Would a primary challenge from the left serve any purpose for Democrats?

[Agit8r]

What if Obama simply were not to run again. he certainly looks like he is ready to go write his memoirs somewhere

 

[georgephillip]

Obama's only detectable goal is to "earn" $100 million faster than Clinton did.

They are both corporate whores who deserve to die in federal prison.

The sooner the better.

 

[Liability]

Obama's only detectable goal is to "earn" $100 million faster than Clinton did.

They are both corporate whores who deserve to die in federal prison.

The sooner the better.

Wow. I don't much care for President Obama, but I can think of no valid basis on which it can be said that he should go to prison at all. Ditto that for Bubba.

georgieporgie, you are one of the dumbest, nastiest and most wildly irrational fucktards on this entire Board.

 

[georgephillip]

You're not going SOFT are you, Lie?

FLUSH every elected Republican AND Democrat from DC in 2012 and put as many of the corporate tools as possible into prison for the rest of their lives, and freedom will ring in the land of Goldman Sachs.

Sissy.

 

[Liability]

Nah, the first Jew president will be a Center-Right candidate.

Can you hear me, Michael Bloomberg?

Mike is not center-right, though.

He's just another lib. Re-packaged, but just a lib all the same.

Please, Mr. Mayor, may I have some more salt in my soup?

Fucking nanny state idiot.

He has built up a multi-billion $$$ business from scratch, has executive experience, has been a Democrat and a Republican and an Independent, has managed NYC very well.

Seems like a no-brainer if you want competence. I still think that McCain/Bloomberg would have been a winning ticket: two old White guys, one a foreign policy expert, one a business expert.


ETA: Hey Liability - they don't have salt shakers at every table in the restaurants you go to? Then STFU.

Hey Narcissitic Hobo, the Nanny State may soon be coming to have salt shakers banned from restaurants, too, since idiot uber-lib assholes like you believe the nanny state has the right, the obligation and the holy duty to do every bit of thinking for you and to provide every possible service from crafting your daily schedule to wiping your ass for you. So have a healthy dose of STFU your own pathetic self, ass-breath.

Simpleholic, whenever you post something -- usually even dumber than your previous display of imbecility -- the reaction is almost universal:

 

[Liability]

You're not going SOFT are you, Lie?

FLUSH every elected Republican AND Democrat from DC in 2012 and put as many of the corporate tools as possible into prison for the rest of their lives, and freedom will ring in the land of Goldman Sachs.

Sissy.

If your notion of being "tough," you flaming imbecile, is to imprison the President for mythical felonies, then I'm grateful that I'm not as "tough" as you, you dishonest flaming pussy.

You have always been an asshole, but you do seem to ratchet up your retardation from time to time.

georgiepussy:

 

[georgephillip]

Have you noticed any felonies, mythical or otherwise, occurring on Wall Street during Obama's watch

Or are you too challenged to care?

Grow some balls.

 

[Liability]

Have you noticed any felonies, mythical or otherwise, occurring on Wall Street during Obama's watch

Or are you too challenged to care?

Grow some balls.

Your fascination with my scrotum aside, gaylord, any felonies committed (allegedly) on Wall Street are not attributable to President Obama absent something the rest of us like to call "evidence."

I realize that you are flailing away at your parent's keyboard as you sit securely in your basement as your fingers pound on each key with a little extra force to REALLY make your "point."

You seem very agitated. You've gotten yourself worked up into a real lather.

But when it comes to the value I place on your inane mutterings, I must confess that I find it very difficult to give you any credence.

 

[editec]

Would a primary challenge from the left serve any purpose for Democrats?

I believe that no matter how far left on the political spectrum you are or how frustrated you might be with progress toward your ideals or what's perceived as campaign promises unkept, that challenging Obama from the left would be futile and risk doing a lot more harm than good.

It's possible that a challenge forces Obama slightly further to the left, so when and if he were reelected, he would have campaigned on a platform further to the left, but it almost certainly wouldn't effect how he'd govern anyway.

He won't be able to get as far to the left as he wants anyway, as the next Congress and subsequent ones will be further right than he is.

So basically I'm saying regardless of how frustrated anyone on the left is, a primary challenge is a silly option.

