DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
nan said:
Citing someone's record is not smearing. The only person I'm commenting on something other than record is Beto, because his incompetence alarms me and I'm afraid of him going against Trump. He also does not much of a platform to challenge.
I will continue to compare Medicare for All to Medicare for (some) America(ns) because it's important to see that Medicare for All is much better and will be the most challenged through the establishment news.
And with that, I rest my case
STANV said:
Why is it so hard for you to consider that candidates who do not embrace your ideas are not sincere in their beliefs?
Gov. Insley believes that Climate Change is such a threat that he does not want to talk about anything else.
We all have our own opinions but most of us will allow that others may honestly disagree and we should all be open to considering other people's opinions. Otherwise what is the purpose of participating in this Discussion Board?
I did not say they were not sincere, because they might be. I can only look at evidence. Insley is now campaigning on climate change, but back in 2016, he endorsed Clinton over Sanders and Clinton was so enthusiastic about fracking that she traveled internationally to promote it. She refused to support a ban on fracking. So, those facts make me wonder about Insley's sincerity about climate change being the most important issue.
nan said:
I did not say they were not sincere, because they might be. I can only look at evidence. Insley is now campaigning on climate change, but back in 2016, he endorsed Clinton over Sanders and Clinton was so enthusiastic about fracking that she traveled internationally to promote it. She refused to support a ban on fracking. So, those facts make me wonder about Insley's sincerity about climate change being the most important issue.
The fact that Inslee endorsed Clinton over Sanders is not a reason to think he's not serious about climate change. If you haven't looked at how he's conducted himself, but just rely on that, your criticism is uninformed.
Here, read this from Washington State about what he's been doing since elected in 2013.
https://www.governor.wa.gov/issues/issues/energy-environment
nohero said:
The fact that Inslee endorsed Clinton over Sanders is not a reason to think he's not serious about climate change. If you haven't looked at how he's conducted himself, but just rely on that, your criticism is uninformed.
Here, read this from Washington State about what he's been doing since elected in 2013.
https://www.governor.wa.gov/issues/issues/energy-environment
So, he does seem like he is committed to the environment and that made me curious why he would endorse a pro-fracking candidate over one who was calling for a ban on fracking. It was a red flag. So I just googled his views on fracking and I found this:
Gov. Inslee: Climate Leaders Don’t Frack
Ahead of potential White House bid, Food & Water Action warns Washington Governor against supporting fracking infrastructure
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/gov-inslee-climate-leaders-don%E2%80%99t-frack
“Gov. Inslee has spoken eloquently about the threat of climate change, but has failed to forcefully oppose fracking, and has even supported the construction of fracked-gas infrastructure right here in Washington State. Fierce opposition to the Tacoma methanol refinery made him change his tune, ever so slightly. Yet, his administration is still considering whether to grant permits for the project, as well as another methanol refinery in Kalama.
Fracking has made the United States a global leader in oil and gas production and a global looser in meaningful climate action. There just isn’t room in the Democratic party for leaders who still support fracking and destructive fossil fuel infrastructure. Since Inslee was first elected governor, three of his counterparts have banned fracking in their states, including the Republican governors of Maryland and Florida. Before Gov. Inslee hits the road to tout his climate credentials, he needs to take a strong position against fracking and stop the proposed infrastructure right here in Washington.”
The rest of his platform is questionable too. He says he supports Medicare for All but does not think it needs to mean the end of private insurance companies.
So, Inslee thinks we can save the planet with fracking and have Medicare for All with insurance companies. Not surprised he's polling very low.
drummerboy said:
Nan's posts are convincing me to not vote for Bernie.
Good job.
There is no convincing needed. If you want a person who takes no corporate money and who will fight for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, a living wage, prison reform, Wall street Regulations, Tax the rich, legalize marijuana, an end to regime change wars and more and a person who can easily beat Trump, and is currently the front runner so has a real chance of winning, than you vote for Bernie.
If you don't want these things then you vote for someone else, as I suspect you were going to do from the get go.
drummerboy said:
Nan's posts are convincing me to not vote for Bernie.
Good job.
It is indeed weird that Bernie seems to attract these "my way or the highway" supporters that love nothing more than to attack other Democratic candidates, or the Democratic party itself, or any Liberal or Progressive that doesn't exactly fall in line with their Gospel. Maybe that's why he is not even a member. He only pretends to be a Democrat when he needs us (because running as an Independent, he wouldn't stand a chance). The man is an opportunist.
basil said:
It is indeed weird that Bernie seems to attract these "my way or the highway" supporters that love nothing more than to attack other Democratic candidates, or the Democratic party itself, or any Liberal or Progressive that doesn't exactly fall in line with their Gospel. Maybe that's why he is not even a member. He only pretends to be a Democrat when he needs us (because running as an Independent, he wouldn't stand a chance). The man is an opportunist.
