Election 2020

[DMT]

Your constant smearing of me as a conspiracy theorist as fucking pathetic and childish. Get a new shtick.

You just made claims that no one can find any evidence of. You watch 10+ hours of leftist YouTube a day. I don't think it's a stretch to say you've gone down a few too many rabbit holes.

[DMT]

I find it telling that you're accusing Warren supporters, the 2nd most liberal candidate, as wearing blinders because in actuality she's a Clinton stooge.

[Teenwolf]

You just made claims that no one can find any evidence of. You watch 10+ hours of leftist YouTube a day. I don't think it's a stretch to say you've gone down a few too many rabbit holes.

I've posted links to these claims in the past with zero response. You think that me listening to 10+ hours a day of leftist YouTube makes me unreliable? As opposed to mainstream media? Wow.

I will post links, again, later when I'm blazed in the bathtub. As per usual. They will be ignored or attacked as non-legitimate, as per usual.

[Teenwolf]

Not finding anything using all kinds of searches +Warren +Raytheon +Donations, etc. Only thing close was this:

"Still, Warren’s ties to the defense industry—including another company with facilities in Massachusetts, General Dynamics—could come up during her presidential campaign. She reportedly made an effort to reach out to both companies during her 2012 Senate campaign and time in the Senate, including facility visits and at least one phone call to Raytheon’s chief executive. She also accepted more than $80,000 in donations from the defense industry from 2011 to 2018 and in her first year in the Senate fought to stop the Army from shifting funds away from a General Dynamics-built communications network that a government watchdog has dinged for cost overruns and performance deficiencies."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/16/warren-hammers-trumps-pentagon-nominee-despite-her-own-industry-ties/

Lil' help?

I posted this before. From New York Times. "How Elizabeth Warren Raised Big Money Before She Denounced Big Money"... and the pay-wall just denied me from seeing it, so I can't quote it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-2020.html

[Teenwolf]

You just made claims that no one can find any evidence of. You watch 10+ hours of leftist YouTube a day. I don't think it's a stretch to say you've gone down a few too many rabbit holes.

What claims do you specifically refute? I already provided a link to Revo from NYT regarding the $10 Mil transfer from her Senate campaign, which she did fundraisers with big donors. It's not conspiracy, it's been widely reported. The NYT link is one of many.

You refute that she is meeting with Clinton behind closed doors?

This from NBC News:

Warren and Clinton talk behind the scenes as 2020 race intensifies

You refute that she's quietly courting superdelegates in expectation of a contested election? This from NYT, again I'm pay-wall blocked from viewing, so fill me in if it refutes my points.

What Elizabeth Warren Is Quietly Telling Democratic Insiders

You refute that she claimed to welcome big donor, special interest, and dark money in the general election? She said it on TYT. You won't watch a clip, so I won't bother posting a link.

You refute that she has no answer for why she supported an increase in the defense budget for Trump? She was asked directly, "how does your support for Trump's military budget increase square with your progressive ideals?" She responded "If the question is, do I support lowering the military budget, the answer is yes." That's not a fucking answer, it's a deflection! But I anticipate it won't matter to you or to B-Fly, or anybody else around here. You just say "she has the record" without being willing to fully examine that record.

What have I claimed that you refute?

[DMT]

I've posted links to these claims in the past with zero response. You think that me listening to 10+ hours a day of leftist YouTube makes me unreliable? As opposed to mainstream media? Wow.

I will post links, again, later when I'm blazed in the bathtub. As per usual. They will be ignored or attacked as non-legitimate, as per usual.

Listening to 10+ hours a day from leftist YouTube certainly clouds your perspective. I can't listen to even an hour of news per day so 10+ sounds like torture.

[DMT]

What claims do you specifically refute? I already provided a link to Revo from NYT regarding the $10 Mil transfer from her Senate campaign, which she did fundraisers with big donors. It's not conspiracy, it's been widely reported. The NYT link is one of many.

You refute that she is meeting with Clinton behind closed doors?

This from NBC News:

Warren and Clinton talk behind the scenes as 2020 race intensifies

You refute that she's quietly courting superdelegates in expectation of a contested election? This from NYT, again I'm pay-wall blocked from viewing, so fill me in if it refutes my points.

What Elizabeth Warren Is Quietly Telling Democratic Insiders

You refute that she claimed to welcome big donor, special interest, and dark money in the general election? She said it on TYT. You won't watch a clip, so I won't bother posting a link.

You refute that she has no answer for why she supported an increase in the defense budget for Trump? She was asked directly, "how does your support for Trump's military budget increase square with your progressive ideals?" She responded "If the question is, do I support lowering the military budget, the answer is yes." That's not a fucking answer, it's a deflection! But I anticipate it won't matter to you or to B-Fly, or anybody else around here. You just say "she has the record" without being willing to fully examine that record.

What have I claimed that you refute?

I refute many of your conclusions, and I've directly responded to posts you've made with the claims I refute bolded. I'm not going to directly refute every link you post because I've never made the claim that she is a perfect candidate who has never made mistakes. What I refute is your continuous attempts to create a false composite of her as a corrupt politician when one of the fundamental pillars of her campaign is ending corruption. So continue to peck away but her overall record stands up to scrutiny which is why she is gaining more and more momentum.

