DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

nan said:

She would be a breath of fresh air and substance--finally we could vote for someone who was anti-war.  

Trump said one of the reasons he hasn't visited the Troops is because he opposed the Wars.

LOST said:

nan said:

She would be a breath of fresh air and substance--finally we could vote for someone who was anti-war.  

Trump said one of the reasons he hasn't visited the Troops is because he opposed the Wars.

Doesn't he know he can end the wars?

ml1 said:

LOST said:

nan said:

She would be a breath of fresh air and substance--finally we could vote for someone who was anti-war.  

Trump said one of the reasons he hasn't visited the Troops is because he opposed the Wars.

Doesn't he know he can end the wars?

I think he barely knows what the military is doing, not because he is stupid, but because he is lazy and not really interested in details like that. He is mostly interested in himself, and I think the military is happy to keep him in the dark. And however bad and scary that is, it's probably better than an engaged Trump.

LOST said:

nan said:

She would be a breath of fresh air and substance--finally we could vote for someone who was anti-war.  

Trump said one of the reasons he hasn't visited the Troops is because he opposed the Wars.

 It would be great if he actually did that.

Just heard him say he's done more for the Military than every other President. He got Congress to appropriate 716 Billion.

What a waste.

LOST said:
Just heard him say he's done more for the Military than every other President. He got Congress to appropriate 716 Billion.
What a waste.

 Total waste and both Dems and Repubs voted for that.  Shameful.  That's why, when considering presidential candidates we need to find out how they plan to vote on funding for never ending wars.

Sadly the 716 billion doesn't pay for any wars.  That's just to run and equip the military.  If we actually use the military there are additional appropriations needed.  One of the reasons that these bills always pass is that they spend money in almost every congressional district.

FilmCarp said:
Sadly the 716 billion doesn't pay for any wars.  That's just to run and equip the military.  If we actually use the military there are additional appropriations needed.  One of the reasons that these bills always pass is that they spend money in almost every congressional district.

So it's basically an economic stimulus program. It is interesting that for example the EU spends a lot of money on economic development (R&D grants etc) and less on its military, while the US seems to do the opposite. That's why US is always complaining that its partners are spending less on the military (very bigly unfair!), and are spending money to support its businesses economically (also very bigly unfair to US companies!). But in reality it's much more even, because a lot of US "defense" spending is actually R&D stimulus money for the tech industry (DARPA basically funded the development of the internet, just to name one example).

More on Sen. Brown.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/23/sherrod-brown-2020-elections-trump-1012151

If long-shot Sherrod Brown were to become President, the First Lady would be the person who wrote this Pulitzer Prize column:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100603044109/http://www.cleveland.com:80/schultz/index.ssf/2004/12/merry_christmas_everyone_or_el.html

Interesting guy. Hope he runs so voters can check him out further in the primaries.

Cruel and petty observation - I know I cannot get past his raspy voice. 

GL2 said:
Cruel and petty observation - I know I cannot get past his raspy voice. 

 You'll have to try.

Gillibrand.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/al-franken-kirsten-gillibrand-2020-1014697

I think she also said Bubba should've resigned over Lewinsky.

LOST said:

GL2 said:
Cruel and petty observation - I know I cannot get past his raspy voice. 

 You'll have to try.

 I promise to read anything he says.  

GL2 said:

LOST said:

GL2 said:
Cruel and petty observation - I know I cannot get past his raspy voice. 

 You'll have to try.

 I promise to read anything he says.  

He is yelling at GM now

GL2 said:
Cruel and petty observation - I know I cannot get past his raspy voice. 

 Its one of the things that drew me to him. I love it.

Morganna said:

GL2 said:
Cruel and petty observation - I know I cannot get past his raspy voice. 

 Its one of the things that drew me to him. I love it.

Had a friend with such a voice who had polyps removed from throat and now sounds like Frank Sinatra. FWIW, I would never abandon a good candidate for his voice. I'll just have to adjust.   

By the way, I saw coverage of Bernie speaking at George Washington U and he was excellent. Best that I've seen him. He's considering a run. Said he's traveling around the country discussing who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump. If people are convinced its him, he'll run.

Morganna said:
By the way, I saw coverage of Bernie speaking at George Washington U and he was excellent. Best that I've seen him. He's considering a run. Said he's traveling around the country discussing who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump. If people are convinced its him, he'll run.

 He can compete for the nomination and make a serious contribution to a discussion of issues but for me his age is a problem, and I'm not much younger than he.

LOST said:

Morganna said:
By the way, I saw coverage of Bernie speaking at George Washington U and he was excellent. Best that I've seen him. He's considering a run. Said he's traveling around the country discussing who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump. If people are convinced its him, he'll run.

 He can compete for the nomination and make a serious contribution to a discussion of issues but for me his age is a problem, and I'm not much younger than he.

 The most important issue is platform, not age or especially personality.  Bernie's age is a consideration, but his commitment to voters over donors is more important than his age.  Also, he would probably pick a much younger running mate who shares his views, so that person could continue on if he croaks.  

nan said:

LOST said:

Morganna said:
By the way, I saw coverage of Bernie speaking at George Washington U and he was excellent. Best that I've seen him. He's considering a run. Said he's traveling around the country discussing who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump. If people are convinced its him, he'll run.

 He can compete for the nomination and make a serious contribution to a discussion of issues but for me his age is a problem, and I'm not much younger than he.

 The most important issue is platform, not age or especially personality.  Bernie's age is a consideration, but his commitment to voters over donors is more important than his age.  Also, he would probably pick a much younger running mate who shares his views, so that person could continue on if he croaks.  

 Could this be more predictable?  Why don't you get a room with him and leave us alone! He had his chance and lost. Get over it !

