2020 Democratic Nominee

[bad_teammate 13,218]

2 hours ago, Message Board User said:

If real change means:

Free college for everyone

Medicare for All

Expanding SCOTUS

Infanticide Partial birth abortion

Reparations

and Open borders

 

Fuck that noise.

Cool, enjoy voting for Trump

have a great time and fuck off out of the Dem threads

[Guest Lobo]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

"Wall Street/donor class"

Warren's warchest is stocked with a lot of donor class money. That's inarguably true. Is she "crooked"? I don't think so.

She transferred $10.4M from her Senate re-election campaign, money raised with PACs that accepted lobbyist money and held fundraisers with Wall Street/donor class audiences.

So when someone like Pete starts a campaign, it's easier to make him look like an asshole for raising money from the Wall Street/donor classes while Warren eschews it, because Warren got that work done ahead of time. Which is why I started with "To be fair to the field...".

She's absolutely more of-the-people than the vast majority of the other candidates (including Pete), which is part of why she is (in my estimation) 10 miles ahead of the peloton.

Well put, In that she gets to say “my Presidential campaign will not take PAC money!”   Because it was her senate campaign that took that money.  Then she gets to make some folksy comment about how she innocently transferred money from “savings to checking” just like other hard working Americans have to.  I’d like to think Pete is too smart to let that shit slide.  Biden won’t have any idea what they’re taking about and Bernie will brag about how  he maintains transparent campaign financials in a hand written ledger that he carries around with him everyday.  

 in in all seriousness—Warren has been much craftier through all this than I would have thought.  Her policy proposals are logistical nightmares but at least she’s putting meat on the progressive bones.  Most of the rest of the horde is out there on listening tours or standing on tables.   Four years on the national landscape and Bernie has yet to define his vision as well as warren.  Biden hasn’t done it in 40 years, so I guess there’s time for everyone.  

[softlynow 1,816]

You want real change? Run up the score, don’t look for progressive purity. You could get the leftiest lefty in the WH, but jack shit changes if you’ve got a tiny majority in the house and turtle still obstructs everything in the senate.

Run with the one whose coattails are the longest.  And for fucks sake, drop this no pac money bs. Movement conservatives got the changes they wanted back in the ‘50s by first capturing the GOP then using every available resource, from legitimate and semi-legitimate to outright criminal over the following decades to get where we are. Dems need to stop deluding themselves that what’s right or good for regular folks will win out. Take the bad men’s money, get power and fuck em.

Warren can play logic games about having corporate money? Great! That’s the kind of fuckery you need to win. 

Biden and Sanders need to go away. Biden as nominee means less base enthusiasm. Sanders means defending the constant professorial dive into why socialism shouldn’t be a bad word for white collar workers who grew up in the Cold War, thus a real chance to leave them to be picked off by trump.

Buttigieg, I’d love to see make his run, but I think he’d also be less likely to lead a wave in Congress, for the obvious reason.

Anyway, I feel differently than y’all who’re interested in the exact plans 46 has for us. I just want a Dem with a cushion in Congress. We got Obamacare knowing it would end the careers of some in Congress. You need those kinds of numbers for real, immediate change. Otherwise you’re just hoping to strike a few deals with the current Trump-enabling assholes who know any thing they vote for will be looked at as an opening to be primaried. Give me the most inspiring choice. I’m looking at Warren and Kamala right now, but maybe someone down the list can break out in the next 3-4 months. If the pecking order is similar in the late fall, I hope it’s Warren or Kamala who grab the early momentum in Iowa and NH. I think either of them could offer the right mix of being inspirational to the base and non-threatening to fragile, centrist white males.

Long term, the Dems could do with a better messaging apparatus. But that’s been true so long, it’s hardly worth hoping for. Label your ideas better before Pubs have a chance.

[Zonahorn 8,079]

8 hours ago, Message Board User said:

If real change means:

Free college for everyone

Medicare for All

Expanding SCOTUS

Infanticide Partial birth abortion

Reparations

and Open borders

 

Fuck that noise.

You’re retarded.

[bad_teammate 13,218]

7 hours ago, Lobo said:

Four years on the national landscape and Bernie has yet to define his vision as well as warren.  Biden hasn’t done it in 40 years, so I guess there’s time for everyone.  

What is Warren's plan for healthcare?

6 hours ago, softlynow said:

You want real change? Run up the score, don’t look for progressive purity.

...

 

Biden and Sanders need to go away.

A conservative concern troll wants the top 2 candidates in polling, both of whom run the best against Trump in head-to-head polls, to go away.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

I can't figure it out, guys.

