Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
243. I support Warren for, among others, these reasons.
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 04:18 AM
Jan 2015

1. She has "it," that special ability to connect to an audience when she speaks. I personally think she is more electable than Hillary who, perhaps unfairly, seems cold when she speaks to a crowd or even on TV. Hillary tries to project warmth and the affection that she probably feels for people, but there is something overly cerebral in her public persona. Probably not there if you know her in person. So I think on this superficial but absolutely decisive issue, Warren is a better bet.

2. Hillary has an incredible amount of baggage. Her husband's mistakes, some of which seemed to be good ideas at the time but which worked to the detriment of the American people, especially those who lost their homes in the crisis that began around 2008. I've written about the many bills Bill Clinton signed that would make campaign fodder for the Republicans in 2016.

3. I remember wearing my Stevenson pins when I was in grade school. Repeat candidacies are not a good idea. Hillary is liked now and up in the polls because people recognize her name. They could be very bored with her by 2016. It's really hard to have an exciting campaign once you have lost big. And 2008 was a big loss for Hillary.

4. Hillary's vote for the Iraq War demonstrated to me that she is not careful enough and does not have good judgment and is afraid to go against the crowd. We need a strong president. Warren is quite willing to take an unpopular stance and persuade people and patiently wait until they join her opinion. Hillary is not good at that.

5. Hillary's voice is a problem although it is better than it was in 2008. Lacks warmth. That is not something people talk about a lot. I don't suppose there is much research on it. But I think that Obama's great voice is one of the reasons he won in 2008. Obama's voice is at the same time dry reflecting a sense of humor, patient, warm and most important, genuinely strong. He has a nearly perfect voice. Your voice is as important as your appearance. I can't picture Hillary singing really well. I'm sure that Obama could although he may not. Gore's speech and voice were a problem for him. Warren is ahead of Hillary when it comes to voice. Same for laugh. Hillary sometimes has a very scornful laugh. People pick that up on a very deep, emotional, subconscious level. I don't know whether Hillary could change her voice.

6. Then there is the big issue of the potential candidates' stance on the middle class. Warren's work on bankruptcy law (if you have read her book A Fighting Chance you will know this story) has given her a genuine insight and emotional connection to the problems of the middle class. That's me and most voters. The Clintons were once close to their middle class roots. Clinton's famous feeling our pain statement made him a lot of friends. The Clintons -- it's not their money or their fancy lives, the lifts on private planes, etc. Warren probably gets some of those advantages too. It's that Warren's life work has been studying the financial struggles of the middle class. That's her topic. She just has a mind for economics combined with a love of people. Hillary doesn't have that. And that is what we need now.

7. Warren conveys more of a sense of what she is about than Hilary does. This is especially important when it comes to who they are willing to offend. Warren is willing to offend the very rich even if she herself has a lot of money. She asks them the embarrassing questions, the questions Americans want asked. Hillary flatters the rich. How do I know that? Because the rich pay her money to give speeches at their events. They would not do that to someone who asked them embarrassing questions.

8. Warren relates better to labor. That's a Democrat. Hillary is not as strong on this point.

9. Warren can EXPLAIN COMPLEX IDEAS EASILY AND CLEARLY. All those years facing off with bored law students in bankruptcy classes. Can you imagine anything that develops your ability to explain things succinctly and clearly better than teaching (boring) bankruptcy law? She demonstrated this talent when she appeared on Jon Stewart's show. Blew me away. I couldn't believe how she boiled things down -- simple language -- without arrogance.

10. No way you can accuse Warren of being an elitest. From Oklahoma. Parents relatively poor and working class. Early marriage. Early divorce. Junior college. Pulled herself up by her bootstraps with the kind of help from her family that ordinary, middle class people give their families. She struggled and she has not forgotten. Contrast with Hillary who attended an elite undergraduate school and went from there into eventually the governor's office and the White House. Both women are intelligent. But Warren's story is a bit more compelling than Hillary's.

At the same time, if we Democrats want the candidate whose personal history and experience best qualifiy him for the job, we will go with Bernie Sanders. Time will tell whether he is electable. But when it comes to experience. Boy, he has it. He has been in the Senate a good long time and is as smart as they come.

