Fervent super PAC opponent Elizabeth Warren getting super PAC help in Nevada

[Juvenal]

Ah the old ad hom fallacy.

That's just lazy, like the folks who toss around "TDS," thinking they've made a point, when all they've done is excite a few electrons on a screen. Spend a couple of seconds before you post next time, and maybe you won't miss that the ad hom, from these writers, is what I was addressing.

I <3 unwitting irony.

Nah, I was looking for reasons why you'd be promoting a bunch of "seems like" weasels, none of which support your thesis that folks have been distancing themselves "for years now," all of which, to the contrary, specifically reference the current election cycle, and directly contradict your second thesis that everyone is sucking up to Obama again.

Bill Scher, and don't get me wrong, he's not bad as partisans go, starts his piece by first removing Biden from his sample space in order to say no one is talking about Obama. That's an awfully big thumb on the scale. And it neglects the fact that anyone else on the stage promoting Obama would in effect be boosting Biden, their opponent.

Gerard Baker's WSJ appearance seems woefully ignorant of that silence. The WSJ is behind a paywall for non-subscribers, which makes me wonder if you've even read it.

And yet to listen to most of the party’s 2020 candidates, it is like the 44th president was just another Democratic sellout—one more politician elevated to the Oval Office on a bubble of progressive hopes, only to cave to the vested interests of big business and entrenched conservative forces in Washington.

"Seems like."

Uh huh.

Ed Luce's FT piece can be read around the paywall at The Tidings, where Mr. Luce's carefree relationship with grammar harbingers his political analysis.

The unfinished activity is Obamacare, which Republicans have solely partially disabled. It is thus ironic that the majority Democrats vying to switch Mr. Trump would end the job for him.

There's a difference between removing and enhancing that seems to elude Mr. Ed.

Do I really have to do your googling for you?

Here is an article or two from CNN:

When did Barack Obama become a Republican?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/opini...lon/index.html

Why did you clip the Donna Brazile piece?

I don't google my news, that's cherry picking, or watch it on CNN, which isn't even news. I read it every morning with my first pot of coffee, waiting for the crows to wake up ... New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Le Monde, and Suddeutsche Zeitung.

And to answer John Avlon, I'd say it was when he first spoke at the Democratic National Convention supporting a purple America before he became a candidate, or at the latest when he packed his administration and cabinet with members from both parties after his election.

I noticed it directly watching the dems for the last couple of years. Biden was going on and on about his "pal" Obama and everyone else was acting like Obama was a pariah. He wasn't left enough for them any more. They wanted to pander to the far left. Yet now that it is getting close to the elections, they realize they need to draw in the moderates or they don't have a chance, so all of a sudden, Obama is everyone's best bud again.

There's no question Sanders is far to the left of everyone on the stage, and he's pulled a lot of candidates along with him. There's more question whether that will mean anything after their convention, which might even be exciting this time around. Numbers folks are saying we could easily see our first brokered convention since 1952, before I was born.


O/T: Religion and politics aside, I'm hoping you're recovering well.

[Sparko]

That's just lazy, like the folks who toss around "TDS," thinking they've made a point, when all they've done is excite a few electrons on a screen. Spend a couple of seconds before you post next time, and maybe you won't miss that the ad hom, from these writers, is what I was addressing.

I <3 unwitting irony.

You routinely pooh-pooh any conservative news articles BECAUSE they are conservative, while ignoring the content. That is indeed "ad hom" - I would try to find articles from your favorite source, the NY Times but I don't have a subscription.

Bill Scher, and don't get me wrong, he's not bad as partisans go, starts his piece by first removing Biden from his sample space in order to say no one is talking about Obama. That's an awfully big thumb on the scale. And it neglects the fact that anyone else on the stage promoting Obama would in effect be boosting Biden, their opponent.

So now I find out you aren't even bothering to actually read MY posts.

I SAID that when Biden was promoting his pal Obama, other people were distancing themselves from him [Obama]

Gerard Baker's WSJ appearance seems woefully ignorant of that silence. The WSJ is behind a paywall for non-subscribers, which makes me wonder if you've even read it.

And yet to listen to most of the party’s 2020 candidates, it is like the 44th president was just another Democratic sellout—one more politician elevated to the Oval Office on a bubble of progressive hopes, only to cave to the vested interests of big business and entrenched conservative forces in Washington.

"Seems like."

Uh huh.

Now you are just rejecting anything that disagrees with you with more Ad Homs. I thought you were better than that. Not only that, you seem to be taking this whole thing WAY too seriously. I made a side comment and you are all up in arms about it. Almost like I touched a nerve or something.

Why did you clip the Donna Brazile piece?

I thought it might be too far back for you, since it was from 2014. But it supports my "for years" comment.

I don't google my news, that's cherry picking, or watch it on CNN, which isn't even news. I read it every morning with my first pot of coffee, waiting for the crows to wake up ... New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Le Monde, and Suddeutsche Zeitung.

So you just cherry pick your news beforehand. Nice.




O/T: Religion and politics aside, I'm hoping you're recovering well.[/QUOTE]