[bad_teammate 13,218]

Jacob makes a fantastic point here.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

[Js1 85,439]

Team Joe:

"This is fine." 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Holy shit Joe. 

[bad_teammate 13,218]

Wait... how the hell is it possible to be WORSE than Joy Ann Reid?

That takes some effort.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,496]

Holy shit Joe. 

Evidently you don’t remember when Joe Biden was in the Senate. That’s code for “you’ve got a bad map and I’m coming after your appropriations down to the small potato highway projects, motherfucker”.

[bad_teammate 13,218]

None of the candidates are really talking specifically about the homeless. Warren's very good plan is more about lower-middle/middle-class housing.

It would be very cool to see Harris make this one of the veins of conversation.

[Message Board User 12,395]

 

[bad_teammate 13,218]

America needs this tag-team.

 

[bad_teammate 13,218]

Still upset this robot didn't run

(We got his buddy, though, so that's nice.)

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We got his buddy, though, so that's nice.

nice cheap shot at Mayor Pete.  You looked into it?  What did you find?  I’ve been seeing the “Buttigeig too close to Zuckerberg” talking point but I haven’t investigated it much. 

[bad_teammate 13,218]

are you OK?

[Js1 85,439]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Still upset this robot didn't run

(We got his buddy, though, so that's nice.)

Opie 2020

[Fozzz 152]

 

 

Has Liz said anything about how she will address executive overreach in the service of forever war?  Surely she has a plan for that.

[David Dennison 18,930]

Who must sign her No More Presidential Wars Act? What does that even mean? Is it a bill she's filed? The link in that tweet takes you to her site begging for money.

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Who must sign her No More Presidential Wars Act? What does that even mean? Is it a bill she's filed? The link in that tweet takes you to her site begging for money.

She's reintroducing the resolution she and Walter Jones proposed last year.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/1069?q={"search"%3A["gabbard"]}

 

[bad_teammate 13,218]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The link in that tweet takes you to her site begging for money.

Like a dog!

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

She's reintroducing the resolution she and Walter Jones proposed last year.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/1069?q={"search"%3A["gabbard"]}

Democrats: "We're not anti-war, we just want you to ask permission in a pro-forma way before we acquiesce immediately to every threat you make against us."

[bad_teammate 13,218]

Hey weird there is ONE guy who opposed Trump's 2017 ratcheting up of tensions and aggression against Iran, I wonder who it was..

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

This is one of the votes that Hugo used/uses as evidence of Russia/Sanders collusion.

Senate "Yea" voters: Warren, Gillibrand, Booker (whatever other losers from the Senate are running in 2020)
House "Yea" voters: Gabbard, O'Rourke (whatever other losers from the House are running in 2020)

So when you hear these Democratic candidates talking about how the president needs to ask permission, please understand that they will give him whatever permission he wants for whatever war he wants.

If you are against war in Iran, there's basically one candidate to take seriously.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Thanks for not punishing Russia for an attack on our country Bernie because you wanted to protect Iran.  

Yes, this will win over many voters. 

[bad_teammate 13,218]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Thanks for not punishing Russia for an attack on our country Bernie because you wanted to protect Iran.  

Yes, this will win over many voters. 

"wanted to protect Iran" is an interesting way of saying, "wanted to preserve the Iran nuclear deal in order to (1) prevent the further development and spread of nuclear weapons and (2) prevent a war that will kill hundreds of thousands/millions and cost trillions of dollars"

You're so easily manipulated by war-mongering Republicans it's no wonder you're scared of Active Measures.

[Hank Scorpio 17,729]

Can we get the crazy Yang supporter guy to post in this thread? I feel like we need someone bringing the Yang gang heat in here. Fozz has already joined that cult Tulsi started, BT giving calm and impartial defense of Bernie, Hugo's brains just leaking out of his ears as he tries to connect a town hall speech Bernie made in 1972 regarding local zoning issues to how it shows Bernie was responsible for the Russian apartment bombings and the installation of the Ayatollah, and then a horde of shitlibs all coming out to defend the latest empty suit like Mayor Pete or Beto when they say something like "the most important thing is for Americans to have the freedom to be American" when asked about their plan for healthcare. I love you all. 

[bad_teammate 13,218]

Here's a very good article from The New Yorker talking about Sanders and Warren. (I won't use "vs" because that feeds into an extremely fucking stupid narrative.)

It would be easy to end the comparison here and conclude that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are, after all, roughly comparable progressive politicians with only a handful of differences and disagreements for progressive Democrats to ponder. It would also be wrong. For as much as Sanders and Warren make similar diagnoses of our collective challenges and offer similar prescriptions, they could not be more different as people. The policy platforms and rhetoric their campaigns have offered are ultimately less significant than who they are and who they have been.