So that is how I see it at this point. I could change my mind, but you can see my thinking and my reactions to the potential candidates.

I especially do not like the close ties of the Clintons with the Pete Peterson crowd. Pete Peterson is an avowed enemy of Social Security. I and a lot of people my age have to rely on Social Security for our income. Hanging around with the Peterson crowd is a big pirates flag, a red flag, a danger signal for me. That's got the nastiest side of Wall Street written all over it. And the Clintons appear to be really "in" with the Peterson bunch. Not good. Really ugly.

Is there a specific op you have in mind? Nt MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author Recursion Jan 2015 #2
Why is that funny? nt MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #9
Manny, your alter ego *masterfully* trolls about Obama nearly every day Recursion Jan 2015 #13
Well, thank you for the kind compliment MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #16
Yeah, see my definition of "troll" downthread Recursion Jan 2015 #17
Ok, thanks for the clarification MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #48
I prefer to think of what you do as Andy823 Jan 2015 #59
Are there some examples that you'd like to point out? MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #69
Post removed Post removed Jan 2015 #75
it's only satire if done correctly, maybe BP could take you on as an understudy? snooper2 Jan 2015 #68
Your disagreement with his politics doesn't mean he's doing satire incorrectly. merrily Jan 2015 #125
Nope. Nothing in particular. Just noticing it here when I know it has been applegrove Jan 2015 #6
Err, I think you overestimate the importance of DU. This ain't the party's star chamber. n/t X_Digger Jan 2015 #3
that pretty much sums it up still_one Jan 2015 #10
+1 nt RiverLover Jan 2015 #41
(lol). tosh Jan 2015 #50
True, but Andy823 Jan 2015 #63
Yeah, it looks like anti-Obama to me and a way to troll this board. R B Garr Jan 2015 #4
What do you mean by "anti-Americanism?" Maedhros Jan 2015 #82
No, by shaming and broad-brushing Americans using the R B Garr Jan 2015 #92
I guess I haven't seen those posts, so I can't comment. Maedhros Jan 2015 #93
He/she is very, very upset I posted a story of a child killed in a drone strike. polly7 Jan 2015 #98
Nothing you ever say is in context. R B Garr Jan 2015 #109
Do what on purpose? polly7 Jan 2015 #110
Nothing you say is in context. R B Garr Jan 2015 #111
Ahhhh. polly7 Jan 2015 #115
Yet I've seen your hidden posts... R B Garr Jan 2015 #117
Oh no, don't doubt it at all! But still no answers? polly7 Jan 2015 #118
Okay, now I am laughing at you. R B Garr Jan 2015 #120
I did what on purpose? Accused someone of nasty things for posting about the death of a child? polly7 Jan 2015 #122
Back to my first post in this exchange. Nothing I've seen you say is in context. R B Garr Jan 2015 #126
In other words, you've got nothing but filthy accusations, using the death of a child. polly7 Jan 2015 #127
"the death of a child" OMG, nothing you say is credible. R B Garr Jan 2015 #128
Then it should be easy to point out the others you've had such a problem with, polly7 Jan 2015 #131
"just this one child" "others you've had such a problem with" R B Garr Jan 2015 #136
Well, reading your own posts, everything I said was 'in context'. polly7 Jan 2015 #138
I've seen you attack other people for some time now. R B Garr Jan 2015 #139
Examples? nt. polly7 Jan 2015 #140
LOL R B Garr Jan 2015 #141
Still nothing? Lazy stuff. I thought at least you'd try a little something. nt. polly7 Jan 2015 #142
Oh, I'm sure you did think i would "try a little something" R B Garr Jan 2015 #144
Sorry, I've never alerted on you. But, you should have examples, no? nt. polly7 Jan 2015 #145
Your own posts to me here are all over the place. R B Garr Jan 2015 #146
Did you miss the part that I reply as I'm spoken to, and when I'm accused of filthy things polly7 Jan 2015 #148
Oh, you're back to "filthy things" R B Garr Jan 2015 #150
Sorry, I don't have any hidden posts. polly7 Jan 2015 #156
I've answered you over and over and over. R B Garr Jan 2015 #157
Who broad brushed Americans in my post? polly7 Jan 2015 #102
+1 Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #87
Funny thing is I have observed some in the AfAm community saying they see little difference NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #204
Yes, I've noticed that, too. R B Garr Jan 2015 #212
Well, we're not going to have any volunteers come forward and say.. "yeah!".. Cha Jan 2015 #5
I still think our President deserves proper grammar MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #12
Petty. nt Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #42
