Hey, there! Log in / Register
We're back down to just two Massachusetts candidates for president
By adamg on Wed, 02/12/2020 - 12:40pm
Three if you include Medford native Mike Bloomberg, but in any case, the New Hampshire results persuaded Deval Patrick he has no chance of getting the Democratic nomination, so he announced today he's not running for president anymore.
Coupled with Elizabeth Warren's poor showing yesterday, can we assume the Liar in Chief was, again, lying, about the hundreds of buses of Massachusetts residents rolling into New Hampshire to flip elections? Yes, of course we can.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Comments
Deval
Not a huge fan of Deval politically, but he always seemed like a sharp guy.
However, his 2020 'candidacy' was just weird if not borderline crazy from start to finish. Is he just angling for AG or HHS?
Too bad
He would have made a good choice if he had jumped in the race earlier. Someone said to me, "Oh he's not running for President, he's running to VP." Could be. He would make a good VP.
Bloomberg/Patrick
I've been saying that since they both got in. Bloomberg needs help from the blacks (stop and frisk) and Democrats don't want to lose a sitting Senator-sorry Harris. Obama will get behind this ticket as well which is all the really matters to the powers that be.
How about this
Stop letting the candidates hand-pick their running mates, and have Vice President as a separate race on the ballot. That way, the decision will be up to the VOTERS instead of the current buddy-buddy system.
Details please
No one wants to deal with a whole separate set of folks running for VP (would there be Primaries ?) And you wouldn't want a VP from one party and a President from another, would we? So who would be on the ballot come November? (I agree that the current system is, at best, weird, but I'm not sure there is a better alternative.)
Waahhh Waaaahh
I have to make more decisions. So instead, you'd rather be forced to accept a person for VP you don't like in order to support a Presidential candidate you like (or visa-versa).
Vice President Jefferson
"And you wouldn't want a VP from one party and a President from another, would we?"
We tried that, and it didn't go well. Which is why we have the 12th Amendment.
Why would that be better?
Given that the VP doesn't really have many actual powers, this just seems like it'd lead to a situation where if the President and Vice President don't get along, the VP just gets completely sidelined and ignored for 4-8 years. At least with the current system, the President can (ideally) choose someone they work well with and adds some real capabilities to their administration. You might also look at the presidency of Mass native John Adams for more on what happens if the President doesn't get to choose their own VP...
Or you they could pull an LBJ
And "Kennedy" whomever the POTUS was.
No.
None of the neoliberal stooges will make a good anything at the executive branch level in US government.
Watching the mainstream media liberal take down attempts on Bernie reminds us all that we have a major fucking problem in this country. Liberals want to vote to keep an economy that robs college students blind and promises them no future.
Stop being chicken shit liberals--you're so superior to the Maga barfbags....not
what?
neoliberals aren’t classically liberal, hence the distinction. the group you’re trying to talk about is the democratic party.
Deval running was
...puzzling. Why show up late when no one knew who you were in the first place?
The problem with centrists is they don't stand out to anyone.
Taking the middle ground
Taking the middle ground between two diametrically opposed ideologies is completely asinine. It only appeals to grifters and low information voters.
Hightower Quote
Ain't nothing in the middle of the road except a yellow streak and dead armadillos.
Or, as Jim Hightower used to say...
There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.
There are buses from Massachusetts
They are full of NH residents, who then go vote after work in MA.
That's because NH won't pay for commuter rail
... or any other rail, for that matter. There used to be three railroad lines crossing the state; all three have been torn up. The one from Concord to Lebanon, which used to carry Boston - Montreal passenger service, is a bike/snowmobile path.
Not exactly a "liar"
I don't think Trump is a liar; I think you're giving him too much credit. Liars have at least some concept of "objective reality", of "truth vs. fiction". Usually, they know they're lying.
Trump is just a bullshitter. Like a guy sitting at the bar after three beers, babbling at random. He has little or no concept of actual reality -- he think all stories are equally valid, it's just a question of who's the most persuasive.
I've had a lot of experience with both liars and bullshitters in my life, and believe me, they're not the same thing. The liars tend to be smarter and more coherent. Trump is merely a bullshitter.
He's a con artist.
He's Star Trek's Harcourt Fenton Mudd. If he ever admits that everything he says is a lie, Twitter will self-destruct.
Patrick's statement
The words of a sensible man
that's
neoliberal moralizing bullshit. hate is not worth talking about in this context. why doesn't this softhead explain more about how washington is pay for play and the system, if left un changed, is inevitably crashing? you know why--because he is a stooge
The difference between liberals and sicialists
Liberals see capitalism's injustices, and believe they can correct them. They think they can tame capitalism, harness it to work for everyone's benefit. If that were true, Ronald Reagan would never have been elected, and we'd still be experiencing the prosperity of the 1960's.
Socialists say capitalism cannot be fixed, that the injustices are baked in, that they are the very essence of capitalism. Socialists say capitalism must be abolished.
Not even Bernie Sanders is a socialist, as much as he likes to use the word. They are all of them liberals.
Bull
Bullshit. You have no clue what you're talking about. Your description is closer to "communism" (not the same as "socialism" which is a very, very broad range of beliefs) -- but even communists nowadays tend to be ardent capitalists (see China) although they play games with the terminology.
Since you have no idea what you're babbling about, why don't you just STFU?
Deval Patrick?
Sure he continued the momentum - but the stuff he takes credit for seems to have been going on long before and long after his tenure as governor. Decent guy - but I kind of chalk him up to being a bit of a placeholder for 8 years. Didn't break anything, didn't really fix anything (especially the T).
Deval could always give a good speech...
...and he seems to have been a capable executive. But he left the Governor's office for the private sector. It's hard to make a convincing argument that he felt strongly called to public service.
Wouldn't it have been more practical ...
And more fiscally responsible of him to simply email each viable candidate to say "hey, I've been in the sidelines and virtually unrecognizable for years now, how about a cabinet position? I dont really have the cash for an ambassadorship (although, my war chest would likely support that now)...
I think I speak for us all when I say...
I had completely forgotten that he was even running.
Where's Bailey the dog?
Has Bailey the dog been sent back to the shelter, yet?