Ms. Warren’s announcement Monday was expected. And it will not be a surprise when Senators Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California enter the race in the coming weeks. But the number of would-be candidates who may ultimately stay out of the race is larger than the list of contenders who are certain to run.It's a subtle pushback to the Bernie-Beto-Biden triad, but it is — as I see it — another NYT pushback to the 3 white men who ought to know better than to clutter the path of The Foursome. And we can see who the expendable member of The Foursome is, because they've left her name out of this article altogether.
There are the well-known, or at least much-buzzed-about, Democrats who are still deliberating: Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the most prominent of this group, and leads the field in initial polling in Iowa. But there is also great anticipation over Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the runner-up for the Democratic nomination in 2016, and Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas, whose losing Senate bid this year electrified many grass-roots Democrats.
It is unclear if any of these men will enter the race — particularly Mr. Biden, who, associates say, is ambivalent about running after over three decades of presidential fits and starts.
Martin and Burns home in on Warren, who just announced she's in the running. She's early, but she's late:
Would she be the president today if she had run in 2016, as some liberal activists and admirers urged her to? Mr. Sanders ended up filling the void on the populist left and ran a surprisingly strong campaign against Hillary Clinton....I think the reason why the NYT didn't mention the fourth member of The Foursome (Kirsten Gillibrand) was because they had to focus on Warren, given her announcement, and there's this idea that the "political conversation" has shifted from class consciousness to race consciousness. It's not a white-person "moment" anymore. "Who Matches the Moment?" says the headline, and the "moment" is, apparently, what Trump made it, with his "incendiary rhetoric and policies around race and immigration."
[T]he more recent history of presidential calculations suggests that candidates are wiser to run when the moment presents itself. That is what Mr. Obama did in 2008 after just four years in the Senate, the same period Ms. Warren would have served by 2016. Some Democrats think 2020 is Mr. O’Rourke’s moment: He has been in the House for just six years, but many liberals see his energy and freshness as inspiring.
One reason Ms. Warren announced on Monday and declared so early, her allies suggested, was to erase any uncertainty about her intentions among supporters whom she kept waiting — and ultimately disappointed — in 2016....
Timing is also crucial in presidential races because the issues can change so quickly. Mr. Trump’s incendiary rhetoric and policies around race and immigration have shifted the political conversation away from matters of economic inequality, which has been the life’s work of Ms. Warren and which defined much of the 2016 Democratic primary.
So Warren had her time, 2016, and she missed it, and let's not even mention that other white woman — or get derailed into the icky inquiry whether Warren is white — because the path needs clearing. Who knows how much white-person clutter could fall on the path the NYT would like to clear for — let's be honest — Kamala Harris?
The NYT is trying to be somewhat subtle, but it seems so obvious to me.
By the way, whatever happened to the rise of women, and why isn't the "moment" about #MeToo, which would vault Kirsten Gillibrand to the front?
पोस्ट्स
१०१ टिप्पण्या:
I fear that whichever lunatic the Democrats nominate will win. The revenge on The Deplorables will be awful. Do not be a white, male law-abiding citizen in the coming decade.
All is quiet on New Years Day.
Trump would love for The NY Times to clear the field for Kamala. She has incendiary rhetoric of her own. And is less likeable than Hillary. The Times cleared the field for her, too.
These Times reporters work for Trump.
It remains a mystery to me how people can read such racist trash as The New York Times.
"incendiary rhetoric and policies around race and immigration."
Can anyone help a brother out here with an example of one of Trump's incendiary racial policies?
Male Democrat Presidential candidates should cut their junk off to give them a leg up in the game.
Harris is the best of the Democratic party crop so far. She has two accomplishments - she is black (at least partly) and she is female. Cory Booker has only one accomplishment, as does Kirsten Gillibrand, while Elizabeth Warren has 1 and 1/1024. Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Bob O'Rourke have no accomplishments, although perhaps Sanders' identification as a socialist counts as a half-accomplishment.
Harris looks like a shoo-in, but sometimes the most accomplished candidate does not win.