Petty? Why? MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #43
Who are you trying to impress? Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #46
Don't you agree that "I got Obama's back" is gramatically incorrect?nt MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #47
Don't care. Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #49
That's deeply unfair. MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #51
Right. Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #57
Isn't that generally what happens when someone is losing an argument or ... Stellar Jan 2015 #270
No more and no less incorrect than using a colon rather than a semi-colon to separate a dependent... LanternWaste Jan 2015 #52
Disagree MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #54
Some here only post for the rec's Andy823 Jan 2015 #64
The same ones (I think, not sure anymore) who relentlessly attack our President also NoJusticeNoPeace Jan 2015 #206
Someone using the incorrect spelling of "complement" chieftain Jan 2015 #83
Ouch! MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #84
Hey chieftain.. Cha Jan 2015 #152
Hey to you Cha, chieftain Jan 2015 #195
What is your complaint? The "I got" bit? Join the 21st Century--language is evolving far faster MADem Jan 2015 #94
LOL.. I Got You Babe! Cha Jan 2015 #151
You know, I wondered what this year's gefilte fish was going to be. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #187
This is it? Cha Jan 2015 #189
This message was self-deleted by its author msanthrope Jan 2015 #191
Gotcha! Cha Jan 2015 #192
You Better Believe It! nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #193
It ain't hard to "get" some folks' numbers hereabouts! nt MADem Jan 2015 #196
Yeah, and this drives 'em irrational.. Cha Jan 2015 #215
Take 'em to church--show 'em the VIDEO!!!!!!! MADem Jan 2015 #217
Zounds! I knew she was beautiful from her back but I had no idea.. for one thing I thought Cha Jan 2015 #224
Don't get mad when anyone gives you some 'issue' with your sig line. MADem Jan 2015 #227
Yeah, I usualy don't pay attention.. because who would have issue Cha Jan 2015 #233
Kurt Vonnegut on "Got".. Final word. Cha Jan 2015 #262
I am so loving you, MADem! sheshe2 Jan 2015 #226
Don't get mad--put up a happy picture! That's my philosophy.... MADem Jan 2015 #228
k~ sheshe2 Jan 2015 #232
MADem's Spectacular Spectacular, she.. The story behind the sig line.. Cha Jan 2015 #234
If some here care to look every picture tells a story Cha. sheshe2 Jan 2015 #239
Maybe Manny's trying out a new persona.....like "Grammar Nazi of DU Manny." msanthrope Jan 2015 #188
OMG, that is an hilarious sketch! nt MADem Jan 2015 #198
Hahaha!!!! Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #14
On advice of a lawyer it was suggested I stay away from certain threads. sheshe2 Jan 2015 #223
Just called to say Cha Jan 2015 #225
Well, sure, any discussion board has trolls Recursion Jan 2015 #7
I meant payed GOP trolls. Here to mess up life for democrats...and thus alienate applegrove Jan 2015 #8
Ah, I believe the word you may be looking for is "shill" Recursion Jan 2015 #11
Limbaugh references LexisNexis which gives the dittoheads R B Garr Jan 2015 #15
I would be surprised if any dittoheads can actually read! Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #116
That's actually a very good distinction. R B Garr Jan 2015 #119
Also to add: The poster using the databases at the law firm R B Garr Jan 2015 #134
You could not imagine why anyone would plant paid posters here? Or perhaps make it part of merrily Jan 2015 #53
It is very interesting you mention Sunstein "cognitive infiltration" JonLP24 Jan 2015 #70
He was on the Daily Show recently--book tour--saying essentially the same thing that my post said. merrily Jan 2015 #71
Thanks for the Daily Show mention -- watching now JonLP24 Jan 2015 #73
Well, there are faux Democratic Third Wayers LondonReign2 Jan 2015 #56
By troll, does one mean anyone who disagress with one? JDPriestly Jan 2015 #24
By my definition none of those makes you a troll Recursion Jan 2015 #25
OK. Thanks. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #29
I remember the Trolls of Yore, back in the 1980s Recursion Jan 2015 #30
Here I would only count "Concern Troll" daredtowork Jan 2015 #39
Like the OP of this very thread? merrily Jan 2015 #124
The GOP doesn't have to do that, plenty of DUers will do that just because Rex Jan 2015 #18
Obama his own worst enemy. Can u say TPP, torture or chained CPI? on point Jan 2015 #19
None of which is law. And "torture"? Link? Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #85
Torture problem is pretty simple. Failure to prosecute Bush criminals. Try google for a link on point Jan 2015 #88
