2020 Presidential Election

[Martina]

What do you think of Bloomberg as the Democratic candidate?

http://www.politico.com/amp/story/20...ocrats-1048159

I can't imagine him getting through the primaries, but if he did, his candidacy might be one that would provoke the "dark_crystal scenario."

[cathexis]

Originally Posted by Martina

What do you think of Bloomberg as the Democratic candidate?

http://www.politico.com/amp/story/20...ocrats-1048159

I can't imagine him getting through the primaries, but if he did, his candidacy might be one that would provoke the "dark_crystal scenario."

Chuck Schumer would also be a great candidate, but unfortunately I think right now when the country thinks of NY, Trump immediately comes to mind. Many people already think all NYers are of similar disposition and trustworthiness as him. Think we need someone that Mid-America can identify with. Not sure who, though.

[Martina]

Oh I did not mean to suggest I thought Bloomberg would be a good candidate.

Chuck Schumer pretty much typifies establishment Dem. I think he might tip the progressives over to third part thinking too. I haven't seen signs that he's running.

[cathexis]

Originally Posted by Martina

Oh I did not mean to suggest I thought Bloomberg would be a good candidate.

Chuck Schumer pretty much typifies establishment Dem. I think he might tip the progressives over to third part thinking too. I haven't seen signs that he's running.

Was just thinking of Dems that might have a prayer of a chance in a primary against Biden. Yup, no signs of Schumer running. Just trying to think of a Dem with good PR skills and assertive enough to pull us out of this mess we're in with allies and Russia.

He's fits that bill, but then again so does Schiff. No signs of him running either, but he has made it a point to stay in the public eye. If Bernie runs in any party, Schumer wouldn't run against his buddy anyway.

Biden is the Dems ticket to win. There were a lot of folks that wished the Amendment against 3rd termers didn't exist.

Not saying I would want to vote Dem again. Last election got burned or should say blindsided.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by cathexis

CThink we need someone that Mid-America can identify with. Not sure who, though.

I feel like Bernie should have some appeal, but it seems like Bullock could also do well in Iowa

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Martina

What do you think of Bloomberg as the Democratic candidate?

http://www.politico.com/amp/story/20...ocrats-1048159

I can't imagine him getting through the primaries, but if he did, his candidacy might be one that would provoke the "dark_crystal scenario."

Bloomberg looks good on a lot of issues as long as you pretend not to notice the gigantic Wall Street monkey on his back.

I think a Bloomberg candidacy would trigger Trump very badly, as Bloomberg has quadruple the wealth Trump claims.

I think it would be interesting, in the case of both Bloomberg and Sanders, to see what the GOP does against a Jewish candidate. In the Obama years, we saw a whole bunch of racism come out of the woodwork that we thought had been exorcised in the 60s.

With a Jewish dem. nominee, will we find out we had vastly underestimated Holocaust deniers (lol yes)? A lot of holocaust denial and general Antisemitism has already emerged under Trump, think how much more would emerge with Trump running against a Jewish billionaire who actually is everything Trump pretends to be-- and Trump's so-called Christianity is the only place he diverges form Bloomberg.

I also looked into Klobuchar. It was not a deep dive (Wikipedia), but she does not seem like she is very far to the left of Clinton. I think running her would be like running Clinton minus the baggage. Maybe that will turn out to be what people want.

One thing i learned about myself over the past 3-4 years is that i do not vote as a progressive or as a centrist, i exclusively vote as A Gay. My choice is always the choice that makes us the safest. This is why i didn't "peel off" last time, despite having rejected every Clinton in every primary they were ever in. It's why i am so worried about a peel-off movement in 2020. Peel-off movements endanger minorities.

As long as you have one huge party that pays lip service to minorities and one huge party that welcomes people who want queers executed, there is going to be a natural ceiling on how far an insurgency from the left can go. We are not going to see a viable third party on the left until minorities feel they can abandon the democratic party without risking their lives.

[cathexis]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Bloomberg looks good on a lot of issues as long as you pretend not to notice the gigantic Wall Street monkey on his back.

I think a Bloomberg candidacy would trigger Trump very badly, as Bloomberg has quadruple the wealth Trump claims.

I think it would be interesting, in the case of both Bloomberg and Sanders, to see what the GOP does against a Jewish candidate. In the Obama years, we saw a whole bunch of racism come out of the woodwork that we thought had been exorcised in the 60s.

