I don't get it.
Why were a lot of people so high on Beto?
I don't get it.
Why were a lot of people so high on Beto?
Flagpole wrote:
Just thought I'd pop in to provide the unwavering truth.
Mueller is coming. (still true)
The clown is done. (still true)
Oh, and I was right about the 2016 election because Trump cheated.
Trumpers are out in force right now because media-wise, it's the calm before the storm.
The House WILL impeach Trump. It is their duty to do so.
Oh Flagpole, you fight with the naivety and fervor of a younger man.
Admirable, but mistaken.
Beto Beto wrote:
I don't get it.
Why were a lot of people so high on Beto?
Well, I never have been. He's too goofy for me.
BUT, he did well in a red state against Ted Cruz, so that's one reason why some Democrats were big on him.
Sally Vix wrote:
Where has Flagpole been? Did he leave us permanently? His track record, let's explore:
1) Donald Trump would win the 2016 election. WRONG
2) Donald Trump would not serve out his entire first term. SOON-TO-BE WRONG
3) Mueller was coming and the clown was done. WRONG
4) Trump will be impeached. WRONG
5) Calling women "whores" was becoming of a gentleman. WRONG
6) Trump would have been indicted if not a sitting president. WRONG (From Mueller himself!)
There are others but just reveals the depths of his Wrongness.
Hehehe
Beto Beto wrote:
I don't get it.
Why were a lot of people so high on Beto?
I've been trying to figure out the answer to that question myself.
When evaluating political talent, I always want to see how good they are on the stump.
1. Do they have compelling ideas?
2. Can they articulate those ideas?
3. Are they persuasive?
4. And most of all, are they inspiring?
If candidates don't check all those boxes, they aren't ready for the big leagues of presidential politics.
Maybe I just haven't seen enough of Beto, but it seems he really falls down on #1 and #4.
Fat hurts wrote:
Beto Beto wrote:
I don't get it.
Why were a lot of people so high on Beto?
I've been trying to figure out the answer to that question myself.
When evaluating political talent, I always want to see how good they are on the stump.
1. Do they have compelling ideas?
2. Can they articulate those ideas?
3. Are they persuasive?
4. And most of all, are they inspiring?
If candidates don't check all those boxes, they aren't ready for the big leagues of presidential politics.
Maybe I just haven't seen enough of Beto, but it seems he really falls down on #1 and #4.
beto had 2-3 amazing viral moments - that was all people knew and it was really really good. Nobody outside texas had seen a stump speech or interview - all they knew was the amazing viral moments.
and he's tall and good looking and came pretty close to beating ted cruz.
turns out the dude is a bit kooky tho.
#587 of Things That Make Trump the Worst President of All Time.
Ratcliffe nominated to be DNI because of loyalty to Spanky rather than the nation. I can't even. Go ahead, spankists. Defend this on patriotic terms.
From the NYT editorial:
Before President Trump picked Dan Coats to be the director of national intelligence, Mr. Coats spent 24 years in Washington as a member of the House and the Senate from Indiana, serving long stints on both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee. He had also been ambassador to Germany.
His predecessors included James Clapper, an Air Force lieutenant general who previously headed two other intelligence agencies, and Adm. Dennis Blair, who commanded United States naval forces in the Pacific.
After an increasingly difficult tenure, Mr. Coats is stepping down and Mr. Trump has chosen as his replacement Representative John Ratcliffe of Texas.
The 2004 law creating the position of director of national intelligence says that whoever holds the post must have “extensive national security expertise,” but Mr. Ratcliffe has been a House member only since 2015 and joined the House Intelligence Committee just this year. Before that he was a small-town mayor and a United States attorney, apparently with little or no experience dealing with terrorism or national security issues. He may have even falsely claimed to have prosecuted terrorists.
agip wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I've been trying to figure out the answer to that question myself.
When evaluating political talent, I always want to see how good they are on the stump.
1. Do they have compelling ideas?
2. Can they articulate those ideas?
3. Are they persuasive?
4. And most of all, are they inspiring?
If candidates don't check all those boxes, they aren't ready for the big leagues of presidential politics.
Maybe I just haven't seen enough of Beto, but it seems he really falls down on #1 and #4.
beto had 2-3 amazing viral moments - that was all people knew and it was really really good. Nobody outside texas had seen a stump speech or interview - all they knew was the amazing viral moments.
and he's tall and good looking and came pretty close to beating ted cruz.
turns out the dude is a bit kooky tho.