In a 2nd term he would move the agenda as far left as a center-right Congress would allow anyway. A primary challenge could only cause divisiveness among ranks, push Independents away, and possibly prevent Obama from beating the Republican challenger. It might be the only way the GOP could win.

There's certainly a miniscule chance that a Dem challenger would beat Obama in a primary, substantially less than 1%. If they were able to beat him (say 1 in 1000), it would only be because the Dems were weak at that point, and that challenger would have no chance of beating the Republican.

Agreed.

There is no nationally known DEM who could mount an effective campaign anyway except, perhaps Hillary.

And, much to her credit she said she was planning on retiring from public life after she's no longer serving in this admin.

 

[georgephillip]

Have you noticed any felonies, mythical or otherwise, occurring on Wall Street during Obama's watch

Or are you too challenged to care?

Grow some balls.

Your fascination with my scrotum aside, gaylord, any felonies committed (allegedly) on Wall Street are not attributable to President Obama absent something the rest of us like to call "evidence."

I realize that you are flailing away at your parent's keyboard as you sit securely in your basement as your fingers pound on each key with a little extra force to REALLY make your "point."

You seem very agitated. You've gotten yourself worked up into a real lather.

But when it comes to the value I place on your inane mutterings, I must confess that I find it very difficult to give you any credence.

Your latent fascination with your scrotum, should such a thing exist, should not deter you from answering this simple question:

Where are your beloved president's criminal investigations of the financial crisis. Is their existence at least as suspect as that of your scrotum?

"John Hueston, a former lead Enron prosecutor, wonders: 'Have they committed the resources in the right place? Do these scandals warrant apparent national priority status?'

"Nobody from Lehman, Merrill Lynch or Citigroup has been charged criminally with anything.

"No top executives at Bear Stearns have been indicted.

"All former American International Group executives are running free.

"No big mortgage company executive has had to face the law.

"How about someone other than the Fabulous Fab [7] at Goldman Sachs?

Is that the same Goldman Sachs that donated $997,095 to your president's 2008 campaign?

Are you that fucking stupid?

 

[Synthaholic]

Mike is not center-right, though.

He's just another lib. Re-packaged, but just a lib all the same.

Please, Mr. Mayor, may I have some more salt in my soup?

Fucking nanny state idiot.

He has built up a multi-billion $$$ business from scratch, has executive experience, has been a Democrat and a Republican and an Independent, has managed NYC very well.

Seems like a no-brainer if you want competence. I still think that McCain/Bloomberg would have been a winning ticket: two old White guys, one a foreign policy expert, one a business expert.


ETA: Hey Liability - they don't have salt shakers at every table in the restaurants you go to? Then STFU.

Hey Narcissitic Hobo, the Nanny State may soon be coming to have salt shakers banned from restaurants, too, since idiot uber-lib assholes like you believe the nanny state has the right, the obligation and the holy duty to do every bit of thinking for you and to provide every possible service from crafting your daily schedule to wiping your ass for you. So have a healthy dose of STFU your own pathetic self, ass-breath.

Simpleholic, whenever you post something -- usually even dumber than your previous display of imbecility -- the reaction is almost universal:

That's the Liability I know - scared of everything that could possibly happen, no matter how improbable.

Hey dumbass - Mayor Bloomberg isn't going to take away your salt shaker. Evil Liberals aren't going to keep you from smothering your food with Morton's. Go for it!

 

[Liability]

He has built up a multi-billion $$$ business from scratch, has executive experience, has been a Democrat and a Republican and an Independent, has managed NYC very well.

Seems like a no-brainer if you want competence. I still think that McCain/Bloomberg would have been a winning ticket: two old White guys, one a foreign policy expert, one a business expert.


ETA: Hey Liability - they don't have salt shakers at every table in the restaurants you go to? Then STFU.

Hey Narcissitic Hobo, the Nanny State may soon be coming to have salt shakers banned from restaurants, too, since idiot uber-lib assholes like you believe the nanny state has the right, the obligation and the holy duty to do every bit of thinking for you and to provide every possible service from crafting your daily schedule to wiping your ass for you. So have a healthy dose of STFU your own pathetic self, ass-breath.