With a Jewish dem. nominee, will we find out we had vastly underestimated Holocaust deniers (lol yes)? A lot of holocaust denial and general Antisemitism has already emerged under Trump, think how much more would emerge with Trump running against a Jewish billionaire who actually is everything Trump pretends to be-- and Trump's so-called Christianity is the only place he diverges form Bloomberg.

I also looked into Klobuchar. It was not a deep dive (Wikipedia), but she does not seem like she is very far to the left of Clinton. I think running her would be like running Clinton minus the baggage. Maybe that will turn out to be what people want.

One thing i learned about myself over the past 3-4 years is that i do not vote as a progressive or as a centrist, i exclusively vote as A Gay. My choice is always the choice that makes us the safest. This is why i didn't "peel off" last time, despite having rejected every Clinton in every primary they were ever in. It's why i am so worried about a peel-off movement in 2020. Peel-off movements endanger minorities.

As long as you have one huge party that pays lip service to minorities and one huge party that welcomes people who want queers executed, there is going to be a natural ceiling on how far an insurgency from the left can go. We are not going to see a viable third party on the left until minorities feel they can abandon the democratic party without risking their lives.

Which minority group do we endanger this time around?
The right is poised for a big leap at the country.
Anyone hear something about a left wing insurgency?

Maybe we can get the Fourth International possibility resurrected again (wishful thinking on my part).

[WheatToast]

I want to put the Bernie thread to rest.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...rs-stein-trump

To me, he joined the race to siphon votes from Hillary, and then to pocket tons of campaign contributions.
He's been up the Russian's ass since the 70's.

[Kätzchen]

It's late tonight but I think WheatToast's question is important: "Why Bernie?"

I admit I fell for his platform, back in 2016, and I thought he'd make a good president. But then WheatToast posted that article from VOX about Stein and Sanders also having Russian influence in their campaigns (?). That is the first time I've read about it and that article was published back in February of 2018 -- nearly a year ago.

In some ways, now, I often wonder if I didn't set the bar high enough, you know? I don't know that I could get behind a Bernie Sander's nomination again. Sure, he's got a track record that shows what he has accomplished in the US Senate, but does it make him the right person for the most important job in the world?

In the past, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to like a person, in order to feel comfortable to vote for them. But this past election made me see that it's not about the person as much as it is about their platform, their ability to lead and their ability to carry out a vision, a vison that people of every stripe and flavor can get behind and support. Which hopefully brings us to a better place in life, right?



I know dark_crystal posted about how overwhelming it was to see Beto-nirvana over the course of last year, but as appealing to others as Beto seems, I don't know if he's got what it takes to fill the bill as an US President. I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, though, so I found d_c's point of view intriguing and very interesting take on O'Rourke.

I'm with Martina though, when it comes down to Warren or Biden. I'd choose Warren over Biden, as well.


I appreciate this thread and reading everyone's point of view and things that come to mind. It helps me to put things in perspective about the upcoming 20/20 election.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Kätzchen

It's late tonight but I think WheatToast's question is important: "Why Bernie?"

I admit I fell for his platform, back in 2016, and I thought he'd make a good president. But then WheatToast posted that article from VOX about Stein and Sanders also having Russian influence in their campaigns (?). That is the first time I've read about it and that article was published back in February of 2018 -- nearly a year ago.

In some ways, now, I often wonder if I didn't set the bar high enough, you know? I don't know that I could get behind a Bernie Sander's nomination again. Sure, he's got a track record that shows what he has accomplished in the US Senate, but does it make him the right person for the most important job in the world?

In the past, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to like a person, in order to feel comfortable to vote for them. But this past election made me see that it's not about the person as much as it is about their platform, their ability to lead and their ability to carry out a vision, a vison that people of every stripe and flavor can get behind and support. Which hopefully brings us to a better place in life, right?



I know dark_crystal posted about how overwhelming it was to see Beto-nirvana over the course of last year, but as appealing to others as Beto seems, I don't know if he's got what it takes to fill the bill as an US President. I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, though, so I found d_c's point of view intriguing and very interesting take on O'Rourke.

I'm with Martina though, when it comes down to Warren or Biden. I'd choose Warren over Biden, as well.


I appreciate this thread and reading everyone's point of view and things that come to mind. It helps me to put things in perspective about the upcoming 20/20 election.

