DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

Of course the difference between M4A and Brexit is that the former is good and the latter bad.

As to Swinson and Corbyn are leaders of different Political Parties.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/us/politics/democrats-2020-debates.html

nan said:

drummerboy said:

"M4A...is our version of Brexit."

Immortal words.

Silly perhaps, but immortal.

 If it is then the lesson to be learned is to support it fully and not wimp out with the Public Option.

It's not a good analogy.  If you want to stick with it, however, then you could say that Bernie's M4A proposal is "hard Brexit", while Warren is "negotiated Brexit with the Irish backstop". 

paulsurovell said:

The silence on this, especially among those who attacked Tulsi for doing the same, is deafening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/us/politics/democrats-2020-debates.html

 Contemplate the difference in facts and circumstances.  You'll probably figure it out.

Booker is so lame. I watched him on a Sunday morning show last week and all he did was rail against the system and the unfairness of Kamala Harris dropping out because her campaign lacked the funds to go on. It was pointed out that there are multiple candidates who aren't personally rich whose campaigns are doing decently, and also that Tom Steyer is a billionaire who's nowhere in the polls. The implication being, campaign funds tend to follow voter support; if you can't get voter support you're not going to get campaign funds. 

Booker didn't have much of a response to that very sensible argument. 

I thought Booker was trying to differentiate by being the positive, sunny, uplifting candidate, but in the interview he was pretty much all negative. And his argument was weak. 

He should drop out while he still has some cred as a VP candidate.   

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

The silence on this, especially among those who attacked Tulsi for doing the same, is deafening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/us/politics/democrats-2020-debates.html

 Contemplate the difference in facts and circumstances.  You'll probably figure it out.

I figured it out, it was easy.. You are a 100%, total, unadulterated hypocrite.

Smedley said:

Booker is so lame. I watched him on a Sunday morning show last week and all he did was rail against the system and the unfairness of Kamala Harris dropping out because her campaign lacked the funds to go on. It was pointed out that there are multiple candidates who aren't personally rich whose campaigns are doing decently, and also that Tom Steyer is a billionaire who's nowhere in the polls. The implication being, campaign funds tend to follow voter support; if you can't get voter support you're not going to get campaign funds. 

Booker didn't have much of a response to that very sensible argument. 

I thought Booker was trying to differentiate by being the positive, sunny, uplifting candidate, but in the interview he was pretty much all negative. And his argument was weak. 

He should drop out while he still has some cred as a VP candidate.   

 When did "Diversity" come to mean only skin color. Bernie would be the first Jewish President, Warren the first woman, Buttigieg the first Gay and Biden only the second Roman Catholic. 

Booker's candidacy didn't catch on. I do not know why but that's the game. As to VP I'm not sure for whom. Three of the four front-runners are from the East Coast as is Bloomberg and if the presidential candidate is Male, Harris might be a better choice.

The anti-Bernie narrative hits a glitch

Bernie Sanders is the candidate leading with nonwhite Democratic voters, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll.

Sanders: 29%
Biden: 26%
Warren: 13%
Buttigieg: 6%https://t.co/2BFj1a5Sw6
— NPR (@NPR) December 18, 2019
 

Nan has criticized Elizabeth Warren for endorsing Hillary instead of Bernie in 2016. Here is the back story.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/12/19/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-economy-087346

I can’t wait to see @TulsiGabbard at tonight’s debate vote Not Present

— Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) December 19, 2019

 Its a shame Tulsi didn't choose to run for reelection, I would have really enjoyed watching her get beat in the primary.  

Does anyone know why Tulsi lost support in her state?  It has seemed like re-election wasn't going to happen for quite awhile now.  I guess I could google it.

She also qualified for tonight's debate and decided not to participate - is this right?

jamie said:

Does anyone know why Tulsi lost support in her state?  It has seemed like re-election wasn't going to happen for quite awhile now.  I guess I could google it.

 I assume it's not a priority.

jamie said:

She also qualified for tonight's debate and decided not to participate - is this right?

 Other way around.  She announced that she had decided not to participate whether or not she qualified (she didn't).

So supporters who donated to her campaign hoping that she would qualify for the next debate must be feeling some buyer’s remorse now

jamie said:

Does anyone know why Tulsi lost support in her state?  It has seemed like re-election wasn't going to happen for quite awhile now.  I guess I could google it.

Because she is an ineffective, self-serving, useless, waste of space.   The good people of Hawaii deserve a lot better.   