Simpleholic, whenever you post something -- usually even dumber than your previous display of imbecility -- the reaction is almost universal:

That's the Liability I know - scared of everything that could possibly happen, no matter how improbable.

Hey dumbass - Mayor Bloomberg isn't going to take away your salt shaker. Evil Liberals aren't going to keep you from smothering your food with Morton's. Go for it!

That's the Narcissitic Hobo we all know as Simpleholic; making shit up on the fly when he has nothing valid to say.

I said nothing about "fear," you dishonest schmuck. What I am pointing out is that these fucking asshole uber liberoidals (in other words, scumbag statists such as you) have a bad tendency to act on our behalf WITHOUT our consent and AGAINST our wishes AND, as if that wasn't bad enough, with no proper basis in authority to do so.

It wasn't that long ago that nobody would have believed that the fucking nanny state would be requiring food industry retailers to post calorie and fat content on their public display menus and tell us how much transfat we may consume, either. But the much faster than creeping pace of you busybody nanny state statists knows no restraint.

You dumbass uber-liberoidal fuckers come in with your incrementalism, your "for the public's own good" paternalism, and you "bestow" upon the masses, drop by drop, your little helpful morsels -- and you say stupid shit like "nobody is gonna take your salt shaker," as though that were actually the issue.

You fucking paternalistic nanny-state liberoidals ARE the problem.

I'd say let's go to a bar and have a good Scotch and a fine cigar to discuss this in a more civilized way, but Mayor Nanny has already made smoking indoors a major crime. (I'm pretty sure he hasn't had the ballz to try to make it a felony yet, at least.)

You liberoidal Statists truly just don't get it. We don't WANT you sticking your noses into our private lives, our business or our personal affairs. Butt the fuck out.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Would a primary challenge from the left serve any purpose for Democrats?

I believe that no matter how far left on the political spectrum you are or how frustrated you might be with progress toward your ideals or what's perceived as campaign promises unkept, that challenging Obama from the left would be futile and risk doing a lot more harm than good.

It's possible that a challenge forces Obama slightly further to the left, so when and if he were reelected, he would have campaigned on a platform further to the left, but it almost certainly wouldn't effect how he'd govern anyway.

He won't be able to get as far to the left as he wants anyway, as the next Congress and subsequent ones will be further right than he is.

So basically I'm saying regardless of how frustrated anyone on the left is, a primary challenge is a silly option.

In a 2nd term he would move the agenda as far left as a center-right Congress would allow anyway. A primary challenge could only cause divisiveness among ranks, push Independents away, and possibly prevent Obama from beating the Republican challenger. It might be the only way the GOP could win.

There's certainly a miniscule chance that a Dem challenger would beat Obama in a primary, substantially less than 1%. If they were able to beat him (say 1 in 1000), it would only be because the Dems were weak at that point, and that challenger would have no chance of beating the Republican.

What about Alan Grayson? Libs seem batshitcrazy over that guy. And he won't be doing anything else for the next 2 years.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hey Narcissitic Hobo, the Nanny State may soon be coming to have salt shakers banned from restaurants, too, since idiot uber-lib assholes like you believe the nanny state has the right, the obligation and the holy duty to do every bit of thinking for you and to provide every possible service from crafting your daily schedule to wiping your ass for you. So have a healthy dose of STFU your own pathetic self, ass-breath.

Simpleholic, whenever you post something -- usually even dumber than your previous display of imbecility -- the reaction is almost universal:

That's the Liability I know - scared of everything that could possibly happen, no matter how improbable.

Hey dumbass - Mayor Bloomberg isn't going to take away your salt shaker. Evil Liberals aren't going to keep you from smothering your food with Morton's. Go for it!

That's the Narcissitic Hobo we all know as Simpleholic; making shit up on the fly when he has nothing valid to say.

I said nothing about "fear," you dishonest schmuck. What I am pointing out is that these fucking asshole uber liberoidals (in other words, scumbag statists such as you) have a bad tendency to act on our behalf WITHOUT our consent and AGAINST our wishes AND, as if that wasn't bad enough, with no proper basis in authority to do so.

You're a fucking idiot. Without our consent? We elect them to do things without our consent. It's called representative democracy. And that elected status confers authority to do so. Moron.

It wasn't that long ago that nobody would have believed that the fucking nanny state would be requiring food industry retailers to post calorie and fat content on their public display menus and tell us how much transfat we may consume, either. But the much faster than creeping pace of you busybody nanny state statists knows no restraint.

Another lie. Do you even remember a time when you were honest?

You dumbass uber-liberoidal fuckers come in with your incrementalism, your "for the public's own good" paternalism, and you "bestow" upon the masses, drop by drop, your little helpful morsels -- and you say stupid shit like "nobody is gonna take your salt shaker," as though that were actually the issue.

YOU were the one crying about the nanny state and whether you would be allowed to have salt or not:

Mike is not center-right, though.

He's just another lib. Re-packaged, but just a lib all the same.

Please, Mr. Mayor, may I have some more salt in my soup?

Fucking nanny state idiot.

I'd say let's go to a bar and have a good Scotch and a fine cigar to discuss this in a more civilized way, but Mayor Nanny has already made smoking indoors a major crime. (I'm pretty sure he hasn't had the ballz to try to make it a felony yet, at least.)

I would be happy to go to a bar with you and enjoy an Oban or a Johnny Black. That wouldn't affect anyone else's health but our own. But I'm glad you won't be able to light up a cigar. Why should your pleasure take precedence over my health?

You liberoidal Statists truly just don't get it. We don't WANT you sticking your noses into our private lives, our business or our personal affairs. Butt the fuck out.

Ahh, but it's my business, too. One person, one vote. Sucks for you, huh?

 

[Conspiracist]

Would a primary challenge from the left serve any purpose for Democrats?

I believe that no matter how far left on the political spectrum you are or how frustrated you might be with progress toward your ideals or what's perceived as campaign promises unkept, that challenging Obama from the left would be futile and risk doing a lot more harm than good.

It's possible that a challenge forces Obama slightly further to the left, so when and if he were reelected, he would have campaigned on a platform further to the left, but it almost certainly wouldn't effect how he'd govern anyway.

He won't be able to get as far to the left as he wants anyway, as the next Congress and subsequent ones will be further right than he is.

So basically I'm saying regardless of how frustrated anyone on the left is, a primary challenge is a silly option.

In a 2nd term he would move the agenda as far left as a center-right Congress would allow anyway. A primary challenge could only cause divisiveness among ranks, push Independents away, and possibly prevent Obama from beating the Republican challenger. It might be the only way the GOP could win.

There's certainly a miniscule chance that a Dem challenger would beat Obama in a primary, substantially less than 1%. If they were able to beat him (say 1 in 1000), it would only be because the Dems were weak at that point, and that challenger would have no chance of beating the Republican.

I think a primary challenge would be healthy for Dems, it would give them a chance to show they do not hold Obama above real criticism. Hillary would be a great challenger, see if the Dems fall for Boy King again.

 

[Liability]

That's the Liability I know - scared of everything that could possibly happen, no matter how improbable.

Hey dumbass - Mayor Bloomberg isn't going to take away your salt shaker. Evil Liberals aren't going to keep you from smothering your food with Morton's. Go for it!

That's the Narcissitic Hobo we all know as Simpleholic; making shit up on the fly when he has nothing valid to say.

I said nothing about "fear," you dishonest schmuck. What I am pointing out is that these fucking asshole uber liberoidals (in other words, scumbag statists such as you) have a bad tendency to act on our behalf WITHOUT our consent and AGAINST our wishes AND, as if that wasn't bad enough, with no proper basis in authority to do so.

You're a fucking idiot. Without our consent? We elect them to do things without our consent. It's called representative democracy. And that elected status confers authority to do so. Moron.



Another lie. Do you even remember a time when you were honest?



YOU were the one crying about the nanny state and whether you would be allowed to have salt or not:

​

I'd say let's go to a bar and have a good Scotch and a fine cigar to discuss this in a more civilized way, but Mayor Nanny has already made smoking indoors a major crime. (I'm pretty sure he hasn't had the ballz to try to make it a felony yet, at least.)

I would be happy to go to a bar with you and enjoy an Oban or a Johnny Black. That wouldn't affect anyone else's health but our own. But I'm glad you won't be able to light up a cigar. Why should your pleasure take precedence over my health?

You liberoidal Statists truly just don't get it. We don't WANT you sticking your noses into our private lives, our business or our personal affairs. Butt the fuck out.

Ahh, but it's my business, too. One person, one vote. Sucks for you, huh?

You are certifiably insane, an incorrigible damned liar and too stupid to breathe.

When we permit our REPRESENTATIVES to represent us by passing legislation, you imbecile, they are obliged to do so within the PARAMETERS we have SET for them.

Nowhere did we give the nanny state permission to treat us like helpless fucking liberoidal retards unable to decide for ourselves whether we wished to take the risk of a little extra salt. And I'm quite sure we all knew all along how to fucking ASK what the damn fat content was in a Big fucking Mac and how many calories were in those heavily salted French Fries.

And if you don't like a cigar in the corner bar, stupid, then don't patronize the place. In fact, you could even tell the manager "I won't patronize any establishment that permits smoking." If he doesn't change his way of doing business to suit his customer base, he will soon lose customers. If he goes with the flow, he may do even better than just keeping his tried and true customer base. Holy shit, imagine that! Market forces working within a free market in a free land.

You libs truly seem to need a nanny state to wipe your snotty noses. How embarrassing it must be to be you.

 

[Liability]

Have you noticed any felonies, mythical or otherwise, occurring on Wall Street during Obama's watch

Or are you too challenged to care?

Grow some balls.

Your fascination with my scrotum aside, gaylord, any felonies committed (allegedly) on Wall Street are not attributable to President Obama absent something the rest of us like to call "evidence."

I realize that you are flailing away at your parent's keyboard as you sit securely in your basement as your fingers pound on each key with a little extra force to REALLY make your "point."

You seem very agitated. You've gotten yourself worked up into a real lather.

But when it comes to the value I place on your inane mutterings, I must confess that I find it very difficult to give you any credence.

Your latent fascination with your scrotum, should such a thing exist, should not deter you from answering this simple question:

Where are your beloved president's criminal investigations of the financial crisis. Is their existence at least as suspect as that of your scrotum?

"John Hueston, a former lead Enron prosecutor, wonders: 'Have they committed the resources in the right place? Do these scandals warrant apparent national priority status?'

"Nobody from Lehman, Merrill Lynch or Citigroup has been charged criminally with anything.

"No top executives at Bear Stearns have been indicted.

"All former American International Group executives are running free.

"No big mortgage company executive has had to face the law.

"How about someone other than the Fabulous Fab [7] at Goldman Sachs?

Is that the same Goldman Sachs that donated $997,095 to your president's 2008 campaign?

Are you that fucking stupid?

Speaking of you, georgiepussy, Yoda would HAVE to observe that "The Stupid is strong in this one."

A. You, you fucking dope, are the idiot who keeps making references to my balls. Go play with your own some more if you could ever find them, you pussy, and stop trying to fixate on mine.

B. President Obama is not my beloved President, you mental case. I can barely tolerate that guy.

C. I don't know what his Administration is or is failing to investigate, you retard. I don't work for the Obama Administration or his DoJ.

D. Just because i don't know that they are investigating doesn't mean that they aren't -- and here's a newsflash for you, stupid, the same holds true for you even if you are too fucking dull to grasp that obvious concept.

E. IF they are failing to conduct such investigations where investigations are warranted, that's just another good reason to avoid voting for liberal Dumbocraps.

F. I realize that whole CONCEPT of fairness sails miles over your pinhead and at light speed, you pussy, but even so: recognizing that even a President I don't care for has and deserves a presumption of innocence does NOT make him a guy I otherwise support.

You truly are a fucking imbecile.

 

[georgephillip]

Now convince me Republicans will throw more rich parasites in jail than Democrats.

It's a CLASS war, STUPID.

 

[elvis]

Now convince me Republicans will throw more rich parasites in jail than Democrats.

It's a CLASS war, STUPID.

You tell him, Karl Marx.

 

[Sallow]

I don't think it is necessarily a left/right thing. It would be about political principles. There ought to be a challenger who:

A) Voted against the unpatriotic act

B) Generally supports civil liberties

C) Generally doesn't support corporate cronyism


This is why I would like to see Russ Feingold run

Or Alan Grayson?