Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 9:06:00 AM (view original):
Really, you don't say, Tang? ;)

I did an all-nighter yesterday to research this, and I can confirm.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/28/2019 11:56:00 PM (view original):
Here I go posting on a political thread.

Nobody should be surprised by a person like Schultz wanting to run for president. The bourgeois literally can't help themselves in this regard. In the future, even more of the wealthiest bourgeoisie will be throwing their hat in the ring, thinking they can too do what Trump accomplished.

For those that think Schultz is upper class, he is not. Trump, Gates, Schultz, Buffet, Oprah, Koch, Bezos, Musk...all middle class...like the Fugger and Medici banking families of Europe used to be. A very rich banker (or fill in your own pet middle class profession) is still just a banker. Wealth does not elevate one's sociological class because it doesn't change the inherent values that represent the bourgeois way of life - the accumulation of material objects, money, prestige, exclusivity, social and political influence/power along with many other intrinsic traits. For those keeping score, I am NOT referring to the Marxist definition of bourgeois. Marx, as brilliant as he was, muddled the middle class definition to suit his own dogmatic purposes.

It's less that Schultz is rich and more that he is running as an independent.

If it was a primary challenge than no one would care.

So, in a free society Schultz doesn't have the right to run as an independent? This is what the left does. They try to shut down everything they don't like. Look at what happens to conservative speakers on college campuses. It's very regressive and quite dangerous to our future freedoms.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/28/2019 11:56:00 PM (view original):
Here I go posting on a political thread.

Nobody should be surprised by a person like Schultz wanting to run for president. The bourgeois literally can't help themselves in this regard. In the future, even more of the wealthiest bourgeoisie will be throwing their hat in the ring, thinking they can too do what Trump accomplished.

For those that think Schultz is upper class, he is not. Trump, Gates, Schultz, Buffet, Oprah, Koch, Bezos, Musk...all middle class...like the Fugger and Medici banking families of Europe used to be. A very rich banker (or fill in your own pet middle class profession) is still just a banker. Wealth does not elevate one's sociological class because it doesn't change the inherent values that represent the bourgeois way of life - the accumulation of material objects, money, prestige, exclusivity, social and political influence/power along with many other intrinsic traits. For those keeping score, I am NOT referring to the Marxist definition of bourgeois. Marx, as brilliant as he was, muddled the middle class definition to suit his own dogmatic purposes.

It's less that Schultz is rich and more that he is running as an independent.

If it was a primary challenge than no one would care.

I believe you have missed the point entire, my good man.

Besides, if Schultz had the same amount in his bank account as I did, nobody would care if he ran as an independent either. It is, and always will be, about money.

Very good point.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 12:34:00 AM (view original):
Gomiami, feel free to post here. Civil debate on any topic is healthy for America. Taint and I have been going at it for a couple of years now, but I hope he knows that if he is ever in GA we will go play 18 at the Georgia Club and then go have a beer.

I agree with most of your post, but I would not call Marx Brilliant. I have read "The Communist Manifesto" and have a brother who is a Marxist. His theories appeal to those who can't think past the surface.

Absolutley

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/28/2019 11:18:00 PM (view original):
I almost ****** my pants laughing the first time I read something blaming Jill Stein for Hillary's loss. Reasons Clinton lost according to the left:

Russia, FaceBook, James Comey, The DNC, Jill Stein, Sexism, A Democratic predecessor, Bernie, Wikileaks, the debate questions, journalists, campaign funding, low-information voters, women under pressure from men

The problem is very few people actually blame Hillary.

Virtually everyone acknowledges that Clinton played a roll. Her campaign strategy was a mess.

It’s not wrong to also point to other factors. More than one factor can have an effect.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 12:00:00 AM (view original):
Yes, she proves that credentials don't make a good candidate. To win an election, you have to have other qualities.

I am a Ted Cruz fan. He is a great constitutional conservative. He has the resume to be president, but like Hillary, is a bad presidential candidate because he has an unlikable personality.

Obama had a poor resume. He was a one-term senator with no military experience and no commercial experience, but he turned out to be a really strong candidate.

The point is that just because she has made a career out of politics doesn't mean that she was a good candidate.

Shoot me in the ******* face, Ted Cruz is a disaster. He’s not principled. He’s as cynical and partisan as the worst members of the Senate.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/28/2019 11:56:00 PM (view original):
Here I go posting on a political thread.

Nobody should be surprised by a person like Schultz wanting to run for president. The bourgeois literally can't help themselves in this regard. In the future, even more of the wealthiest bourgeoisie will be throwing their hat in the ring, thinking they can too do what Trump accomplished.

For those that think Schultz is upper class, he is not. Trump, Gates, Schultz, Buffet, Oprah, Koch, Bezos, Musk...all middle class...like the Fugger and Medici banking families of Europe used to be. A very rich banker (or fill in your own pet middle class profession) is still just a banker. Wealth does not elevate one's sociological class because it doesn't change the inherent values that represent the bourgeois way of life - the accumulation of material objects, money, prestige, exclusivity, social and political influence/power along with many other intrinsic traits. For those keeping score, I am NOT referring to the Marxist definition of bourgeois. Marx, as brilliant as he was, muddled the middle class definition to suit his own dogmatic purposes.

It's less that Schultz is rich and more that he is running as an independent.

If it was a primary challenge than no one would care.

So, in a free society Schultz doesn't have the right to run as an independent? This is what the left does. They try to shut down everything they don't like. Look at what happens to conservative speakers on college campuses. It's very regressive and quite dangerous to our future freedoms.

It’s not that he doesn’t have the right to run. He does. He doesn’t have the right to run uncriticized. Everyone else has the right to call him an idiot for running.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 10:29:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 12:00:00 AM (view original):
Yes, she proves that credentials don't make a good candidate. To win an election, you have to have other qualities.

I am a Ted Cruz fan. He is a great constitutional conservative. He has the resume to be president, but like Hillary, is a bad presidential candidate because he has an unlikable personality.

Obama had a poor resume. He was a one-term senator with no military experience and no commercial experience, but he turned out to be a really strong candidate.

The point is that just because she has made a career out of politics doesn't mean that she was a good candidate.

Shoot me in the ******* face, Ted Cruz is a disaster. He’s not principled. He’s as cynical and partisan as the worst members of the Senate.

Senator Bennett's takedown of Cruz on the Senate floor last week was priceless.


Dude is a moron of the highest quality.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 9:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/28/2019 11:56:00 PM (view original):
Here I go posting on a political thread.

Nobody should be surprised by a person like Schultz wanting to run for president. The bourgeois literally can't help themselves in this regard. In the future, even more of the wealthiest bourgeoisie will be throwing their hat in the ring, thinking they can too do what Trump accomplished.

For those that think Schultz is upper class, he is not. Trump, Gates, Schultz, Buffet, Oprah, Koch, Bezos, Musk...all middle class...like the Fugger and Medici banking families of Europe used to be. A very rich banker (or fill in your own pet middle class profession) is still just a banker. Wealth does not elevate one's sociological class because it doesn't change the inherent values that represent the bourgeois way of life - the accumulation of material objects, money, prestige, exclusivity, social and political influence/power along with many other intrinsic traits. For those keeping score, I am NOT referring to the Marxist definition of bourgeois. Marx, as brilliant as he was, muddled the middle class definition to suit his own dogmatic purposes.

It's less that Schultz is rich and more that he is running as an independent.

If it was a primary challenge than no one would care.

So, in a free society Schultz doesn't have the right to run as an independent? This is what the left does. They try to shut down everything they don't like. Look at what happens to conservative speakers on college campuses. It's very regressive and quite dangerous to our future freedoms.

I never said he doesn't have the right to do it. I just said that it was frustrating.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/28/2019 11:18:00 PM (view original):
I almost ****** my pants laughing the first time I read something blaming Jill Stein for Hillary's loss. Reasons Clinton lost according to the left:

Russia, FaceBook, James Comey, The DNC, Jill Stein, Sexism, A Democratic predecessor, Bernie, Wikileaks, the debate questions, journalists, campaign funding, low-information voters, women under pressure from men

The problem is very few people actually blame Hillary.

I blame HRC for her loss. She is almost as unlikable as Mr Trump, and that is saying a lot. I'm sure, for many, she is more unlikable.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/29/2019 9:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/28/2019 11:56:00 PM (view original):
Here I go posting on a political thread.

Nobody should be surprised by a person like Schultz wanting to run for president. The bourgeois literally can't help themselves in this regard. In the future, even more of the wealthiest bourgeoisie will be throwing their hat in the ring, thinking they can too do what Trump accomplished.

For those that think Schultz is upper class, he is not. Trump, Gates, Schultz, Buffet, Oprah, Koch, Bezos, Musk...all middle class...like the Fugger and Medici banking families of Europe used to be. A very rich banker (or fill in your own pet middle class profession) is still just a banker. Wealth does not elevate one's sociological class because it doesn't change the inherent values that represent the bourgeois way of life - the accumulation of material objects, money, prestige, exclusivity, social and political influence/power along with many other intrinsic traits. For those keeping score, I am NOT referring to the Marxist definition of bourgeois. Marx, as brilliant as he was, muddled the middle class definition to suit his own dogmatic purposes.

It's less that Schultz is rich and more that he is running as an independent.

If it was a primary challenge than no one would care.

I believe you have missed the point entire, my good man.

Besides, if Schultz had the same amount in his bank account as I did, nobody would care if he ran as an independent either. It is, and always will be, about money.

it is about siphoning votes...no dem would be against him if he ran as a dem.
he could gain a lot of support.

Posted by all3 on 1/29/2019 8:47:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/28/2019 11:18:00 PM (view original):
I almost ****** my pants laughing the first time I read something blaming Jill Stein for Hillary's loss. Reasons Clinton lost according to the left:

Russia, FaceBook, James Comey, The DNC, Jill Stein, Sexism, A Democratic predecessor, Bernie, Wikileaks, the debate questions, journalists, campaign funding, low-information voters, women under pressure from men

The problem is very few people actually blame Hillary.

NOBODY takes blame for their errors or losses in Government, or in anything, anymore. It's always somebody or something else's fault.
Just another accepted f'd-up norm in today's moral-free, everybody-do-what-they-want, trophy-for-everybody society.

all3, I agree with you for the most part. No one takes responsibility anymore. Where I think we probably disagree is why no one takes responsibility anymore. I'm pretty sure you blame "the libs". I doubt any one group is to blame. It is just society in general.

Posted by wylie715 on 1/29/2019 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/28/2019 11:18:00 PM (view original):
I almost ****** my pants laughing the first time I read something blaming Jill Stein for Hillary's loss. Reasons Clinton lost according to the left:

Russia, FaceBook, James Comey, The DNC, Jill Stein, Sexism, A Democratic predecessor, Bernie, Wikileaks, the debate questions, journalists, campaign funding, low-information voters, women under pressure from men

The problem is very few people actually blame Hillary.

I blame HRC for her loss. She is almost as unlikable as Mr Trump, and that is saying a lot. I'm sure, for many, she is more unlikable.

I would for sure Clinton is more unlikable. Trump has some charisma and charm and does a phenomenal job of connecting with normal people. This is what won him the rust belt. I think most rationally thinking people can agree that's he's fake, but a lot of people don't care to look more than skin deep. I feel the general consensus is that Hillary comes across as arrogant and pretentious.

as far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to (and is legally able to) can run for president. I will vote for whatever candidate I think is the best candidate regardless of their party affiliation. If everyone voted that way, we might end up with better elected officials. Then again, we might not! Who knows?