Your original post insinuates Obama committed torture & the rest is, not surprisingly, all nonsense. Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #90
What's "nonsense".. sendero Jan 2015 #186
I was on an interesting jury earlier daredtowork Jan 2015 #20
I try to vote to leave posts as often as I can. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #26
This is my policy on juries on, too daredtowork Jan 2015 #38
Respectfully, I think it depends on your view of jury duty, not your view of DU. merrily Jan 2015 #160
Yes on civility and being a Democrat. But Democrats do not agree on all issues. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #161
I've been accused of being everything but a child of God, so I am very merrily Jan 2015 #165
There's no doubt in my mind that there is trolling going on for that reason AND because BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #21
Do you really believe those who are criticizing Hillary Clinton JonLP24 Jan 2015 #28
No. Not all of them, but it's hard not to be skeptical of some posts that are anti-Hillary here. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #58
There is a lot of that on both sides of the Hillary candidacy issue JonLP24 Jan 2015 #61
Hillary is not synonymous with Democratic candidate. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #32
True. But she *is* the frontrunner...for now. It's self-defeating to put her down as some BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #60
I agree much like the PUMA thing JonLP24 Jan 2015 #62
I do not trust Hillary Clinton, and I think a writing campaign would be a waste of time. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #76
"I do not trust Hillary Clinton." Then there's no reason to continue discussing her with you. BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #162
Thank you. I've been watching politics since I was nine years old. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #164
OK, but if Hillary is the nominee and she loses California by one vote, I'm merrily Jan 2015 #176
She is a frontrunner before the primary even starts, much like 2008. merrily Jan 2015 #130
Money quote! Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #137
If you knew how many, many hours I worked to get Obama elected. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #154
Thanks, Tarheel_Dem. eom BlueCaliDem Jan 2015 #163
Hahahaha!!!!!!!! Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #114
I did not say that she was not a Democrat although I suppose you could read my words that way. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #149
CNN Money: "Elizabeth Warren is worth millions" Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #133
We are not burning anyone, certainly not mere millionaires. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #147
The Hill: "Warren: Destroying ISIS should be 'No. 1 priority'" Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #153
I do not disagree with Elizabeth Warren on that. It's just common sense. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #158
So you're not against all war making millionaires, just Hillary? That about right? Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #214
I am against Hillary's vote on the Iraq War. She should have checked her facts. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #219
Just to be clear, you want to make war with ISIS, but only if Millionairess Warren is CIC? Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #220
No. I did not say that. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #238
It's a discussion board, is it not? Many of us fear that the hype surrounding EW is just that. Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #251
My big issue is disparity in wealth. I do not believe that Hillary Clinton understands that issue JDPriestly Jan 2015 #253
Warren is rigorously pro-military. People don't realize that about her. MADem Jan 2015 #237
I support Warren for, among others, these reasons. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #243
You are of course free to support whosoever you choose~! MADem Jan 2015 #245
^^^^^THIS^^^^^ Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #250
It's easy to do--what's hard is to weigh the good, the not-so-good, the things ya like, MADem Jan 2015 #252
The sitting POTUS can attest to everything in your post. The pitting of one Democrat against another Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #258
But of course....which is why, despite all the pot stirring, we're not seeing much MADem Jan 2015 #260
Truth be told, I don't see EW creating the kind of enthusiasm that HRC & BHO did. People were..... Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #261
P.S.: If by "most Americans" you mean the ones who want EW not to be POTUS, follow the numbers. Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #155
I did not find Warren's name in either article. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #159
EW is "G" at the scribd link, but you have to scroll to the very bottom if that tells ya anything. Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #211
Where was "she" herself, Hillary Rodham Clinton, personally endorsing the pipeline? MADem Jan 2015 #235
She was Secretary of State when the pipeline deal was being discussed and negotiated with Canada JDPriestly Jan 2015 #236
You do realize that, as Secretary of State, she is NOT her own actor? She speaks for POTUS. MADem Jan 2015 #240
If you are correct, then I would expect Hillary to make it very clear that she opposes and opposed JDPriestly Jan 2015 #241
I strongly doubt you'll see that happen anytime soon. MADem Jan 2015 #242
Sorry. But aside from the issue of the pipeline, that is Hillary at her least clear, her most JDPriestly Jan 2015 #244
No--she's being very clear. She's not going to talk about it. MADem Jan 2015 #246
Warren was an unknown challenging an incumbent. Of course it was touch and go. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #247
An incumbent IDIOT who was an INTERIM seat-filler. He hadn't done a full term--he was finishing MADem Jan 2015 #249
Same is true for Hillary. Benghazi! Ridiculous. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #254
It's not a contest for "Who has the most 'exciting' ideas. MADem Jan 2015 #256
And if you think that is bad, wait till you see what they do to Hillary. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #257
No, we've heard that before--it's not news. We will tell naysayers to cut the crapola, to get MADem Jan 2015 #266
When I speak of "attractive," I'm not talking about beauty. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #267
Neither Hillary--nor Barack--are "rulers." They don't have the power you ascribe to them. MADem Jan 2015 #269
She managed 8 pts, in a state that Obama carried by 23. Eight pts would have been impressive if.... Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #259
If she wasn't worth millions by now, I'd think she was pretty stupid--and she's not stupid. MADem Jan 2015 #230
I think a troll has a better chance of defending RW policies of Obama JonLP24 Jan 2015 #22
I'm with you. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #33
Nailed it. JEB Jan 2015 #45
+100 ND-Dem Jan 2015 #67
no, there's a simpler explanation Enrique Jan 2015 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jan 2015 #27
+10000000. Oh, the horror of it. Someone daring to think for him- or her-self. Imagine that. JDPriestly Jan 2015 #34
Exactly. merrily Jan 2015 #177
You Better Believe It! nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #31
No doubt Jamaal510 Jan 2015 #35
YES! sheshe2 Jan 2015 #36
considering Obama's positioning in the polls are absolutely dependent on DU - there must be - Part Douglas Carpenter Jan 2015 #37
I don't think so but I do think some are so hypersensitive ChosenUnWisely Jan 2015 #40
some of you apparently wish the whole of DU was the BOG. m-lekktor Jan 2015 #44
Yeah and some Andy823 Jan 2015 #65
GD in DU is basically an anti-Obama forum. JoePhilly Jan 2015 #80
Care to back that up? great white snark Jan 2015 #89
Mahalo great white snark.. those posters know criticism of the President is rampant in GD.. the OP Cha Jan 2015 #184
Thank you gws! sheshe2 Jan 2015 #200
Is the President Black? Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #97
Instead of vague accusations, maybe those who feel this way can lay out what positions Obama has dissentient Jan 2015 #55
What a strange OP Marrah_G Jan 2015 #66
Oh I agree you cannot tell from one OP. I thought to myself applegrove Jan 2015 #79
I count 3.. including myself that could be one of those trolls JonLP24 Jan 2015 #91
Why did you single out my post, are you accusing me of being a troll? nt. polly7 Jan 2015 #99
I didn't mean to have it single out like that JonLP24 Jan 2015 #101
Oh, my apologies polly7 Jan 2015 #104
'This' post is what this is all about?? polly7 Jan 2015 #100
I should have clicked "View All" before copying and pasting JonLP24 Jan 2015 #103
No worries! polly7 Jan 2015 #105
Bingo! RiverLover Jan 2015 #179
Of course there is, its a public forum. JaneyVee Jan 2015 #72
Yep. Pro this or that trolls, as well as anti this or that trolls merrily Jan 2015 #178
IMO it is so illogical to let Republicans win because Democrats are not conservative enough treestar Jan 2015 #74
You've seen a lot of DU posts suggesting that we let Republicans win? merrily Jan 2015 #123