...

The nomination of either would represent a major shift leftward for the Party. That shift would ultimately be a restorative one, returning the Democrats to roughly the same ideological space they occupied not only during the New Deal years but as recently as the nineteen-seventies. Back then, wholly mainstream Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey were advocates of expansive government initiatives such as single-payer health care and a job guarantee. The victory of Clintonian neoliberalism has been, until now, so total that the most one typically hears about this period in Democratic politics are cautionary tales about the proud liberal George McGovern, who lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide, in 1972.

Fortunately for Sanders and Warren, they will be facing a candidate substantially less popular than Nixon was at the time and pitching themselves to an electorate that, according to figures recently released by the political scientist Jim Stinson, is more liberal than it has been in nearly seventy years. Whether the electorate is ready to appreciate or deeply consider distinctions within and between liberalism and leftism is another question.

TL:DR: While Sanders and Warren have similar policy platforms, they come from very different places, and those differences (both in policy and personality) are meaningful and not to be dismissed. Regardless, they both represent a necessary shift left for the Democratic Party.

Edited June 18, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Message Board User 12,395]

 

[bad_teammate 13,218]

Warren's job is to steal the old people from Biden and rich white liberals from Buttigieg

Bernie will get the non-whites and the young

COMBINED FORCES TO BRING COMMUNISM TO AMERICA

[gmr548 16,583]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Hey weird there is ONE guy who opposed Trump's 2017 ratcheting up of tensions and aggression against Iran, I wonder who it was..

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

This is one of the votes that Hugo used/uses as evidence of Russia/Sanders collusion.

Senate "Yea" voters: Warren, Gillibrand, Booker (whatever other losers from the Senate are running in 2020)
House "Yea" voters: Gabbard, O'Rourke (whatever other losers from the House are running in 2020)

So when you hear these Democratic candidates talking about how the president needs to ask permission, please understand that they will give him whatever permission he wants for whatever war he wants.

If you are against war in Iran, there's basically one candidate to take seriously.

 

Hmm. The article indicates the bill in question also included sanctions on Russia and NK; I respect and even agree with Bernie's stance here, but to say he is the only candidate to take seriously if you're against war in Iran - which I am, adamantly - is kind of disingenuous. Still, it is a topic worth keeping the candidates honest on, so I'm glad the info was shared.

[bad_teammate 13,218]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

... but to say he is the only candidate to take seriously if you're against war in Iran - which I am, adamantly - is kind of disingenuous. ...

There are basically 5 non-Bernie candidates with a reasonable shot to win (part of taking a candidate seriously).

3 of them voted for these sanctions (Harris, Warren, O'Rourke)
1 of them absolutely would have (Biden)
1 of them has already praised Israel's violence against the Palestinians and is trying to come across as tough soldier man (Buttigieg)

Obviously Gravel is even more non-interventionist than Bernie, but he's not likely to win anything.

[Message Board User 12,395]

 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

39 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

There are basically 5 non-Bernie candidates with a reasonable shot to win (part of taking a candidate seriously).

3 of them voted for these sanctions (Harris, Warren, O'Rourke)
1 of them absolutely would have (Biden)
1 of them has already praised Israel's violence against the Palestinians and is trying to come across as tough soldier man (Buttigieg)

Obviously Gravel is even more non-interventionist than Bernie, but he's not likely to win anything.

this is a stretch, even for you.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,496]

Here's a very good article from The New Yorker talking about Sanders and Warren. (I won't use "vs" because that feeds into an extremely fucking stupid narrative.)

It would be easy to end the comparison here and conclude that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are, after all, roughly comparable progressive politicians with only a handful of differences and disagreements for progressive Democrats to ponder. It would also be wrong. For as much as Sanders and Warren make similar diagnoses of our collective challenges and offer similar prescriptions, they could not be more different as people. The policy platforms and rhetoric their campaigns have offered are ultimately less significant than who they are and who they have been.

...

The nomination of either would represent a major shift leftward for the Party. That shift would ultimately be a restorative one, returning the Democrats to roughly the same ideological space they occupied not only during the New Deal years but as recently as the nineteen-seventies. Back then, wholly mainstream Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey were advocates of expansive government initiatives such as single-payer health care and a job guarantee. The victory of Clintonian neoliberalism has been, until now, so total that the most one typically hears about this period in Democratic politics are cautionary tales about the proud liberal George McGovern, who lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide, in 1972.