[Teenwolf]

Listening to 10+ hours a day from leftist YouTube certainly clouds your perspective. I can't listen to even an hour of news per day so 10+ sounds like torture.

To be clear, I include all kinds of sources in my "leftist" YouTube... I keep at least 10% of my listening dedicated to mainstream bullshit like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and The View, just to have a window on MSM. I think my secondary listening helps me clarify what sources I look for in independent media, so as to form a more well-rounded opinion.

I agree that it's too much (most anybody would be driven insane by that level of political talk, I get that), and I understand there are some conspiracy theorists and purveyors of bullshit, but I do select my sources carefully. It's disappointing to me that most folks on this board consider MSM more reliable than independent media. Why would you accept news provided with an entertainment/profitability incentive, with vapid coverage of Trump tweets for years on end? From the sounds of it, you hate that stuff too, so at least we're in some agreement.

The reason I sound like a conspiracy theorist is that I'm really deep into the minutaie. I had this same conversation with a friend in Vancouver recently who fired me up saying something like "ah, Warren isn't much different or worse than Sanders"... I understand that's what the media keeps saying, and that's how they frame it at the debates, etc. I'm just pointing out their differences because you don't hear those differences talked about anywhere else. You would think I would get some kind of credit for these deep dives, but instead I'm labeled divisive, a conspiracy theorist, and a biased Bernie Bro. Stop with the labels and debate my actual points.

[Teenwolf]

I refute many of your conclusions, and I've directly responded to posts you've made with the claims I refute bolded. I'm not going to directly refute every link you post because I've never made the claim that she is a perfect candidate who has never made mistakes. What I refute is your continuous attempts to create a false composite of her as a corrupt politician when one of the fundamental pillars of her campaign is ending corruption. So continue to peck away but her overall record stands up to scrutiny which is why she is gaining more and more momentum.

Her overall record includes everything that I've posted. Denying reality will only hurt you in the general vs. Trump, but go ahead with your continued circle jerk. MSNBC and CNN will give you all the fawning Warren coverage you desire... and that means nothing... riiiiiiight.

[revo]

I posted this before. From New York Times. "How Elizabeth Warren Raised Big Money Before She Denounced Big Money"... and the pay-wall just denied me from seeing it, so I can't quote it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/u...rren-2020.html

Sorry, this article doesn't say anything that you think it does. To summarize, it says she hosted big money fundraisers as a senator, eschewed them for the primaries, and will go back to them should she win the nomination. In fact, it also says:

"The only other Democratic candidate to bypass big-money events is her fellow liberal in the race, Senator Bernie Sanders. He has transferred $10.1 million from old accounts to his 2020 campaign, but, unlike Ms. Warren, he had eschewed high-dollar fund-raisers in past races. (Other senators transferred money into their 2020 bids as well.)

There is no way to say exactly how much of the $10.4 million Ms. Warren transferred from 2018 was attributable to large donations. Her campaign said she had 380,000 donors to her re-election who gave an average of $30 — a strong grass-roots following. Records show about $6 million of her Senate funds also came from donors who gave $1,000 or more."


Your initial post made it seem like Raytheon and other "dark money" donors made up the lion's share of this $10m (and BTW, Bernie also transferred $10m from prior campaigns to his '20 presidential campaign), and that's just not true nor does the article say that at all.

You refute that she's quietly courting superdelegates in expectation of a contested election? This from NYT, again I'm pay-wall blocked from viewing, so fill me in if it refutes my points.

What Elizabeth Warren Is Quietly Telling Democratic Insiders

This is another article where you seem to be drawing your own conclusions. The article just says Warren wants to "allay concerns that she's not an outsider" by meeting with them, and not butting heads with them like Bernie did.

From the article:
"Her point was easy to grasp: While her liberal agenda may be further left than some in the Democratic establishment would prefer, she is a team player who is seeking to lead the party — not stage a hostile takeover of it."

"Yet publicly, and even more in private, she is signaling to party leaders that, far from wanting to stage a “political revolution” in the fashion of Mr. Sanders, she wants to revive the beleaguered Democratic National Committee and help recapture the Senate while retaining the House in 2020."

That's "quietly courting superdelegates" in your opinion? Eeesh.

[Teenwolf]

Sorry, this article doesn't say anything that you think it does. To summarize, it says she hosted big money fundraisers as a senator, eschewed them for the primaries, and will go back to them should she win the nomination. In fact, it also says:

"The only other Democratic candidate to bypass big-money events is her fellow liberal in the race, Senator Bernie Sanders. He has transferred $10.1 million from old accounts to his 2020 campaign, but, unlike Ms. Warren, he had eschewed high-dollar fund-raisers in past races. (Other senators transferred money into their 2020 bids as well.)

There is no way to say exactly how much of the $10.4 million Ms. Warren transferred from 2018 was attributable to large donations. Her campaign said she had 380,000 donors to her re-election who gave an average of $30 — a strong grass-roots following. Records show about $6 million of her Senate funds also came from donors who gave $1,000 or more."