Yeah letting Rs win because Democrats are not progressive enough treestar Jan 2015 #180
Really? I'm here almost daily and don't see many posts like that. merrily Jan 2015 #182
You don't see any because that special poster Rex Jan 2015 #197
Thanks for the 411. merrily Jan 2015 #199
Anytime! Rex Jan 2015 #207
Those Democrats from red states do far more Obama bashing JonLP24 Jan 2015 #264
Trolling? At an anonymous online bulletin board? Why would anyone suspect that? struggle4progress Jan 2015 #77
I'm a big fan of the President personally. NaturalHigh Jan 2015 #78
As a critic of many Obama policies, all I can say about "innocently" criticizing him in the BOG merrily Jan 2015 #129
Actually, no I didn't know... NaturalHigh Jan 2015 #183
Then I am sorry I assumed you would surely know. Criticism of Hillary should not be merrily Jan 2015 #185
That's cool either way. NaturalHigh Jan 2015 #190
Yes butterfly77 Jan 2015 #81
From the defensive tone of some of the responses, I think you got your answer. Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #86
Do people really believe that Obama discussions here on DU impact his numbers? oberliner Jan 2015 #95
No but creating strife on settled issus, like Iran negotiations in exchange for no nukes, applegrove Jan 2015 #96
Settled issues like claiming Iran is after nukes? polly7 Jan 2015 #106
That is a bit of a misrepresentation, at-least regarding me JonLP24 Jan 2015 #107
That is up to them. Plenty of Democrats, rightist, center and leftist, supposedly were merrily Jan 2015 #167
Yet, your two line OP mentioned posts here bringing down Obama's numbers. merrily Jan 2015 #181
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jan 2015 #112
LOL. I take it you don‘t want the discussion applegrove Jan 2015 #121
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jan 2015 #135
That poster has pages of self-deleted posts. R B Garr Jan 2015 #143
I have a grand total of four posts hidden, they are posted as journal entries. 1000words Jan 2015 #201
Wow, sounds like quite a strange and calculated strategy. R B Garr Jan 2015 #202
Lots of games being played at DU 1000words Jan 2015 #203
"Lots of games being played at DU" Oh, U Betcha. R B Garr Jan 2015 #205
Point of order Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #209
You are correct, my mistake. 1000words Jan 2015 #210
Oh Snap! "Grand strategy" indeed. Thanks for that. Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #216
Just trying to be Bobbie Jo Jan 2015 #221
And doing a bang-up job, my Dear! Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #222
Well, if the truth were known . . . . Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #113
Major Hogwash, pls link to one of those daily posts about about impacting Obama's poll numbers merrily Jan 2015 #132
Merrily, pls link to "every single one of those posts" ... NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #166
Sure. Right after I get the link I requested. merrily Jan 2015 #168
I am a bit perplexed ... NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #172
Oop. You didn't get perplexed about Reply 168 until after my reply 169 called you out for bad faith merrily Jan 2015 #175
Now I am perplexed ... NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #208
Oh, sorry. I didnt notice that you were asking for a link to EVERY SINGLE post that I have seen merrily Jan 2015 #169
I agree it was an unreasonable request. NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #170
After your unreasonable and bad faith posts to me, I could not possibly merrily Jan 2015 #171
In other words ... NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #173
Predictable much? In other words, due to your bad faith, I very obviously never looked. merrily Jan 2015 #174
Game! Set! Match! Tarheel_Dem Jan 2015 #213
merrily, you have been targeted here by a particular kind of.... grasswire Jan 2015 #218
Thank you, grasswire. At this point, I'm ignoring the posts (on this thread) of one of them. merrily Jan 2015 #231
Just using logic to deduce why they think they have an impact on Obama's poll numbers. Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #229
Logic? That is not logic; it's leaping to quite a few baseless conclusions. merrily Jan 2015 #248
I've been here for 12 years. Major Hogwash Jan 2015 #265
ALL YOUR BASELESS CONCLUSIONS BELONG TO US!! merrily Jan 2015 #268
This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Jan 2015 #108
No politician still in office is a settled issue. 99Forever Jan 2015 #194
The trolls been here in my opinion mstinamotorcity2 Jan 2015 #255
Sometimes I think yes, sometimes no, if you mean paid trolling. ucrdem Jan 2015 #263
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is there trolling going o...»Reply #243