No one who does not run as either a Democrat or a Republican stands a chance of being elected. So, Sanders runs with the Democrats because his platform is closer to a traditional Democratic platform (like FDR) than the supposed "real" Democrats. He is currently the front-runner and all polls have said he can beat Trump in a general election. It seems that you would rather see him drop out and have a perhaps weaker candidate lose to Trump than to let someone like Sanders--again, a traditional Democrat--win the presidency.
You take issue with my criticism of the traditional Democrats which is based on the fact that they are in general more like old school Republicans and seem to vote more in accordance with their donors than with voters. Do these things not bother you?
I'm going to focus on sharing info on the female candidates as we seem to have a good selection of info on many of the male candidates. This on Elizabeth Warren.
https://medium.com/s/story/the-media-gaslighting-of-2020s-most-likable-candidate-4c42baab641e
New Kid on the Block
https://www.newsweek.com/pete-buttigieg-third-place-democratic-2020-biden-sanders-1373473
But the Old Kid on the Block runs 7 points ahead of "he who did not collude"
Morganna said:
I'm going to focus on sharing info on the female candidates as we seem to have a good selection of info on many of the male candidates. This on Elizabeth Warren.
https://medium.com/s/story/the-media-gaslighting-of-2020s-most-likable-candidate-4c42baab641e
From the link:
Casting Warren as a sheltered, Ivory Tower type is odd, given that her politics and diction are not exactly elitist. Yet none of this is new; the same stereotypes were levied against Warren in 2011, during her Senate campaign.
Strangely, the first nerdification of Warren was a purely local phenomenon — one which happened even as national media was falling in love with her. Jon Stewart publicly adored her, and her ingenuity in proposing the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a few years prior earned her respect among the rising populist wing of the party. Her fame was further catapulted when a speech — a video of Warren speaking, seemingly off-the-cuff, in a constituent’s living room — went viral. “Nobody in this country got rich on his own, nobody,” Warren proclaimed, pointing up the ways entrepreneurs benefit from publicly funded services like roads and schools and fire departments.
I recall being very impressed when I saw her for the first time on Jon Stewart's show.
@STANV I was impressed as well. She was great on Bill Maher a couple of years ago.
Loved her energy and enthusiasm. I thought she was such a star that she eclipsed Hillary when she opened for her on the campaign trail. I always thought her optimism and determination would help her in a debate against Trump.
Watching her on the senate floor when McConnell stopped her from sharing Coretta Scott King's letter was stunning. She then went to a private booth and sent out a video.
"Nevertheless she persisted" went viral and landed on everything from t-shirts to coffee mugs.
@drummerboy has also mentioned his support.
Hard for these candidates to fundraise in such a crowded field.
Morganna said:
Hard for these candidates to fundraise in such a crowded field.
I think that may be an early crowd-thinning factor. If some of these folks can't get their money machines churning out the bucks (or rubles) they may find themselves out before the debates start.
mrincredible said:
I think that may be an early crowd-thinning factor. If some of these folks can't get their money machines churning out the bucks (or rubles) they may find themselves out before the debates start.
That's my concern. How are people so sure who they want to back until we watch the field a little longer. I'm still very undecided. I wonder if these small donations come from people who will continue to write checks?
And I suspect that another candidate will be announcing soon. Sounds like Eric Swalwell is ready.
STANV said:
From the link:
Casting Warren as a sheltered, Ivory Tower type is odd, given that her politics and diction are not exactly elitist. Yet none of this is new; the same stereotypes were levied against Warren in 2011, during her Senate campaign.
Strangely, the first nerdification of Warren was a purely local phenomenon — one which happened even as national media was falling in love with her. Jon Stewart publicly adored her, and her ingenuity in proposing the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a few years prior earned her respect among the rising populist wing of the party. Her fame was further catapulted when a speech — a video of Warren speaking, seemingly off-the-cuff, in a constituent’s living room — went viral. “Nobody in this country got rich on his own, nobody,” Warren proclaimed, pointing up the ways entrepreneurs benefit from publicly funded services like roads and schools and fire departments.
I recall being very impressed when I saw her for the first time on Jon Stewart's show.
As I said upthread, Warren's NPR interview really impressed me in a way that none of the others (including Bernie) did. If I had to pick someone out of the early field, at this point, I think it would be Warren.
An added bonus is that my Grandma and my Great Uncles came to California during the Dust Bowl from in and around Oklahoma so her accent gives me a warm feeling in my heart.