I still say the NYT is looking for a figurehead to head an administration guided by the NYT/WaPo editorial staffs.
I will do my best to ignore this election until the summer of 2020.
I can't believe Hillary doesn't even get a mention. Does the NYT have inside info that she certainly isn't running? If so, it just seems fair to share that tidbit with the reader. Otherwise, the glaring omission of Hillary makes it seem as if the NYT is playing some sort of wink-wink game with their readership.
It's going to be Kamela and Spartacus as VP. I'm planning to say I told you so (in about a year).
That way, when they lose to Trump; they can blame it on Racism!
Can anyone help a brother out here with an example of one of Trump's incendiary racial policies?
Trump burns black candles at his Satanic sacrifices.
What are Trump's incendiary rhetoric and policies about race?
It's like the opening number in a Broadway show. The chorus do their big number, and then the star emerges. Hillary! She was in the wings all along.
I think that Sarah Jeong is playing an influential role in the New York Times' writing about the Democrats' primary elections.
What are Trump's incendiary rhetoric and policies about race?
Rhetoric: Trump's use of the term "shithole [counties]" made everyone think about the fact that some countries are shitholes and that those countries are not majority-white.
Policy: As far as I can tell Trump's incendiary racial policy is to not "race-hustle", so he doesn't play into stupid shit like this: Latreese Cook says the way Beto O'Rourke talks about white privilege resonates with black voters.
To win, the Democrats need a candidate who will get close to 100% of the Black vote, while not driving away too many White Democrat voters; that is, another candidate like Obama.
So: Michelle Obama.
Let's face it, Warren is dull and unattractive. People see in her the old pinch face who shushed them in the library.
What is it with Democrats and humorless scolds? The humorless scold is always powerless against the class clown. Trump can play the clown when that's what works.
Obama was able to capture something like 95%+ of the black vote. Hillary was not able to do that. Trump is making inroads with black voters and women. In fact, he's more popular with Republican women than Republican men. So, the Democrat strategy is obvious. They think they need to nominate a nominally centrist black woman. That gets them the black and women voters they have to have to prevail.
Yes there were no effective classroom management techniques before, and Obama made it even more difficult.
When Trump talks about current and historical Black and Hispanic employment numbers it is incendiary from a progressive point of view.
Let's face it, Warren is dull and unattractive.
Also, she has crazy eyes.
What if Biden declares that he identifies as A woman? Wouldn't he match the moment?
What if Biden declares that he identifies as A woman?
Then he could grab himself.
Because for a moment Gillibrand believed #MeToo meant #BillClinton too.
Was 2016 Trump’s moment?
The NYT didn’t think so.
That's so last year.
There is never a “moment” for a Republican candidate.
It’s just who the deplorables find racist enough to run against the eventual winner.
I fear that whichever lunatic the Democrats nominate will win. The revenge on The Deplorables will be awful. Do not be a white, male law-abiding citizen in the coming decade.
This is how the Evangelicals voted for President Trump. Not for what he would do for them, but because he would not actively implement policies to destroy them. The Democrat Party with their identity politics, identifies those who they will seek revenge against to destroy.
Realize, if you are not on their list, you are the enemy.
Yes it's always butterfly ballots or Diebold's or the russians:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/12/trump-on-elizabeth-warren-youd-have-to-ask-her-psychiatrist-if-she-thinks-she-can-win/
The Democrats are waiting for the 'magic moment' when they finally have a real candidate that people will enthusiastically vote for. I don't think the geriatric retreads and psychobabble ignoramus leftards they are fielding are going to get it.
Speaking of MOMENTS....This Magic Moment
To be serious.
The thing about "Moments" is that you don't know that "The Moment" has occurred until it has already happened.
"The Moment" is momentary and over in just a brief moment in time.
If you don't catch the wave you have to keep paddling.
So, the Democrat strategy is obvious. They think they need to nominate a nominally centrist black woman. That gets them the black and women voters they have to have to prevail.
Agree that is the strategy, but I don't think black men will come out for Kamala.
"The Moment" is momentary and over in just a brief moment in time.
And it’s not due to happen for a couple of years.
If it were just like this moment, it wouldn’t be a moment at all.
I'm for Caitlin Upton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlin_Upton
on why some US children can't locate America on a map
I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh, people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future. For our children.
Kamala is married to a white guy. That screws up with Narrative. Obama would never have succeeded politically with a white wife. It is different because Kamala is a woman, but I don't think it's a non factor either.
Another important thing about "Moments" (capital M moments) is to recognize and acknowledge when the Moment is over. When THE Moment is gone...let it go.
Hillary never did this and it is why she lost so very horribly.
Hillary was (and is) like an aging diva who clings to her moment in the sun and makes a complete fool of herself by not gracefully exiting stage left (ala Snagglepuss.....which is actually an apt name for Hillary :-)
(I am having semantic saturation about the word moment at this moment)
Caitlin Upton became a Trump model so there may be a conflict of interest.
At this moment, Crooked Hillary must think that she could whip all of their light asses However, she must also realize that if nobody shows up for the Bill and Hillary show, she's dead meat.
Gillibrand's moment came in 1692, in Salem.
Norma Desmond, but unlike gloria Swanson's character she was never a star.
Agree that is the strategy, but I don't think black men will come out for Kamala.
Black guys are an odd fit in the Democrat coalition. Most are sexists and, as our would be masters phrase it, "homophobes."
Agree that is the strategy, but I don't think black men will come out for Kamala.
Black men will vote for whoever the person who fills out and submits their ballot wants them to vote for.
I think there are three strains of thought inside the progressive beehive right now:
1. By 2020, Trump and the Republican brand will be so damaged by Mueller, impeachment, continued investigations, the inevitable economic recession etc. that anyone remotely credible Democrat can beat them. Consequently, we shouldn't waste our opportunity on a boring straight white male, but nominate someone who represents the diverse future we see for the future of our party and America, because no matter who they are, we can't lose.
2. No matter what happens between now and 2020, Trump will survive and the coalition that elected him in 2016 will remain loyal in 2020. The only way to beat Trump is to rebuild the "Coalition of the Ascendant" that re-elected Obama in 2012, replacing the lower- and middle-class white men that defected from that coalition in 2016 with the affluent white women that defected from the Republicans in 2018. Nominating a straight, white male won't inspire the broad progressive coalition we need to beat Trump, so we need to position a woman or person-of-color (or someone who is preferably both) to be the nominee in 2020.
3. Regardless of who wins in 2020, it's better for my own career if white men are regarded as unfit for leadership positions within the progressive caucus. By nominating a woman or person-of-color who will place the same within leadership or other important roles inside their campaign and carry that same policy forward into their administration should they win, the 2020 Democratic campaign will increase my own career opportunities dramatically, and that's what I really care about.
Do not be a white, male law-abiding citizen in the coming decade.
Fuck them...they're just splooge stooges anyway.
Even Warren is a stretch at this point, but Can we please stop pretending that gillibrand is top tier in these rankings? She's literally Clinton 2.0 or 3.0. senator from NY, flipflopper, hated by her own party because of that and franken
Birches said...Kamala is married to a white guy. That screws up with Narrative. Obama would never have succeeded politically with a white wife. It is different because Kamala is a woman, but I don't think it's a non factor either.
Some people assume that she cuckolded that "white guy" with Willie Brown. I know it's false, but that's what some people believe. And that's what's important.
I still say the NYT is looking for a figurehead to head an administration guided by the NYT/WaPo editorial staffs.
I am still not sure who runs the show - the DNC or the MSM.
They are so interrelated that it is and always has been a joint effort.
For the "liberal" Hive, the Moment is when you can most effectively saddle the populace with more statism and effectively hornswoggle them into believing Uncle Sugar will be giving them more free stuff. (Of course, that "free" stuff is never really free. There's always a price.)
K-K-Kamala!
Also, she has no children of her own. She would need to use her husband's children from his previous marriage for photo ops. I assume this isn't the picture POC activists want. All very problematic.
What has Trump said or done about race that is incendiary. Why is this an article of faith on the left, simply assumed to be true.
Perhaps Beto can go transgender- go all the way, I mean. Would that get the NYTimes behind "him".
The article says it was written by Johnathon Martin and Alexander Burns. You interpret it as an indicator of the desires and intentions of something called "the NYT". Do you really think it's that cut and dried? How would that work? Does Bacquet tell them what the Party Line is, and then edit their submissions to make sure the proper bias is in place? I would think that this early in the game, the Times management would be content to let their reporters do as they see fit. They know their reporters are all good Left Fascists. They aren't going to go off the Reservation. And I would bet their is still considerable difference of opinion among Times management as well.
Leftists love Bernie, but he's no longer useful.
"Rhetoric: Trump's use of the term "shithole [counties]" made everyone think about the fact that some countries are shitholes and that those countries are not majority-white."
Do you have a link to that sound bite? I'd love to hear it.
Ron Winkleheimer said...
Let's face it, Warren is dull and unattractive.
Also, she has crazy eyes.
Warren is Clinton without the cackle.
I don't think the Dems will back Harris this cycle, they'll save her for a Beto/Harris ticket in 2024 and top of the ticket in 2032.
Given that Trump commands the media in spite of themselves, the Dems may decide to sacrifice Warren to placate the fems & SJWs. That clears the bench of self-entitled, bitter white women and old white men.
RGB is the wildcard in the left's strategy...are they planning long term when an aging court can be flipped back?
Some Democrats think 2020 is Mr. O’Rourke’s moment
We just wrapped up 2018. Are we going to stay in present tense for the next two years?
"We just wrapped up 2018. Are we going to stay in present tense for the next two years?"
What is the alternative?
I'd suggest, for now, 2019, that we use past-tense for 2018 and future tense for 2020.
The combination of present tense with a future date and the word "moment" suggests to me a strange conception of time. It's political time. The present is the future and the diem to be carped is a sesquiannual now.
Birches said...
Kamala is married to a white guy. That screws up with Narrative. Obama would never have succeeded politically with a white wife.
Yes, as the first black candidate, but post-Obama a multiracial marriage would be an asset that could bring some disaffected white and Hispanic males back into the Dem fold.
Mueller has missed his moment. No one cares about the 2016 election.
As ole Snakehead once said; "it's the economy, Stupid".
The Dems have become so enmeshed in identity/racial politics that they have forgotten about "the kitchen table". If the economy and full employment remains steady...then as people usually do, they will vote their pocketbook.
Henry said...
The combination of present tense with a future date and the word "moment" suggests to me a strange conception of time. It's political time. The present is the future and the diem to be carped is a sesquiannual now.
LOL!
It's politics, Jake. It's not meant to make sense.
chickenlittle: "Some people assume that she cuckolded that "white guy" with Willie Brown. I know it's false, but that's what some people believe. And that's what's important."
If you think for one minute LLR Chuck is going to let your factual observations interefere with his pro-dem Smear Merchant rumor-mongering against Trump, Melania and Barron, well, you have another thing coming.
(Illegal) immigration, yes. But what "policies around race" does Trump have?
BJM: "The Dems have become so enmeshed in identity/racial politics that they have forgotten about "the kitchen table"'
"Kitchen tables" are racist and literal white patriarchal supremacy.
Hitler had a kitchen table.
Kitchen tables are where the undocumented Honduran servants work.
I would like to see Hillary run for a third time. “I’m ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille.”
Kamala-Beto. Trump in a romp.
"....which would vault Kirsten Gillibrand to the front? AA, you mean the "Gillibrand" who slobbered all over Bill Clinton????? LOL - #metoo morons!
In another thread last week someone asked if Bobbie's billionaire father in law could fund him.
Only answer I saw was a comment about Kennedy's billionaire father funding him.
This has been tickling my noggin. First, Kennedy is not really on point since there were basically no campaign finance laws then
So now? As I understand it Sanders can only contribute a few thousand between his wife and himself, primary and general. Maybe $10-15m total or less.
Sanders can contribute unlimited money to support a candidate independently. The key is that it has to be independent. Could a father in law, in contact with the candidate on a daily basis be "independent" in the legal sense? Even if they broke off all contact during campaign, wouldn't prior contactover the years compromise the independence?
If Sanders gifted Robbie a billion now, with no strings, wouldn't it be, legally, a campaign contribution?
Ditto the daughter.
Seems like Robbie is in a bad situation. He'll get portrayed as a rich man and/or a billionaire's puppet and won't even have the money to do anything about it.
OTOH, Jake, it's Chinatown. So the demmies will figure out some way to buy the presidency.
John Henry
I think we should refer to O'Rourke as Bobbie and meant to do so above.
Then I called him Robbie twice. I thought about correcting it but decided not to.
Let confusion reign!
John Henry
The black guys in the barber shop aren’t voting for a woman. If the meme for 2020 is race Kamala’s gonna wreck it with her gender.
How about Liz and Bobbie as the ticket.
A fake Mexican and a fake indian.
They could really clean up with people identifying as transgender.
John Henry
Hey bald johnhenry!
Now that I've entered the thread, are you going to comment incessantly about me?
I think that's how you define obsession, right? Being incessantly commented about by bald johnhenry.
If normalcy were more of a priority for a lonely guy like you, you could always see a shrink about it.
Poor johnhenry. He just misses me so much. He gets choked up when I'm not around and it makes his voice whiny and squeaky.
The comments on Warren's attractiveness are amusing seeing as how they're coming from Trump voters.
Beto raised more than he could spend in Tx. But he'll have to complete with Kamala for bux in 2020. Daddy in law could fund him thru a PAC but it's not a good look. Beto and Harris are both acquiring money the old fashioned way.
I see (hear) a lot of commentary from the left that goes like this: 1. Identify a problem, and stress what an important problem it is; 2. Blame Trump for either not making the problem better, or making it worse.
Examples: one of the Sunday shows was devoted solely to climate change. It's a big problem, people would say, and Trump isn't taking it seriously. But I never heard one single person talk about a policy action that would actually make a substantive difference to the problem. It was all about posturing and virtue signalling. Likewise immigration: I have not heard one single suggestion about how to effectively enforce limitations on immigration except for Trump's wall and Trump's being mean to to illegals. All the other "policy proposals" (employer sanctions, for example) are proposals to continue with life as it has existed for 30-40 years: Anyone who manages to get to the US can stay here indefinitely and work as long as they are reasonably clever to avoid authorities. Likewise federal deficit: it's a big problem, and Trump is bad.
I love the formulation that I was introduced to here by other commenters: "Orange Man Bad". But I really wonder if the democrats can win on a platform that says: "we identify the following problems, and Orange Man Bad". It reminds me of the underpants gnome business plans from south park.
climate change. It's a big problem, people would say, and Trump isn't taking it seriously. But I never heard one single person talk about a policy action that would actually make a substantive difference to the problem.
Are you fucking kidding? How about not treating a 19th-century coal industry that employs fewer folks than Arby's and far fewer than solar and with less growth than gas like it's the fucking king of all industries? Would that not make a difference? I guess that would be too obvious since you seem to be so oblivious to the abomination Trump's making of our energy sector across the board. And how about not relaxing mercury "restrictions" that the coal plants aren't even asking for in the first place? Wow.
It was all about posturing and virtue signalling.
Maybe if you and the phony non-leader you blindly follow weren't doing so much vice signaling it wouldn't look that way.
President PeePee Tape: I'm not sure if you intend your comments to be taken seriously, because they are (really they are) primarily posturing and virtue signalling. (plus your posting name) But if you do intend to seriously engage, my challenge to you is: name a proposal that would change federal policy toward the coal industry, and tell me which likely Presidential candidate is endorsing that proposal. And then (this is the hard part) explain how the proposal would actually make a substantive difference in climate change. So if your only response is: "We need a president who talks differently than Trump does about the coal industry," that's pretty weak, because it would be ineffective. Or if your only response is: "we need a federal take over and shut down of the coal industry," that's pretty weak because no politician would ever endorse it.
THanks for your condescension, Molly. You wouldn't be a Republican if you didn't have tons of it, so it's good for me to see your character defects reinforced. And if you think what I "posture" for (unlike you and your leaders Trump et al, whom you apparently think never posture) is "virtue," I'll accept the compliment. Like I said, it's better than your posturing and signaling for vice. It's always good to know how low a bar your ilk have for both yourselves and your leaders. You should accept however that most people's standards aren't as low as yours. Why should they want to morally demean themselves in the way that would provide you the sense of identification and companionship that you apparently need so bad?
The rest of your rant is not worth taking seriously as no candidate or president has ever been as gratuitously environmentally destructive as Trump. Here are some primers.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/26/us/politics/donald-trump-environmental-regulation.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html
Suffice it to say, since no one's been that bad - anyone would probably be better. Those are specific examples; I expect you to not read a single one of them. Denialism is something your team can handle one-by-one. But obviously the assault as pervasive and destructive as the those he's unleashed on our posterity will be too much for a low-standards vice signaler like yourself to tackle with any hope of effectively diverting.
he is incapable, of responding in any significant way,
Here's a significant aid for your illiteracy, narcissistico.
K-K-Kamala!
I'm stealing that one.
Trump isn't white, he's orange. If the Democrats nominate a white man I'll have a good reason to vote Republican.
Biden, like a Wallflower, keeps waiting to be asked so he can reluctantly accept like yesteryear.
Alas, it is the Age of the Political Cougar Slut of Althouses generation: aged women never asked rubbing against you on the dance floor, unwelcome and unloved but THERE, out and proud.
Certain WOCs are the same way, knowing they will never be asked so they just let their boodunkadunk slap around, knocking their compatriots from the dance floor in a gyration for attention.
This is the Democratic Party
Molly: you're trying to have a civil exchange with a socially retarded twerp. Ritmo should have his face beaten repeatedly with a Louisville Slugger.
And "HipsterVacuum" would have you believe he's something other than a fascist Nazi trying his hand at acting tough and emulating Antifa tactics! Yeah, right!
Anytime bitch boy. You once made reference to Steven Starr which indicates you might have connections to the Philly area. All the better chance of crossing paths with you, pussy.
Too old and too much of a scold.
Glendower: I can call the spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: So can I, so can any man. But will they come when you call?
Well, I can call the spirits from the vasty deep but they don't come for me either.
I've tried Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetl.. but have always been afraid to say it the third time. So I don't know if I can call him.
Squeamish, that's another story. I can call xim from xis vasty basement
And he always comes. Always.
Bitching and moaning that xe doesn't think I am talking about xim but come xe must. Like a monkey to a coconut or a dog to his vomit. I called xim out of xis basement this afternoon and 30 minutes later, here he is. Apologies to everyone else in the comments. I am still working on getting xim back in the basement.
Thanks to all how enquired about my ad the other night https://bit.ly/2Qdskx2. I'm back to work tomorrow and will be sending out pricing and availabilities.
Please be aware that "The Squeamish Fascist", under all monikers, is a wholly owned property of JRH & CO. All performance requests and payments must go through me.
John Henry
Blogger Squeamish Fascist said...
Are you fucking kidding? How about not treating a 19th-century coal industry that employs fewer folks than Arby's and far fewer than solar
There's a reason for that and it has to do with how inefficient solar is.
Here are some pictures that show the inefficiency:
http://darkislandpr.blogspot.com/2018/01/comments-on-pr-microgrid-regulations.html
The picture in Section B shows an AES plant in Guayama PR combining coal and solar on the same site. The coal plant is rated at 454MW and can generate that continuously for extended periods of time.
The solar plant takes up more land and is rated at 20MW nominal and about 4MW effective. That means it will generate 20MW for an hour or two under optimum conditions on a sunny day. Under optimum conditions, it will generate some power for about 5-6 hours per day.
Averaged over the course of a year, it will generate about the same amount of power as a 4MW diesel would. A Class 8 over the road tractor is about 1MW for comparison.
AES has proposed to solarize the entire Island. To do this they propose 10,000MW (nominal) of solar. They claim that this, based on 5-6 hours a day of generation, will cover the Island's average demand of about 3,000MW. They did not address, what they proposed about storage for when the sun doesn't shine.
1MW nominal of solar requires about 5 acres of land. 10,000MW nominal would require about 80 square miles of panels. Add access roads, substations, batteries and so forth and we are probably talking 100-120 square miles of land.
The picture in section C shows 80 square miles superimposed on a map of PR. Some of that may be be on rooftops but most of it will be displacing plant life since not much will grown under solar panels besides some low weeds. I don't think we in PR or you in the upper 50 can afford to lose that much greenery.
Solar energy, with some small scale exceptions, is bullshit. Lots of folks getting rich off of it. A Hell of a lot more getting scammed by it.
We need nuclear power and we need it now. Hundreds and hundreds of gigawatts of it.
John Henry
Blogger FIDO said...
Biden, like a Wallflower,
I like that image. Are you saying that he is as dumb as a potted plant?
He does not seem to realize that his time as VP disqualifies him for the presidency. So perhaps he is not even as smart as a potted plant.
John Henry
Blogger Mountain Maven said...
Daddy in law could fund him thru a PAC
That was my question and I don't see how he could. Sanders could contribute to a pac that is non-affiliated with a candidate. A get out the vote effort, party building etc. Soft money.
But as soon as he gives to a pac that supports Bobbie specifically, that independence requirement pops up.
How does he get around that?
John Henry
Mountain Maven said...
... Beto and Harris are both acquiring money the old fashioned way.
Having the unions steal it?
*rim shot*
How dare those workers actually have jobs, right John Henry! The priority should be how efficient their industry is, not whether they're employed. Well, ok then.
H. Vacuum could always get his wish of jail time by sending his IP address to his local cops. It would be much more rewarding than just playing the part of internet tough guy.
I was pleased to discover that I wasn’t the only person who looked at Warren’s beer drinking and cooking commercial and thought that it came across as phony.
Meanwhile, I am wondering when YouTube will block queries for “creepy Joe Biden” and get back scores of clips of him inappropriately touching wives and daughters of people being honored by his old boss.”
or, I could give my physical location
backed.sporting.secret
That's precise enough, to withing 2-3 meters, that you could hit my house with a cruise missile if you wanted.
Cops hardly need my IP address, though I don't know why you think that would be hard. It's pretty public. I'm pretty law abiding so they would have little interest in looking.
My cell# and postal address are widely available online as well. They have been since 1990. I've never had to worry about being doxxed. (Unlike you)
One would have to be squeamishly stupid not to be able to find me.
BTW: You are supposed to ask me now before you post. Don't do it again.
John Henry
It looks like someone is so stupid that he confused himself with Hipster Vacuum.
john, as busy as you are posting all your info online (as if anyone cares) did you ever consider learning how to read the online posts that you love responding to?
Other than that, thanks for letting everyone know how lonely you are. Make sure you give your advice about divulging personal info to Hipster Vacuum, though. Or Dickin Bimbos. Or chickenlittle. Or BJM. Or Drago. Or Birches. Or Dust Bunny Queen. Or Gahrie. Etc., etc., etc. Apparently they didn't get your memo on how they weren't supposed to use avatars on Blogger, which is cute, given how common and unremarkable and indistinguishable the name john henry is.
So John Henry how goes the merriment on the island of misfit toys mayor yulin is still entertaining a gubernatorial bid despite the dirty laundry in her current office.
home in
Thank you for not using 'hone'.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा