DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
nan said:
basil said:Hopefully, they don't give him the debate questions ahead of time and make sure the real competition is in the other debate. He is Hillary 3.0 after all. . .
Wait until the debates start. It hasn't really started yet, his lead is only based on name recognition at the moment. Nobody is paying attention yet.
I have no doubt that if Tulsi and Bernie got the questions ahead of time, you'd be just fine with that.
Morganna said:
I don't know. If they watch even a couple of the MSNBC hosts a night or two each week almost all of the candidates are getting pretty fair interviews. Many have done Town Halls on MSNBC or CNN and of course FOX. I had my favorites but started seeing some positive positions by a few of the others.Biden is talked about but he's not appearing and answering questions so, doesn't that make him a bit abstract. It does for me.
Not appearing in public is a deliberate Biden strategy. He mostly goes to fundraisers. The more people see him the less they like him (like Clinton) and so he's not going out much. He skipped the California Dem convention where some centrists got booed. Also, I don't think he attracts many people to his rallies which does not look good. Someone wrote an article trying to justify his small rally size. Avoiding public exposure may be a good plan for him, but it makes me like him even less.
basil said:
How do we feel about Warren?
I have been a big Warren fan for years and kept grumbling that she should have run last cycle. I always felt she eclipsed Hillary when she opened for her. The woman's enthusiasm is inspiring. Great marketing line, "I have a plan for that." I think she captured the hearts of many women when McConnell shut down her reading of Coretta King's letter on the Senate floor. She took her phone into a booth and continued to speak to us via FB. I was quick to purchase a Nevertheless she persisted t shirt and FB political sites went wild. I said then and I still say now, I could see her on the debate stage opposite Trump.
I haven't committed to any one candidate at this point but I did send Warren a dollar for the debates. I think she would be a great President.
I attended a Warren event at the SO Library and have sent her campaign $.
I hope she continues to persist but know that intellectual type candidates have not done well in the past.
Warren is my third choice after Bernie and Tulsi. I like most of her domestic policies and how she goes after bankers. I like her better than the corporate establishment Democrats whom I just lump together as one big, "NO." I also like her better than the two more minor Progressives running, Williamson and Yang, because, although I like things about both of them, I generally prefer a person with real government experience, not a crossover from the business world.
So, I like her OK, but when it comes down to it, I agree with this twitter statement (https://twitter.com/HanxFingers/status/1137170185213894658), "Preferring Elizabeth Warren over Bernie Sanders, is like preferring The Monkees, over The Beatles..." And that may seem a bit harsh to some, but these are the reasons why she is not my #1:
- Her foreign policy not strong enough (Discussed in this thread) - She voted for Trump's military budget, she defends Israel's bad action in Gaza, She's not dependable to be against regime change wars. She does not seem to be against going to war with Iran--made some comments about "standing up to Iran" without the Saudis. Just not anti-war enough for me.
- Lacking Medicare for All support--she endorsed it and then backtracked and not on websiteDon't feel confident that she will fight for Medicare for All.
- Ditto Green New Deal (although she has some plans)
- She has taken PAC money from GE and, although she is running in the primary on personal donations, she has said she might take corporate money in the general. So, can't count on her to be uncorrupted by donors.
- Her education policy advisor is a Teach for America alumni (that's his only teaching experience) and she had a charter school lobbyist introduce her in California.
- She voted for the Hyde Amendment
- She called Julian Assange a "bad actor" which made me mad and I have to wonder how she would view/treat whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning, etc.
- She took credit for creating the Occupy movement--just found out about this one and found it annoying.
- She had that ancestry mess which will continue to haunt her and she did nothing to help the Native Americans at Standing Rock.
- She's a "capitalist to her bones" and she cheers for anti-Socialistic comments such as when Trump gave his SOTU speech. She was also a Republican until her late 40's. These things bother me, but probably won't hurt her in the general.
- Not sure she can handle a debate with Trump. I saw her on the The Breakfast Club, and she got frazzled and did not do a good job defending why she was a Republican for so long and some other questions. That venue is not Trump, but the hosts ask some difficult questions and they are unpredictable. She did go over her policies in depth, but I was not sure an ordinary person would be able to follow along. I'm concerned people will be turned off by her personality--and squeaky voice--those are not issues for me, but it is a concern for the general election.
Here is the Breakfast Club video if you want to watch for yourself--perhaps I am being overly critical:
STANV said:
I attended a Warren event at the SO Library and have sent her campaign $.
I hope she continues to persist but know that intellectual type candidates have not done well in the past.
What about Obama? I think what made him so accessible was his sense of humor, particularly the fact that he often cracked up when he was delivering a line.
nan said:
Warren is my third choice after Bernie and Tulsi. I like most of her domestic policies and how she goes after bankers. I like her better than the corporate establishment Democrats whom I just lump together as one big, "NO." I also like her better than the two more minor Progressives running, Williamson and Yang, because, although I like things about both of them, I generally prefer a person with real government experience, not a crossover from the business world.