Warren is, far and away, ahead of the other candidates in terms of actual policy proposals. The thing I'm afraid of with Warren, and it sucks that we have to fear this, is that if Warren wins the nod, the campaign will be all Pocahontas all the time - through the fault of the media. Warren's advanced views on regulating capitalism are too complex for their little pinheads, but Pocahontas is something they can wrap their brains around.
Here's the NYT on Gillibrand.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/gillibrand-trump-2020.html
drummerboy said:
Warren is, far and away, ahead of the other candidates in terms of actual policy proposals. The thing I'm afraid of with Warren, and it sucks that we have to fear this, is that if Warren wins the nod, the campaign will be all Pocahontas all the time - through the fault of the media. Warren's advanced views on regulating capitalism are too complex for their little pinheads, but Pocahontas is something they can wrap their brains around.
Whoever is the nominee will have a "Pocahontas problem" about something. The advantage to Warren is that it has come out this early.
In 2004 the Democrats decided to counter their perceived anti-military bias by nominating a decorated War Hero. The Republicans attacked him on the basis of his War Record.
STANV said:
Whoever is the nominee will have a "Pocahontas problem" about something. The advantage to Warren is that it has come out this early.
In 2004 the Democrats decided to counter their perceived anti-military bias by nominating a decorated War Hero. The Republicans attacked him on the basis of his War Record.
I would add, they attacked Kerry by making stuff up, by lying with impunity. "Lies with impunity" is Trump's middle name. Better to plan to push back hard with facts (no matter who is the nominee), than worry about whether such-and-such nominee gives the GOP an opening.
Morganna said:
I'm going to focus on sharing info on the female candidates as we seem to have a good selection of info on many of the male candidates. This on Elizabeth Warren.
https://medium.com/s/story/the-media-gaslighting-of-2020s-most-likable-candidate-4c42baab641e
When I read:
"...We just forget that fact when she’s campaigning — due, in large part, to our deep and lingering distrust for female intelligence."
I stopped. This statement is an insult to my intelligence and should be an insult to any enlightened individual.
lord_pabulum said:
This statement is an insult to my intelligence and should be an insult to any enlightened individual.
I wasn’t insulted. I guess this tells you everything you need to know about my lumens.
DaveSchmidt said:
lord_pabulum said:I wasn’t insulted. I guess this tells you everything you need to know about my lumens.
This statement is an insult to my intelligence and should be an insult to any enlightened individual.
You are quite bright
STANV said:
More on Sen. Warren's platform:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/25/beto-orourke-gets-the-attention-but-warrens-proposals-lead-2020-pack.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar
As a voter, I lean towards specific proposals, of course certain personalities appeal to me more than others, but I think Sen. Warren has both. I'll have to watch more of Beto to draw a fair conclusion but so far the clips I'm seeing showcase his personality but not as much of his platform.
I'm following Warren, Gillibrand, Harris and Klobuchar on FB and I've followed Cory Booker for years. I may add a few more as I get to watch more of the candidates.Right now cable news is going to be dominated by the White House version of The Spy Who Loved Me so I'll be looking to catch town halls and rallies on C-SPAN unless one of the candidates is an announced guest.
I'm trying to imagine what would draw the same person to Warren and Klobuchar. Is there something about Klobuchar that I have missed? From what I have seen, she seems like a straight up Centrist (as in far to the right of progressives and slightly to the left of Republicans).
Klinker said:
I'm trying to imagine what would draw the same person to Warren and Klobuchar. Is there something about Klobuchar that I have missed? From what I have seen, she seems like a straight up Centrist (as in far to the right of progressives and slightly to the left of Republicans).
I'm not drawn to both of them, just trying to watch how they are doing with the voters. Some people watch sports and some of us are obsessed with political races. I even watched every GOP debate. Perhaps its time to enter a 12 step program!
I'm trying to reach beyond my initial bias towards certain candidates and make sure I'm listening to everyone. Klobuchar did not intrigue me but I'm curious to see if she is the one that the Midwest will go for. My personal taste never reflects the majority so I try to watch objectively.
I doubt I'll pick the winner but if the nominee beats Trump I'll put it in the win column.
Morganna, you are taking a measured and rational approach to choosing a candidate.
That sort of thing will alienate people!
mrincredible said:
Morganna, you are taking a measured and rational approach to choosing a candidate.
That sort of thing will alienate people!
Admitting I am powerless over the addiction and my life has become unmanageable.
Citing someone's record is not smearing. The only person I'm commenting on something other than record is Beto, because his incompetence alarms me and I'm afraid of him going against Trump. He also does not much of a platform to challenge.
I will continue to compare Medicare for All to Medicare for (some) America(ns) because it's important to see that Medicare for All is much better and will be the most challenged through the establishment news.