She will fit right in at Fox.

paulsurovell said:

The silence on this, especially among those who attacked Tulsi for doing the same, is deafening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/us/politics/democrats-2020-debates.html

 I noticed that and I'm glad you brought it up.  The hypocrisy is amazing. Tulsi got so trashed for questioning the process and Booker gets lauded for the same thing. 

nan said:

 I noticed that and I'm glad you brought it up.  The hypocrisy is amazing. Tulsi got so trashed for questioning the process and Booker gets lauded for the same thing. 

 Tulsi trashed herself.  She #### the bed and nothing she does now can clean it.

I am watching the CNN Debate.  Where is Tulsi?  She's not present?

nan said:

paulsurovell said:

The silence on this, especially among those who attacked Tulsi for doing the same, is deafening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/14/us/politics/democrats-2020-debates.html

 I noticed that and I'm glad you brought it up.  The hypocrisy is amazing. Tulsi got so trashed for questioning the process and Booker gets lauded for the same thing. 

It's not the same thing. 

nohero said:

It's not the same thing. 

 Tulsi asked for clarification of the rules and was not happy at the specific polls used to qualify.  Booker is demanding that the rules be changed significantly so he can make the debate stage. So Booker is probably worse, according to the alleged rules set forth by Debate Stage Bridge Trolls, of which we have some members here on MOL. 

But Debate State Bridge Trolls MOL Chapter seems to only censure Tulsi, and give Cory a free pass. 

nan said:

 Tulsi asked for clarification of the rules and was not happy at the specific polls used to qualify. ...

 Not exactly an accurate description of what Tulsi was saying.  For people who compare what each actually said and the basis for the request, it's not the same thing.

nan said:

 Tulsi asked for clarification of the rules and was not happy at the specific polls used to qualify.  Booker is demanding that the rules be changed significantly so he can make the debate stage. So Booker is probably worse, according to the alleged rules set forth by Debate Stage Bridge Trolls, of which we have some members here on MOL. 

But Debate State Bridge Trolls MOL Chapter seems to only censure Tulsi, and give Cory a free pass. 

 I can't recall what other people were writing here, but my argument was not with the candidate, but with the people here who were implying that the DNC rules were established via a conspiracy to exclude Gabbard from the debates.  that was clearly a nutty idea that would have required the cooperation of reputable pollsters to doctor the results.  Unless you can point to Booker or other candidates complaining of a rigged dishonest process, it's not the same as what was alleged by the people I was disagreeing with.

For Nan, I was surprised by this paragraph from an online article in The Nation:

A focus group led by pollster Frank Luntz found that most thought Bernie Sanders won the night, but nobody said the same about Buttigieg. If the goal of the other candidates was to sabotage Buttigieg’s campaign, they might have succeeded.

STANV said:

For Nan, I was surprised by this paragraph from an online article in The Nation:

A focus group led by pollster Frank Luntz found that most thought Bernie Sanders won the night, but nobody said the same about Buttigieg. If the goal of the other candidates was to sabotage Buttigieg’s campaign, they might have succeeded.

 we only watched the last half hour or so, but I continue to be appalled at how condescending Biden is to his opponents, especially the women.  One of his responses to "Amy" (not Sen. Klobuchar) was especially noteworthy.  It's as if he seems annoyed that any of the people on the stage have the gall to oppose him.  The only thing that would have made his response worse was if he had started out by saying "What the little lady doesn't understand is..."

Condescending?

Wait til you see Bloomberg on a stage with them.

STANV said:

For Nan, I was surprised by this paragraph from an online article in The Nation:

A focus group led by pollster Frank Luntz found that most thought Bernie Sanders won the night, but nobody said the same about Buttigieg. If the goal of the other candidates was to sabotage Buttigieg’s campaign, they might have succeeded.

 I saw something about that focus group.  Evidently a bunch of them came in undecided and left Bernie fans.  He had a good performance, although, of course, ignored on MSNBC/CNN.

They were pushing Klobuchar, who did have her best night.  So, Klobuchar will be the MSM candidate of the month.  Time to look closer at Amy Klobuchar, who has similar skeletons in her closet to Kamala Harris.

STANV said:

Condescending?

Wait til you see Bloomberg on a stage with them.

 Bloomberg does not go on stages much (neither does Biden, but at least he takes the time to qualify for debates).  He's just trying to buy the election on Amazon with Prime. 

nohero said:

 He forgot to mention Cory, Julian, Michael, Mike and Deval.