So, I like her OK, but when it comes down to it, I agree with this twitter statement (https://twitter.com/HanxFingers/status/1137170185213894658), "Preferring Elizabeth Warren over Bernie Sanders, is like preferring The Monkees, over The Beatles..." And that may seem a bit harsh to some, but these are the reasons why she is not my #1:
Here is the Breakfast Club video if you want to watch for yourself--perhaps I am being overly critical:
- Her foreign policy not strong enough (Discussed in this thread) - She voted for Trump's military budget, she defends Israel's bad action in Gaza, She's not dependable to be against regime change wars. She does not seem to be against going to war with Iran--made some comments about "standing up to Iran" without the Saudis. Just not anti-war enough for me.
- Lacking Medicare for All support--she endorsed it and then backtracked and not on websiteDon't feel confident that she will fight for Medicare for All.
- Ditto Green New Deal (although she has some plans)
- She has taken PAC money from GE and, although she is running in the primary on personal donations, she has said she might take corporate money in the general. So, can't count on her to be uncorrupted by donors.
- Her education policy advisor is a Teach for America alumni (that's his only teaching experience) and she had a charter school lobbyist introduce her in California.
- She voted for the Hyde Amendment
- She called Julian Assange a "bad actor" which made me mad and I have to wonder how she would view/treat whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning, etc.
- She took credit for creating the Occupy movement--just found out about this one and found it annoying.
- She had that ancestry mess which will continue to haunt her and she did nothing to help the Native Americans at Standing Rock.
- She's a "capitalist to her bones" and she cheers for anti-Socialistic comments such as when Trump gave his SOTU speech. She was also a Republican until her late 40's. These things bother me, but probably won't hurt her in the general.
- Not sure she can handle a debate with Trump. I saw her on the The Breakfast Club, and she got frazzled and did not do a good job defending why she was a Republican for so long and some other questions. That venue is not Trump, but the hosts ask some difficult questions and they are unpredictable. She did go over her policies in depth, but I was not sure an ordinary person would be able to follow along. I'm concerned people will be turned off by her personality--and squeaky voice--those are not issues for me, but it is a concern for the general election.
Nothing on that list jumped out as a deal breaker for me. And I'm a Stones over Beatles fan.
Morganna said:Nothing on that list jumped out as a deal breaker for me. And I'm a Stones over Beatles fan.
This literally made me laugh out loud. I too prefer the Stones.
Morganna said:
Nothing on that list jumped out as a deal breaker for me. And I'm a Stones over Beatles fan.
Really, you are fine with our foreign policy of endless war and regime change? You are fine with the Israelis shooting the Palestinians? And capitalism is why we have factory farming. And what about healthcare? And the demise of public schools? And the 12 years left on the planet? Not a problem? OK, then.
nan said:
Warren is my third choice after Bernie and Tulsi. I like most of her domestic policies and how she goes after bankers. I like her better than the corporate establishment Democrats whom I just lump together as one big, "NO." I also like her better than the two more minor Progressives running, Williamson and Yang, because, although I like things about both of them, I generally prefer a person with real government experience, not a crossover from the business world.
So, I like her OK, but when it comes down to it, I agree with this twitter statement (https://twitter.com/HanxFingers/status/1137170185213894658), "Preferring Elizabeth Warren over Bernie Sanders, is like preferring The Monkees, over The Beatles..." And that may seem a bit harsh to some, but these are the reasons why she is not my #1:
Here is the Breakfast Club video if you want to watch for yourself--perhaps I am being overly critical:
- Her foreign policy not strong enough (Discussed in this thread) - She voted for Trump's military budget, she defends Israel's bad action in Gaza, She's not dependable to be against regime change wars. She does not seem to be against going to war with Iran--made some comments about "standing up to Iran" without the Saudis. Just not anti-war enough for me.
- Lacking Medicare for All support--she endorsed it and then backtracked and not on websiteDon't feel confident that she will fight for Medicare for All.
- Ditto Green New Deal (although she has some plans)
- She has taken PAC money from GE and, although she is running in the primary on personal donations, she has said she might take corporate money in the general. So, can't count on her to be uncorrupted by donors.
- Her education policy advisor is a Teach for America alumni (that's his only teaching experience) and she had a charter school lobbyist introduce her in California.
- She voted for the Hyde Amendment
- She called Julian Assange a "bad actor" which made me mad and I have to wonder how she would view/treat whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning, etc.
- She took credit for creating the Occupy movement--just found out about this one and found it annoying.
- She had that ancestry mess which will continue to haunt her and she did nothing to help the Native Americans at Standing Rock.