You were really high on him early on, no?
Pokey TX wrote:
agip wrote:
beto had 2-3 amazing viral moments - that was all people knew and it was really really good. Nobody outside texas had seen a stump speech or interview - all they knew was the amazing viral moments.
and he's tall and good looking and came pretty close to beating ted cruz.
turns out the dude is a bit kooky tho.
You were really high on him early on, no?
Alan was the main Beto backer on the thread but I did like Beto early on yes. He was able to articulate what good government is and why Trump is so malignant. And he was doing well in a red state so I figured he wasn't too far off center.
In the end I think I thought Beto was more like Pete. But it turns out Pete is better than Beto in every way except some passion and looks.
Beto Beto wrote:
I don't get it.
Why were a lot of people so high on Beto?
I don't get this either, I'm not impressed. It must be because he did well in texas.. as you can imagine that's enough to grab a lot of attention.
I am very impressed by Pete though and I am hoping he uses his age strategically. He already comes off as extremely mature and poised, and he does have some leadership experience and is obviously a true patriot.. so he needs to sell himself as a fresh face that can really bring some good change and energy to the party. He should at least be on a VP ticket.
Whoever takes it, whether Biden, Sanders, Harris or Warren will move to a more moderate stance.
UK Prime Minister AND trump proven liars about Brexit! Congress says no to trade deal if there’s an Irish border, abrogating Good Friday Accord (a Clinton peace deal, of course).
I thought it was a great debate. CNN did a very good job. They didn't give candidates much time to respond but so many of them tend to filibuster and talk around points the limited time kept their feet to the fire.
Thank God the moderates finally asserted themselves. I was very impressed by the nonames Bullock, Hickenlooper and Delaney. I hope one of them gains traction.
The Sanders/Warren ideas will not play in the general election. As one other poster mentioned, they comprise the tea party type energy that ruined the Republican party.
Pete seemed to triangulate his positions a bit too much. Beto was stilted. My opinion of both is somewhat less than it was before the debate.
Warren should have been directly confronted by her implication that moderate democrats are like Republicans. They are not. Nominating a social democrat is a huge risk for the democrats. The social democrats have an energetic core but in the long run they will hurt the party in a general election.
But the moderates did well.
The democrats will need a united front to win.
Racket wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Just thought I'd pop in to provide the unwavering truth.
Mueller is coming. (still true)
The clown is done. (still true)
Oh, and I was right about the 2016 election because Trump cheated.
Trumpers are out in force right now because media-wise, it's the calm before the storm.
The House WILL impeach Trump. It is their duty to do so.
Oh Flagpole, you fight with the naivety and fervor of a younger man.
Admirable, but mistaken.
You will see...just be patient grasshopper.
Flagpole wrote:
Just thought I'd pop in to provide the unwavering truth.
Mueller is coming. (still true)
The clown is done. (still true)
Oh, and I was right about the 2016 election because Trump cheated.
Trumpers are out in force right now because media-wise, it's the calm before the storm.
The House WILL impeach Trump. It is their duty to do so.
Nope. You said if he's found innocent then he's innocent and you would consider him as such. Same as Hillary Clinton.
You were wrong about Trump cheating, but right about Hillary cheating.
He will not be impeached.
You were proven wrong so you just say "I was right", hilarious. You've got insecurity issues to a scary degree.
Don't you know that even your followers, Fat Hurts and Co., know that you are wrong?
Flagpole wrote:
Racket wrote:
Oh Flagpole, you fight with the naivety and fervor of a younger man.
Admirable, but mistaken.
You will see...just be patient grasshopper.
Flagpole's loopholes are a hoot! First it was soon, that was over 2 years ago. Then he'll be in prison and he won't finish his first term. Your liberal leader is a nut job like Sanders, I'll tell ya anything and I expect you to believe it.
FP is absolutely gone nuts. He's wrong over and over and keeps coming back for more.
And these are the four candidates who will hurt the party if nominated (and I would vote any of the four over Trump):
Sanders, Yang, Williamson, & Warren.
Anyone of the four represent the best chance of the democrats losing everything.
Flaggy's Hole keeps getting deeper wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Just thought I'd pop in to provide the unwavering truth.
Mueller is coming. (still true)
The clown is done. (still true)
Oh, and I was right about the 2016 election because Trump cheated.
Trumpers are out in force right now because media-wise, it's the calm before the storm.
The House WILL impeach Trump. It is their duty to do so.
Nope. You said if he's found innocent then he's innocent and you would consider him as such. Same as Hillary Clinton.
You were wrong about Trump cheating, but right about Hillary cheating.
He will not be impeached.
You were proven wrong so you just say "I was right", hilarious. You've got insecurity issues to a scary degree.
Don't you know that even your followers, Fat Hurts and Co., know that you are wrong?
1) Trump hasn't been found innocent of anything. Was declared there wasn't enough evidence to pursue collusion, and I accept that (because I have 100% integrity 100% of the time), but obstruction is still out there as are a lot of other potential crimes that were pawned off to other offices. Ridiculous for you to say he was found innocent of anything.
2) Nope. Correct about the cheating.
3) He WILL be impeached. House is moving in that direction, and it WILL happen.
4) I have no followers and don't want any. If they believe I am wrong about Trump being impeached, then they are simply wrong.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
Flaggy's Hole keeps getting deeper wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Just thought I'd pop in to provide the unwavering truth.
Mueller is coming. (still true)
The clown is done. (still true)
Oh, and I was right about the 2016 election because Trump cheated.
Trumpers are out in force right now because media-wise, it's the calm before the storm.
The House WILL impeach Trump. It is their duty to do so.
Nope. You said if he's found innocent then he's innocent and you would consider him as such. Same as Hillary Clinton.
You were wrong about Trump cheating, but right about Hillary cheating.
He will not be impeached.
You were proven wrong so you just say "I was right", hilarious. You've got insecurity issues to a scary degree.
Don't you know that even your followers, Fat Hurts and Co., know that you are wrong?
I'm certainly no Flagpole follower. We disagree quite a lot.
But we are united in our understanding of how this president is the greatest threat to our world. He must be stopped.
Conundrum wrote:
Thank God the moderates finally asserted themselves. I was very impressed by the nonames Bullock, Hickenlooper and Delaney. I hope one of them gains traction.
1) I know you weren't suggesting this, but the no names have no shot at winning the nomination.
2) What is ironic is that when a side has such a radical president (could be ANY side, but in this case we have Trump), the result is a massive push back on the opposite side (a historic look at what followed populists around the world shows that as a trend). Trump's presidency has resulted in more women and people of color being involved in politics, and because they are, they will inspire other women and people of color and immigrants to follow in their footsteps. Had Republicans nominated a mainstream Republican like John Kasich, there wouldn't be this influx of women and people of color into our political system, an influx that I applaud of course and one that has irrevocably pushed mainstream politics further left. I ALWAYS look for a silver lining in all bad things, and while I give Trump no credit for anything good, the silver lining is that the correct people have stood up to have their say against this Orange Monstrosity.
This is what the stupid and racist Trumpers get (there are no Trumpers who aren't either JUST stupid or racist).
Don't be like FP wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
You will see...just be patient grasshopper.
Flagpole's loopholes are a hoot! First it was soon, that was over 2 years ago. Then he'll be in prison and he won't finish his first term. Your liberal leader is a nut job like Sanders, I'll tell ya anything and I expect you to believe it.
FP is absolutely gone nuts. He's wrong over and over and keeps coming back for more.
Dude, since I have 100% integrity 100% of the time, I tell the truth all the time, and here's the truth.
1) I never said anything would happen "soon". Never, never, never, and you can not find an instance in which I did. I always said "by end of his first term."
2) He still WILL go to prison...unless again, he dies first or there is criminal or space alien behavior that prevents it. I have not changed my opinion on that.
3) I never said he would be ending his first term BECAUSE he was going to prison. Those two things have always been separate.
4) I HAVE said he will not finish his first term, and I have also said for a while now that it appears I will be wrong about that. Unlike what many suggest here, I ALWAYS admit fault when I am wrong. Right now it just APPEARS I will be wrong about him not making it out of the first term. I will gladly say I was wrong if that does not happen. Trump and Barr have been very effective as delaying justice, and time is simply likely to run out for this first term,
I never have loopholes. I make predictions. Most are right. Some are not, and I ALWAYS admit when I was not right...ALWAYS and without fail.
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
Trumpers (not elected officials) are either JUST stupid or racist.
There are no other possibilities.