as possible; the VP of the previous guy, and then the son of the VP, who proceeded to fill his administration with everyone his dad and Reagan surrounded themselves with.

Say what you will about how Clinton (the first) and Obama turned out; at least the basic fact that they got elected showed that people were willing to go younger and with someone new. And somehow the lesson the Democrats took from those 4 terms was...run the wife of the former, and then the VP of the latter. Like, how do they figure THAT kind of move is the safe option, as opposed to the type of move that gave us two two-term Democratic presidents?

Ugh.

Well the establishment was all ready to line up behind Clinton in 2008 but a young charasmatic candidate swung the vote. There wasn't a shorter of young/new candidates this cycle. Maybe they were hurt by there being too many and they all split the vote, I guess.

Also the former VP (Gore) and a Clinton still did get popular vote wins. The Dems have been boned twice by the EC.


Obama's rising should have just reiterated what we saw happen with Clinton's win in '92. And then there was no party interest in finding the next Clinton/Obama because they just defaulted to Hillary Clinton yet again, which is so stupid amazing a decision to make after 2008.
0 x

CubinNY
Hall of Fame
Posts: 23259
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Pike Road, Al
x 364
x 743

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CubinNY » Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:52 pm

UK wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:On my way in to work this morning, I had a random/dumb thought about how disappointing the Democratic candidates have been post-Obama (meaning Clinton and, presumably, Biden). Not for the litany of usual reasons, but just because of how much it follows the Republicans' path post-Reagan. After Reagan, the next 12 years of Republican presidents were just attempts to have the retread-iest retreads as possible; the VP of the previous guy, and then the son of the VP, who proceeded to fill his administration with everyone his dad and Reagan surrounded themselves with.

Say what you will about how Clinton (the first) and Obama turned out; at least the basic fact that they got elected showed that people were willing to go younger and with someone new. And somehow the lesson the Democrats took from those 4 terms was...run the wife of the former, and then the VP of the latter. Like, how do they figure THAT kind of move is the safe option, as opposed to the type of move that gave us two two-term Democratic presidents?

Ugh.


We should be looking at Stacey Abrams leading the nomination as she's the future leader of the party.

Since Obama ran, the party became complacent and probably stagnet.

Both Clinton and Obama were institutional Democrats. The progressive wing of the party died out in the 70s and 80s and was replaced by Democrats aligned with and supported by the same monied interests as the Republicans. Citizens United has exacerbated the problem. I don't know how anything will change in the short or long term. Trump presents a unique challenge, but he will be gone soon. There are much smarter people like him waiting in the wings. The United States has course-corrected back to the system that was in place before FDR. Only some outside event will change it.
0 x

NOLA
All-Star
Posts: 4650
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 3:17 am
Location: Bywater, New Orleans
x 1076
x 800
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby NOLA » Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:00 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
WrigleyField 22 wrote:
Sammy Sofa wrote:On my way in to work this morning, I had a random/dumb thought about how disappointing the Democratic candidates have been post-Obama (meaning Clinton and, presumably, Biden). Not for the litany of usual reasons, but just because of how much it follows the Republicans' path post-Reagan. After Reagan, the next 12 years of Republican presidents were just attempts to have the retread-iest retreads as possible; the VP of the previous guy, and then the son of the VP, who proceeded to fill his administration with everyone his dad and Reagan surrounded themselves with.

Say what you will about how Clinton (the first) and Obama turned out; at least the basic fact that they got elected showed that people were willing to go younger and with someone new. And somehow the lesson the Democrats took from those 4 terms was...run the wife of the former, and then the VP of the latter. Like, how do they figure THAT kind of move is the safe option, as opposed to the type of move that gave us two two-term Democratic presidents?

Ugh.

Well the establishment was all ready to line up behind Clinton in 2008 but a young charasmatic candidate swung the vote. There wasn't a shorter of young/new candidates this cycle. Maybe they were hurt by there being too many and they all split the vote, I guess.

Also the former VP (Gore) and a Clinton still did get popular vote wins. The Dems have been boned twice by the EC.


Obama's rising should have just reiterated what we saw happen with Clinton's win in '92. And then there was no party interest in finding the next Clinton/Obama because they just defaulted to Hillary Clinton yet again, which is so stupid amazing a decision to make after 2008.

No party interest, or no 1992 Bill Clinton or Obama waiting in the wings? Who out there would have been that candidate this cycle, or in 2016? Wrigley's point is important-Dems have won twice but lost the election on the stupid EC. After 9/11, there was practically no way that W wouldn't be releected in 2004. I do think that Sherrod Brown would have crushed everybody in the primary field this cycle.
0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 83505
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 14207
x 16774

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:00 pm

CubinNY wrote:Both Clinton and Obama were institutional Democrats. The progressive wing of the party died out in the 70s and 80s and was replaced by Democrats aligned with and supported by the same monied interests as the Republicans. Citizens United has exacerbated the problem. I don't know how anything will change in the short or long term. Trump presents a unique challenge, but he will be gone soon. There are much smarter people like him waiting in the wings. The United States has course-corrected back to the system that was in place before FDR. Only some outside event will change it.


Dude, this is some deliberately obtuse wankery. Again, despite how their presidencies ended up, both Clinton and Obama ran as young, progressive candidates. To say they ran and won their first terms as "institutional Democrats" is complete revisionist horse horsefeathers.
2 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 83505
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 14207
x 16774

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:02 pm

NOLA wrote: Wrigley's point is important-Dems have won twice but lost the election on the stupid EC.


Boo-hoo; they still lost. You know who didn't lose, and it didn't have to come down to that risky margin? Bill Clinton and Obama. horsefeathering, adding Gore only just emphasizes the point that playing it safe is kicking themselves in the dick.
0 x

NOLA
All-Star
Posts: 4650
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 3:17 am
Location: Bywater, New Orleans
x 1076
x 800
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby NOLA » Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:08 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
NOLA wrote: Wrigley's point is important-Dems have won twice but lost the election on the stupid EC.


Boo-hoo; they still lost. You know who didn't lose, and it didn't have to come down to that risky margin? Bill Clinton and Obama. horsefeathering, adding Gore only just emphasizes the point that playing it safe is kicking themselves in the dick.

Not disagreeing at all, but Gore did win the popular vote and probably would have crushed W in the EC as well if he weren't such a derp who claimed to invent the internet and the LOCKBOX nonsense.
0 x

CubinNY
Hall of Fame
Posts: 23259
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:52 pm
Location: Pike Road, Al
x 364
x 743

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CubinNY » Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:14 pm

Sammy Sofa wrote:
CubinNY wrote:Both Clinton and Obama were institutional Democrats. The progressive wing of the party died out in the 70s and 80s and was replaced by Democrats aligned with and supported by the same monied interests as the Republicans. Citizens United has exacerbated the problem. I don't know how anything will change in the short or long term. Trump presents a unique challenge, but he will be gone soon. There are much smarter people like him waiting in the wings. The United States has course-corrected back to the system that was in place before FDR. Only some outside event will change it.


Dude, this is some deliberately obtuse wankery. Again, despite how their presidencies ended up, both Clinton and Obama ran as young, progressive candidates. To say they ran and won their first terms as "institutional Democrats" is complete revisionist horse horsefeathers.

Clinton did not run as a progressive candidate. There was nothing in his history either before he won the office or after he was in the office that suggested he was a progressive. Obama was a different case, only because he didn't have a history. He was very much an unknown quantity when he won the office. And it turns out he didn't do much to move the party in a progressive direction either.
0 x


Return to “Social”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests