Kind of interesting that they mention Klobuchar whose campaign is sort of just floudering along. I suppose if she does better in Iowa than expected, she might move up in some other polls. Apparently, they also sort of gave out a top 4 in the endorsement, also mentioning Mayor Pete and even Cory Booker (who has dropped out which they duly noted) as their top 4.

The Bernie supporters are in an uproar about not making their top 4 (the Biden supporters are still all asleep - no need to wake them up yet). And #Iendorsebernie is trending on twitter.

But here's a significant quote from the Times on Bernie.

Ultimately, the editorial board said, "three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another."

(01-20-2020 10:28 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kind of interesting that they mention Klobuchar whose campaign is sort of just floudering along. I suppose if she does better in Iowa than expected, she might move up in some other polls. Apparently, they also sort of gave out a top 4 in the endorsement, also mentioning Mayor Pete and even Cory Booker (who has dropped out which they duly noted) as their top 4.

The Bernie supporters are in an uproar about not making their top 4 (the Biden supporters are still all asleep - no need to wake them up yet). And #Iendorsebernie is trending on twitter.

But here's a significant quote from the Times on Bernie.

Ultimately, the editorial board said, "three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another."

Then why did they endorse Warren?

(01-20-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 10:28 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Ultimately, the editorial board said, "three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another."

Then why did they endorse Warren?

LOL.

They endorsed 4 candidates who check off at least 1 of their most-favored demographic boxes. Sanders and Biden don’t do that.

(01-20-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 10:28 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kind of interesting that they mention Klobuchar whose campaign is sort of just floudering along. I suppose if she does better in Iowa than expected, she might move up in some other polls. Apparently, they also sort of gave out a top 4 in the endorsement, also mentioning Mayor Pete and even Cory Booker (who has dropped out which they duly noted) as their top 4.

The Bernie supporters are in an uproar about not making their top 4 (the Biden supporters are still all asleep - no need to wake them up yet). And #Iendorsebernie is trending on twitter.

But here's a significant quote from the Times on Bernie.

Ultimately, the editorial board said, "three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another."

Then why did they endorse Warren?

The Sanders supporters are crazier than the Warren supporters for sure. Perhaps the candidates are similar in their platforms, but the Warren supporters don't scare me like the Sanders ones do.

Like that moves the needle.

Flip a coin NY Times.

(01-20-2020 11:22 AM)450bench Wrote:  Like that moves the needle.

.......and nobody cares.

Haint 2.0 and Nasty Salad Comb lady

(01-20-2020 11:05 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 10:28 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kind of interesting that they mention Klobuchar whose campaign is sort of just floudering along. I suppose if she does better in Iowa than expected, she might move up in some other polls. Apparently, they also sort of gave out a top 4 in the endorsement, also mentioning Mayor Pete and even Cory Booker (who has dropped out which they duly noted) as their top 4.

The Bernie supporters are in an uproar about not making their top 4 (the Biden supporters are still all asleep - no need to wake them up yet). And #Iendorsebernie is trending on twitter.

But here's a significant quote from the Times on Bernie.

Ultimately, the editorial board said, "three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another."

Then why did they endorse Warren?

The Sanders supporters are crazier than the Warren supporters for sure. Perhaps the candidates are similar in their platforms, but the Warren supporters don't scare me like the Sanders ones do.

Maybe, but over-promising divisive figure fits Warren to a PochahanTs "T."

If you ever needed proof that the Democrats are morphing into the party of woke capital and AWFLs, there it is.

(01-20-2020 11:05 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 10:28 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kind of interesting that they mention Klobuchar whose campaign is sort of just floudering along. I suppose if she does better in Iowa than expected, she might move up in some other polls. Apparently, they also sort of gave out a top 4 in the endorsement, also mentioning Mayor Pete and even Cory Booker (who has dropped out which they duly noted) as their top 4.
The Bernie supporters are in an uproar about not making their top 4 (the Biden supporters are still all asleep - no need to wake them up yet). And #Iendorsebernie is trending on twitter.
But here's a significant quote from the Times on Bernie.
Ultimately, the editorial board said, "three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another."

Then why did they endorse Warren?

The Sanders supporters are crazier than the Warren supporters for sure. Perhaps the candidates are similar in their platforms, but the Warren supporters don't scare me like the Sanders ones do.

Warren scares me more than Sanders, because whenever challenged she can play the sex card the way that Obama played the race card.

So is the NY Times saying it takes 2 women to do a man's job?

(01-20-2020 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 11:05 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 10:28 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kind of interesting that they mention Klobuchar whose campaign is sort of just floudering along. I suppose if she does better in Iowa than expected, she might move up in some other polls. Apparently, they also sort of gave out a top 4 in the endorsement, also mentioning Mayor Pete and even Cory Booker (who has dropped out which they duly noted) as their top 4.
The Bernie supporters are in an uproar about not making their top 4 (the Biden supporters are still all asleep - no need to wake them up yet). And #Iendorsebernie is trending on twitter.
But here's a significant quote from the Times on Bernie.
Ultimately, the editorial board said, "three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another."

Then why did they endorse Warren?

The Sanders supporters are crazier than the Warren supporters for sure. Perhaps the candidates are similar in their platforms, but the Warren supporters don't scare me like the Sanders ones do.

Warren scares me more than Sanders, because whenever challenged she can play the sex card the way that Obama played the race card.

Sanders doesn't scare me.
1) He's stupid. He thought communism was a better system.
2) He's got no interpersonal skills, thus he won't be persuasive.
3) He will get crushed by Trump.
4) As ridiculous as his policy positions are, he doesn't strike me as compulsively dishonest like Warren and the Clintons.

Warren has a veneer of reasonableness with her extreme positions. She is every bit the white trash that Bill Clinton is. And young single women might vote for her simply because she is a woman. I think she gets crushed by Trump too, but its not as certain as it is with Sanders. Kamala Harris was the one who really frightened me. She checked two boxes and was articulate, therefore seemed reasonable. And she was trash too.

The NYT’s business is so feeble that they couldn’t risk selecting a candidate from only one lane. Their worst nightmare is “getting cancelled“ on twitter by the other side that they didn’t endorse.

Hence this.

just for shites and gigs....threads are now being bookmarked for future ref....

by July, they'll outnumber any pr0n site....

In other news, their sports department made their Super Bowl pick. That took the Bengals and the Giants.

Warren is as compulsive a liar as the leader of the free world.

The major difference is that Trump is trying to strengthen the republic, Warren is trying to destroy it.......

Good thing newspapers don't elect the POTUS.

(01-20-2020 01:17 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So is the NY Times saying it takes 2 women to do a man's job?

damn, I thought this was one of my better lines.

(01-21-2020 09:04 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 01:17 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So is the NY Times saying it takes 2 women to do a man's job?

damn, I thought this was one of my better lines.

It was. I was just a little late getting on today.

(01-21-2020 09:04 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 01:17 PM)fsquid Wrote:  So is the NY Times saying it takes 2 women to do a man's job?

damn, I thought this was one of my better lines.

That's sexist.