Your initial post made it seem like Raytheon and other "dark money" donors made up the lion's share of this $10m (and BTW, Bernie also transferred $10m from prior campaigns to his '20 presidential campaign), and that's just not true nor does the article say that at all.

My contention is that she raised money from big donors, which she's using currently in the primary, despite saying she would be "grassroots funded" in the primary only, though she says she will once again accept the supposedly corrupting influence of big donors if she wins the Dem nomination. This is all true. Not sure how much of that $10 Mil is from Wall Street, but I know 1 fundraiser was with "The Wolf of Wall Street"... not sure how much was raised by Telecom, or health care interests, or any of that. But it's not grassroots, which makes her pledge to run grassroots a LIE.

Sanders $10 Mil comes entirely from small donors, so there's no issue with his backers. It says so in the article, why are you acting like it's an issue? You think he's beholden to his biggest donor group, Walmart workers?

[revo]

My contention is that she raised money from big donors, which she's using currently in the primary, despite saying she would be "grassroots funded" in the primary only, though she says she will once again accept the supposedly corrupting influence of big donors if she wins the Dem nomination. This is all true. Not sure how much of that $10 Mil is from Wall Street, but I know 1 fundraiser was with "The Wolf of Wall Street"... not sure how much was raised by Telecom, or health care interests, or any of that. But it's not grassroots, which makes her pledge to run grassroots a LIE.

Sanders $10 Mil comes entirely from small donors, so there's no issue with his backers. It says so in the article, why are you acting like it's an issue? You think he's beholden to his biggest donor group, Walmart workers?

Wait a minute. She supplemented her primary run with $10m from a prior campaign, just like Bernie did. She said she would run a grassroots campaign during the Dem primary, which is what she is doing. She admits that in order to compete against Trump should she win the nom, she'll have to change that. What's the problem here?

What you're doing is saying "You're a Vegan? That's great, but if you weren't a Vegan since birth, you're a phony!" I mean, come on.

The article you posted even says he previous big money donors are supportive of it:
"Mr. Silberstein said he had bristled when he first heard Ms. Warren would stop doing events like the dinner he had held for her. “My first reaction was I was insulted,” he said in an interview, but then came to see it as a “gutsy move.”
“After I sort of got over the fact that she wouldn’t be calling me anymore, I saw that she made a big success out of it,” he said."

[Teenwolf]

Wait a minute. She supplemented her primary run with $10m from a prior campaign, just like Bernie did. She said she would run a grassroots campaign during the Dem primary, which is what she is doing. She admits that in order to compete against Trump should she win the nom, she'll have to change that. What's the problem here?

What you're doing is saying "You're a Vegan? That's great, but if you weren't a Vegan since birth, you're a hypocrite!" I mean, come on.

It's not grassroots, hosting big donor fundraisers! How hard is this for you?

How can she say money in politics is a corrupting influence, then say "but I took money from big donors in the past, I plan to take money from big donors in the future, and oh yeah, $10 Mil of my primary funding is also from big donors, so I guess I never stopped, and I don't plan to." That's more accurate. But just project whatever characteristics onto her you want, don't let me interfere by mentioning reality.

[revo]

It's not grassroots, hosting big donor fundraisers! How hard is this for you?

How can she say money in politics is a corrupting influence, then say "but I took money from big donors in the past, I plan to take money from big donors in the future, and oh yeah, $10 Mil of my primary funding is also from big donors, so I guess I never stopped, and I don't plan to." That's more accurate. But just project whatever characteristics onto her you want, don't let me interfere by mentioning reality.

Do you even read the articles you're footnoting from?

"Then, early this year, Ms. Warren made a bold bet that would delight the left: She announced she was quitting this big-money circuit in the 2020 presidential primary, vowing not to attend private fund-raisers or dial up rich donors anymore. Admirers and activists praised her stand — but few noted the fact that she had built a financial cushion by pocketing big checks the years before."

How hard is this for you -- as a PRIMARY CANDIDATE she is not hosting big donor fundraisers. What she did before, as a senator, is of little issue. What she will do in the future is of little issue. The only issue, it seems, is that whatever she does bothers Bernie supporters.

[Teenwolf]

Do you even read the articles you're footnoting from?

"Then, early this year, Ms. Warren made a bold bet that would delight the left: She announced she was quitting this big-money circuit in the 2020 presidential primary, vowing not to attend private fund-raisers or dial up rich donors anymore. Admirers and activists praised her stand — but few noted the fact that she had built a financial cushion by pocketing big checks the years before."

How hard is this for you -- as a PRIMARY CANDIDATE she is not hosting big donor fundraisers. What she did before, as a senator, is of little issue. What she will do in the future is of little issue. The only issue, it seems, is that whatever she does bothers Bernie supporters.

She is using big donor money right now, Bernie IS NOT. If she was "quitting the big money circuit" for the primary, you think she would have sworn off big fundraisers all the way back in her Senate campaign, which ended 1 fucking month before announcing her Presidential run? She had a plan for how to avoid looking corrupt by fundraising from big donors before and after the primary, and using that money during the primary. If you fail to see this, you are blind.