Fortunately for Sanders and Warren, they will be facing a candidate substantially less popular than Nixon was at the time and pitching themselves to an electorate that, according to figures recently released by the political scientist Jim Stinson, is more liberal than it has been in nearly seventy years. Whether the electorate is ready to appreciate or deeply consider distinctions within and between liberalism and leftism is another question.

TL:DR: While Sanders and Warren have similar policy platforms, they come from very different places, and those differences (both in policy and personality) are meaningful and not to be dismissed. Regardless, they both represent a necessary shift left for the Democratic Party.

I said something similar to this the other day. Although Sanders is far outside of the Mainstream, Theres nothing radical about Warren. Warren is a pretty standard mid-20th century American liberal Democrat.

 

I think Biden is going to win, though. He represents a return to boring normalcy for a lot of people.

[Js1 85,439]

26 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

Bullock waited too long to get in. It’s his own damn fault. Cry me a river. 

[bad_teammate 13,218]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

this is a stretch, even for you.

I didn't carry a rifle in Afghanistan for you disrespect me like this

[henrygandorf 29,194]

and that's fair.

but just in case, you know your boy pete gave an hour long speech last week railing against this type of shit.  i know you wanted to be able to paint everyone with the same brush.  maybe next time.

[bad_teammate 13,218]

15 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

... pete gave an hour long speech last week railing against this type of shit. ...

Please enlighten me further, I would love to be given a good reason to believe Pete is not merely someone who would furrow his brow while ordering more drone strikes.

He did, after all, enlist in the military in order to participate in these endless wars that he now says are bad.

[edit]

He absolutely would have voted for the Iran sanctions.

Edited June 19, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Hank Kingsley 20,987]

 

[Fozzz 152]

Is Mayor Pete still a thing?  I thought all the PMC radlibs had flocked to Warren already. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,120]

On the NYTimes today.  I am about halfway through it, but I like the get to know you questions peppered in with the policy questions.  I think it shows most people that these folks are ultimately just like the rest of us.  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-candidate-interviews.html

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

11 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

On the NYTimes today.  I am about halfway through it, but I like the get to know you questions peppered in with the policy questions.  I think it shows most people that these folks are ultimately just like the rest of us.  

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-candidate-interviews.html

Personal Political Hero:

Warren: Theodore Roosevelt 

Yang:  Theodore Roosevelt 

Williamson:  Robert F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Swalwell:  John Lewis

Sanders:  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Gabbard:  Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Ryan: Personal hero: Baker Mayfield, the quarterback of the Cleveland Browns. Political hero: John F. Kennedy.

Beto:  Abraham Lincoln

Bennett:  Abraham Lincoln

Buttigieg:  Abraham Lincoln

Delaney:  Abraham Lincoln

Hickenlooper:  Abraham Lincoln

Moulton: John F. Kennedy

Klobuchar:  Walter Mondale

Inslee:  The American voter

Harris:  Shirley Chisholm

Gillibrand:  Harriet Tubman

De Blasio:  Franklin D. Roosevelt

Castro:  Cesar Chavez

Bullock:  Joe Mazurek (a former attorney general), Theodore Roosevelt.

 Booker:  People in his community who were “never elected to office, but shaped the politics of our town.”

[Guest Lobo]

Baker Mayfield?  Really Congressman Ryan?  Can we just take that guy out back and beat the shit out of him now?  

 

[Js1 85,439]

Williamson with the 100% woman option of "oh man I can't pick"

Inslee went 100% 

Tim Ryan

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

12 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I said something similar to this the other day. Although Sanders is far outside of the Mainstream, Theres nothing radical about Warren. Warren is a pretty standard mid-20th century American liberal Democrat.

That's true, but the kicker is her overarching focus on corruption, which, while not politically radical or even ideological at all, is pretty rare among real contenders.   Not that others haven't paid lip service to it, but there's a thread of it that runs through all of her policies, tying them together in a compelling story.   It's no surprise to see her identify Teddy Roosevelt as her political hero, because that's plainly who she's modeling herself on in practice.

And I think it's why she's going to win, as long as her nose stays clean. Not just because of Trump's obvious personal vulnerabilities on this front.  But because it's an extremely persuasive alternative to the racist populist rhetoric that propelled Trump to the WH.  

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

12 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I said something similar to this the other day. Although Sanders is far outside of the Mainstream, Theres nothing radical about Warren. Warren is a pretty standard mid-20th century American liberal Democrat.

dp

Edited June 19, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

12 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

This quote says it all about the establishment's entitlement:

"Perez, complained Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly, has made Democratic members of Congress “second-class citizens in our convention.”