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

LOST said:

Morganna said:
By the way, I saw coverage of Bernie speaking at George Washington U and he was excellent. Best that I've seen him. He's considering a run. Said he's traveling around the country discussing who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump. If people are convinced its him, he'll run.

 He can compete for the nomination and make a serious contribution to a discussion of issues but for me his age is a problem, and I'm not much younger than he.

 The most important issue is platform, not age or especially personality.  Bernie's age is a consideration, but his commitment to voters over donors is more important than his age.  Also, he would probably pick a much younger running mate who shares his views, so that person could continue on if he croaks.  

 Could this be more predictable?  Why don't you get a room with him and leave us alone! He had his chance and lost. Get over it !

Guess we don't agree on candidates for 2020 and you missed my statement on voting based on platform, not personality--so I have no interest in getting a room with the people for whom i consider voting.  That's a problem for some, perhaps you,  who swoon over good looking candidates and don't check on how they are taking huge donations from oil companies and representing their interests over the interest of voters.  Also, voting based on race and gender.  Also voting for anyone who is a Democrat even if they act like Republicans.  Been there and done that--time to elect someone who is not beholden to special interests and wants things people actually need like Medicare for All, free college, a living wage and a Green New Deal.  Not interested in more incrementalism that gets us no where except to more and worse Trumps.

nan said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

LOST said:

Morganna said:
By the way, I saw coverage of Bernie speaking at George Washington U and he was excellent. Best that I've seen him. He's considering a run. Said he's traveling around the country discussing who would be the best candidate to defeat Trump. If people are convinced its him, he'll run.

 He can compete for the nomination and make a serious contribution to a discussion of issues but for me his age is a problem, and I'm not much younger than he.

 The most important issue is platform, not age or especially personality.  Bernie's age is a consideration, but his commitment to voters over donors is more important than his age.  Also, he would probably pick a much younger running mate who shares his views, so that person could continue on if he croaks.  

 Could this be more predictable?  Why don't you get a room with him and leave us alone! He had his chance and lost. Get over it !

Guess we don't agree on candidates for 2020 and you missed my statement on voting based on platform, not personality--so I have no interest in getting a room with the people for whom i consider voting.  That's a problem for some, perhaps you,  who swoon over good looking candidates and don't check on how they are taking huge donations from oil companies and representing their interests over the interest of voters.  Also, voting based on race and gender.  Also voting for anyone who is a Democrat even if they act like Republicans.  Been there and done that--time to elect someone who is not beholden to special interests and wants things people actually need like Medicare for All, free college, a living wage and a Green New Deal.  Not interested in more incrementalism that gets us no where except to more and worse Trumps.

 While of course platform is the main issue , I think the candidate's ability to ignite passion with a speech, to persuade an audience at a town hall and to win points in a debate, are too important to overlook.  As I've said before, my causes and choices are most closely aligned with Cory Booker, but I'm looking at the candidates and trying to assess which ones may have the broadest appeal.

It is frustrating to compromise. I have been disgusted many times by Democrats, who discuss gun rights, and feel a need to reassure the public, that they go hunting, as if that is a moral qualifier. But, I'm not going to be a purist with the stakes this high. I'll settle for the candidate who can reach the majority. And if we win, then we can pressure our Senators and Representatives to vote for the bills that we want.

But first we have to win.

In addition to platform, you need to see who funds the candidates and how they are affected by that.  Cory Booker is usually thought of as a corporate Democrat who does the bidding of Big Pharma, Wall Street and was also for Charter Schools (did not quickly reject Betsy Devos).  He says he is for Medicare for All, but given his background, it questionable if that can be believed. 

Yes, people do need to get people excited, but candidates who are actually believable and offer people things they actually need like healthcare and education are going to get people excited even if they lack charisma.  

Similar to above observation that someone can't get past Sherrod Brown's raspy voice -- I could never get past Bernie's presentation. He's more Larry David than Larry David is, and while I loved Seinfeld, I found the Larry David show to be ultra-annoying, mostly because of all his shouting and gesticulation. 

Smedley said:
Similar to above observation that someone can't get past Sherrod Brown's raspy voice -- I could never get past Bernie's presentation. He's more Larry David than Larry David is, and while I loved Seinfeld, I found the Larry David show to be ultra-annoying, mostly because of all his shouting and gesticulation. 

 Laughing because I never liked Larry David's show. But the interesting thing is that Bernie's speech the other night was not at all like that. His presentation of his position was presented in a very calm reasoned manner. Its true we all respond to different styles.  I'm bewildered when I watch the Trump rallies. Every thing he says and the way he says it makes me crazy yet his fan club members are wearing hats, carrying signs and cheering loudly.

I liked the Larry David Show. I like Bernie Sanders.

Neither one is going to be elected President.

nan said:
In addition to platform, you need to see who funds the candidates and how they are affected by that.  Cory Booker is usually thought of as a corporate Democrat who does the bidding of Big Pharma, Wall Street and was also for Charter Schools (did not quickly reject Betsy Devos).  He says he is for Medicare for All, but given his background, it questionable if that can be believed. 
Yes, people do need to get people excited, but candidates who are actually believable and offer people things they actually need like healthcare and education are going to get people excited even if they lack charisma.  

 Not trying to change your mind,  and I'd love it if candidates only took money from fellow vegans, but it would be interesting to know what you thought of him if you followed him on FB. I'm not sure how you could run an expensive campaign in NJ without taking money from the drug companies and I imagine he wrestles with that. I have a problem with that in particular because of my long standing hatred of vivisection.   Interesting old book about drug companies, The Naked Empress  https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Empress-Great-Medical-Fraud/dp/3905280027 Another one is Slaughter of the Innocent https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57223.Slaughter_Of_The_Innocent both by Hans Reusch. But, he shares more of my positions than any politician that I know of. Lesniak was close.