There has never been any suggestion that Bernie colluded with the Russians. The article says the Russians helped him but they were doing that to help Trump

The indictment said that the Russians pushed the idea of a third-party or write-in protest vote to hurt Clinton.

It did not help Bernie, in fact it hurt him because he is now strongly associated with the #BernieOrBust movement, despite endorsing Clinton and asking his supporters to give her their votes.

Even Noam Chomsky was begging people not to fall for it.

And now it is just the gift that keeps on giving.

[WheatToast]

Originally Posted by Kätzchen

It's late tonight but I think WheatToast's question is important: "Why Bernie?"

I admit I fell for his platform, back in 2016, and I thought he'd make a good president. But then WheatToast posted that article from VOX about Stein and Sanders also having Russian influence in their campaigns (?). That is the first time I've read about it and that article was published back in February of 2018 -- nearly a year ago.

In some ways, now, I often wonder if I didn't set the bar high enough, you know? I don't know that I could get behind a Bernie Sander's nomination again. Sure, he's got a track record that shows what he has accomplished in the US Senate, but does it make him the right person for the most important job in the world?

In the past, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to like a person, in order to feel comfortable to vote for them. But this past election made me see that it's not about the person as much as it is about their platform, their ability to lead and their ability to carry out a vision, a vison that people of every stripe and flavor can get behind and support. Which hopefully brings us to a better place in life, right?



I know dark_crystal posted about how overwhelming it was to see Beto-nirvana over the course of last year, but as appealing to others as Beto seems, I don't know if he's got what it takes to fill the bill as an US President. I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, though, so I found d_c's point of view intriguing and very interesting take on O'Rourke.

I'm with Martina though, when it comes down to Warren or Biden. I'd choose Warren over Biden, as well.


I appreciate this thread and reading everyone's point of view and things that come to mind. It helps me to put things in perspective about the upcoming 20/20 election.

I could write a volume about why Bernie is unsuited, but I doubt he'll be an issue in 2020.
I think it's too early to start stressing over which Democrat to back in the 2020 POTUS election, but so far I like Castro, Beto and Harris.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by WheatToast

I want to put the Bernie thread to rest.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...rs-stein-trump

To me, he joined the race to siphon votes from Hillary, and then to pocket tons of campaign contributions.
He's been up the Russian's ass since the 70's.

What do you mean up the Russians' ass? Do you have any evidence for collusion? And the idea that Bernie Sanders, of all people, is guilty of pocketing campaign funds is ludicrous. Evidence? Where on Earth do you get the idea that Sanders, a lifelong public servant whose record is as transparent as they come, ran with the intent to defeat Hillary so Trump could win, which you imply. This is laughable. And what do you mean you want to put the Bernie thread to rest? Is there a Bernie thread?

Of course the Russians encouraged third party votes. They wanted Trump. Does that mean that Stein or Bernie had any knowledge of it? It's straight out of conspiracy theory news and Trump-level despicable and irresponsible to assert such things without evidence. I said in 2016 that some of the tactics of Hillary supporters made the Republicans look like lightweights. This is that level of insanity.

[homoe]

..


............

[charley]

Originally Posted by Martina

What do you mean up the Russians' ass? Do you have any evidence for collusion? And the idea that Bernie Sanders, of all people, is guilty of pocketing campaign funds is ludicrous. Evidence? Where on Earth do you get the idea that Sanders, a lifelong public servant whose record is as transparent as they come, ran with the intent to defeat Hillary so Trump could win, which you imply. This is laughable. And what do you mean you want to put the Bernie thread to rest? Is there a Bernie thread?

Of course the Russians encouraged third party votes. They wanted Trump. Does that mean that Stein or Bernie had any knowledge of it? It's straight out of conspiracy theory news and Trump-level despicable and irresponsible to assert such things without evidence. I said in 2016 that some of the tactics of Hillary supporters made the Republicans look like lightweights. This is that level of insanity.

Right on, Martina, nothing more than a dreadful example of fake news. The only one up anyone's ass would be Putin up Trump's. I really didn't understand why anyone would post that link from Vox (which was nothing more than innuendo), without any corroboration from multiple credible sources. Vox is noted for being a site that does not necessarily publish facts, but has a reputation for only encouraging opinions about certain facts.