Fuck that noise.   Powerful Dems are still far and away the first class citizens in this process.  But at worst these changes would make them equal to everyone else, not second-class.   Which is what they deserve, after their way of doing things led to a defeat to Trump. 

[bad_teammate 13,218]

lol "here's a 1-hour speech, I have nothing more to add or anything to highlight"

But hey, I'll go ahead and do your work for you.

1 minute in: "My central purpose is to argue that the world today needs America more than ever."

Nope. American exceptionalism is exactly why we do this stuff and he's giving the whole game away 1 minute in. God damnit why are we even paying attention to this fucking dope?

seconds later...

"... and as a veteran of the Afghanistan conflict ..."

Take a shot! 🥃

"I stayed up late debating things like the march toward the Iraq conflict in a student committee room in Harvard's Kennedy School"

Which side were you on, Pete? Interesting non-positioning there.

", unaware that in a dorm across the street a few students were in the early stages of coding a website that would become the engine of the social media revolution"

What is the point of this? Shut up. Jesus Christ. Facebook is an inarguable evil on the face of the world why does he keep talking about it like it's something that reflects on him or has fuckall to do with him? Shut up.

"... by the weekend of my 10th college reunion I was at Bagram airfield in Afghanistan ..."

Take a shot!  🥃 We are 2 and a half minutes into this motherfucker, we're going to die of alcohol poisoning.

But seriously, zero judgement call so far regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a lamenting that the world didn't think we were credible anymore. What a fucking stooge.

"For the majority of my lifetime it has been difficult to identify a consistent policy in the Democratic Party"

Ok finally something worth hearing. I can't wait to hear Pete's differing, and consistent, vision! Let's fix this shit, Wonderboy!

"... the (Trump) pattern is that decisions are made impulsively, erratically, emotionally, and politically ..."

I'm so horny right now for a room full of lanyards and suit jackets and defense industry lobbyists very calmly, methodically, dispassionately, and sociopathically picking drone strike targets. Give it to me, Pete Baby.

No moral vision. No idea of what is right or wrong, just decorum and process.

"We need a strategy ... to manage global trends that will define the balance of this half-century"

What? Speak comprehensible language you fucking android.

"We won't conduct foreign policy by Tweet"

"(the usual 2054, lol Donald Trump is old thing)"

"the values of our values are American values to be valued as principled values"

THIS IS SO FUCKING VAGUE HOLY SHIT WHAT ARE YOU SAYING

"We must remember that the lesson of the Iraq disaster is not that there is anything wrong with standing for American values, but rather that any action in the name of such values must be strategic, legitimate, and constrained by the premise that we only use force when left with no alternative."

That's the lesson, Pete?

I have a question for the many of you who see/hear shit like that and feel inspired and think I'm a mean, jealous, Bernie Bro asshole:

Why would war ever be necessary (i.e., there is no alternative) to "stand for American values"? What does that mean?

----------------------------------------------------------------

George W Bush:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

We will meet that threat now with our army, air force, navy, coastguard and marines so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force and I assure you this will not be a campaign of half measures and we will accept no outcome but victory.

----------------------------------------------------------------

If you don't even know what the fuck "values" you are supposed to be fighting for, if you can't even define them, how in god's name is what you're proposing any fucking different than W-era neo-con adventurism?

Back to this word salad speech...

"The next president must set a high bar on the use of force and an exceedingly high bar on doing so unilaterally. When America acts alone it can only be because core interests are at stake and because there is no alternative."

This literally could be from a George W Bush speech. It probably is. This is legitimately terrifying.

"this is not the case about Venezuela or Iran"

Wait... are those... specifics!? PETE YOU MADMAN YOU SAID SOMETHING COMPREHENSIBLE AND RELEVANT!

"It is the difference between the necessary response to 9/11 in Afghanistan..."

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. No.

No.

Nope.

"... and the self-defeating invasion of Iraq."

You're right here, but can we go back to where you were talking about how invading and occupying Afghanistan was "necessary"?

It wasn't. What the fuck? This man is MORE hawkish than 2008 Clinton and Obama.

"...between Normandy and Saigon"

earlier in the speech: "everyone's been saying we have to put an end to endless war"
11:15: "we must put an end to endless war"

I can't wait for Mr. Specific to tell us how after the applause break

"Second, we must..."

Oh, well, nevermind then.

He's not saying anything. He's blabbering. Enough of this bullshit.

[bad_teammate 13,218]

Beto: "Hey, raising the SS age?? THAT'S MY THING!"

[bad_teammate 13,218]

lol