[kittygrrl]

I detest any reference to "fake news" on our side. This is a term Trump uses often and why would we want to borrow any of his crap? I think we can express ourselves without resorting to using his kind of propaganda.

[charley]

Originally Posted by kittygrrl

I detest any reference to "fake news" on our side. This is a term Trump uses often and why would we want to borrow any of his crap? I think we can express ourselves without resorting to using his kind of propaganda.

""Fake news" is a phrase that may seem specific to our particular moment and time in American history."

"But Columbia University Professor Andie Tucher says fake news is deeply rooted in American journalism."

"The first newspaper published in North America got shut down in 1690 after printing fabricated information...."

https://www.npr.org/tags/502124007/fake-news

Fakes news is spread worldwide... Propaganda has existed in all political circles where dictators rule. One can give it other names, use euphemisms, but it's all lies.

Personally, I have tried to talk with some Philippines here, who absolutely believe all that they read in "social media" in the Philippines, suggesting how wonderful Duterte is, despite an overall pov in those who can read between the lines that he is a dictator.

I can cite many examples that are worldwide. So, I see no reason whatsoever not to use such an expression, because everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is "fake news", and that is because he is a "fake".

[kittygrrl]

Originally Posted by charley

""Fake news" is a phrase that may seem specific to our particular moment and time in American history."

"But Columbia University Professor Andie Tucher says fake news is deeply rooted in American journalism."

"The first newspaper published in North America got shut down in 1690 after printing fabricated information...."

https://www.npr.org/tags/502124007/fake-news

Fakes news is spread worldwide... Propaganda has existed in all political circles where dictators rule. One can give it other names, use euphemisms, but it's all lies.

Personally, I have tried to talk with some Philippines here, who absolutely believe all that they read in "social media" in the Philippines, suggesting how wonderful Duterte is, despite an overall pov in those who can read between the lines that he is a dictator.

I can cite many examples that are worldwide. So, I see no reason whatsoever not to use such an expression, because everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is "fake news", and that is because he is a "fake".

Notwithstanding your effort to promote it's usage as acceptable. it was popularized by Trump every time he heard something from the free press that was the truth , he would insist it was "fake news" to deflect. Knowing that why would you want to promote your ideas by using his propaganda method? It's not logical. He's polluted the term, as he has many things, so associating any rational argument using his methods doesn't help the reader to sympathize with your opinion or argument, just the opposite. But it's a free country and my opinion is just one opinion. There are some good ideas here but i find some of the ways it is expressed rude and coarse. That's a shame.

[WheatToast]

Originally Posted by charley

Right on, Martina, nothing more than a dreadful example of fake news. The only one up anyone's ass would be Putin up Trump's. I really didn't understand why anyone would post that link from Vox (which was nothing more than innuendo), without any corroboration from multiple credible sources. Vox is noted for being a site that does not necessarily publish facts, but has a reputation for only encouraging opinions about certain facts.

Vox.com is run by Ezra Klein, a former Washington Post reporter. As many would assert, the Washington Post is as reliable an American media outlet as there ever was, so it follows their reporters have incredibly high standards.
Vox is both a news and opinion outlet, but to challenge their veracity is generally a past-time the right wing enjoys. Erza Klein is not known by any credible critics as a lying jackass. He is a reliable liberal/progressive voice.
Learning to vet sources may be the voter's best friend this time around.

[WheatToast]

Originally Posted by Martina

What do you mean up the Russians' ass? Do you have any evidence for collusion? And the idea that Bernie Sanders, of all people, is guilty of pocketing campaign funds is ludicrous. Evidence? Where on Earth do you get the idea that Sanders, a lifelong public servant whose record is as transparent as they come, ran with the intent to defeat Hillary so Trump could win, which you imply. This is laughable. And what do you mean you want to put the Bernie thread to rest? Is there a Bernie thread?

Of course the Russians encouraged third party votes. They wanted Trump. Does that mean that Stein or Bernie had any knowledge of it? It's straight out of conspiracy theory news and Trump-level despicable and irresponsible to assert such things without evidence. I said in 2016 that some of the tactics of Hillary supporters made the Republicans look like lightweights. This is that level of insanity.

If you cannot be bothered to catch up on legitimate news sources, please do not expect others to brief you. Of course I have proof of all my allegations; why make claims that can be proven false?
Bernie's a bum.