- She's a "capitalist to her bones" and she cheers for anti-Socialistic comments such as when Trump gave his SOTU speech. She was also a Republican until her late 40's. These things bother me, but probably won't hurt her in the general.
- Not sure she can handle a debate with Trump. I saw her on the The Breakfast Club, and she got frazzled and did not do a good job defending why she was a Republican for so long and some other questions. That venue is not Trump, but the hosts ask some difficult questions and they are unpredictable. She did go over her policies in depth, but I was not sure an ordinary person would be able to follow along. I'm concerned people will be turned off by her personality--and squeaky voice--those are not issues for me, but it is a concern for the general election.
Nan, I was warming up to Warren, please don't spoil it for me
nan said:
Really, you are fine with our foreign policy of endless war and regime change? You are fine with the Israelis shooting the Palestinians? And capitalism is why we have factory farming. And what about healthcare? And the demise of public schools? And the 12 years left on the planet? Not a problem? OK, then.
By the way you phrase these questions, it sounds as if you believe that Warren is for all of the above and we both know she isn't. If she was, how could you call her your third choice.
And we have factory farming because an ever growing population consumes animal products including many vocal Progressives despite knowing that it causes extreme suffering and is destroying the planet faster than our fuel consumption.
Not a problem? OK then.
OK, I just saw this, which is interesting:
Sanders, Warren Introduce Resolution Against Israel Annexing West Bank
nan said:
Morganna said:Really, you are fine with our foreign policy of endless war and regime change? You are fine with the Israelis shooting the Palestinians? And capitalism is why we have factory farming. And what about healthcare? And the demise of public schools? And the 12 years left on the planet? Not a problem? OK, then.
Nothing on that list jumped out as a deal breaker for me. And I'm a Stones over Beatles fan.
So you believe that Mick Jagger really is the Devil?
Sanders is more realistic than some of his supporters.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/09/bernie-sanders-hyde-amendment-1358518Sen.
A man who knows more than most says that nobody knows anything at this stage of the Primary contest.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/07/2020-primaries-frontrunners-history-227097
LOST said:
Sanders is more realistic than some of his supporters.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/09/bernie-sanders-hyde-amendment-1358518Sen.
Sanders has never voted for the Hyde Amendment. Politico writes at least one smear article a day about Bernie and I guess this is one of them. You can tell right away from the picture they chose--or just that it is in Politico.
Anyway, Zerlina Maxwell (Sirius radio) is another who constantly lies about Bernie and she tried to say he supported the Hyde Amendment so people did research to show that he did not: https://twitter.com/daviddoel/status/1136342803179626496
nan said:
LOST said:Sanders has never voted for the Hyde Amendment.
Sanders is more realistic than some of his supporters.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/09/bernie-sanders-hyde-amendment-1358518Sen.
The article said that Sanders had voted for bills that contained the Hyde Amendment. It didn't say that he had voted to amend the bills. That is a simple statement of fact.
Perhaps less of a "smear" and more of a misreading?
Klinker said:
The article said that Sanders had voted for bills that contained the Hyde Amendment. It didn't say that he had voted to amend the bills. That is a simple statement of fact.
Perhaps less of a "smear" and more of a misreading?
Contained the Hyde Amendment? What does that mean?
nan said:
LOST said:Sanders has never voted for the Hyde Amendment. Politico writes at least one smear article a day about Bernie and I guess this is one of them. You can tell right away from the picture they chose--or just that it is in Politico.
Sanders is more realistic than some of his supporters.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/09/bernie-sanders-hyde-amendment-1358518Sen.
To me the article is a positive one about Sanders. They are writing about his appearance on CNN and are quoting him.
How can that possibly be a "smear"?
nan said:
Contained the Hyde Amendment? What does that mean?
Ask Bernie. They were his words.
nan said:
Klinker said:Contained the Hyde Amendment? What does that mean?
The article said that Sanders had voted for bills that contained the Hyde Amendment. It didn't say that he had voted to amend the bills. That is a simple statement of fact.
Perhaps less of a "smear" and more of a misreading?
It means that there were two votes. The first to amend the bill (add the Hyde Amendment) on which Bernie voted no, the second to pass the larger bill, now containing the amendment, on which Bernie voted yes. This amendment was added to almost every major funding bill passed in the last 20 years so most Senators have voted for bills containing the amendment repeatedly. That doesn't mean that they support the amendment, it just means that they want to see funding for the government.
LOST said:
nan said:To me the article is a positive one about Sanders. They are writing about his appearance on CNN and are quoting him.
LOST said:Sanders has never voted for the Hyde Amendment. Politico writes at least one smear article a day about Bernie and I guess this is one of them. You can tell right away from the picture they chose--or just that it is in Politico.
Sanders is more realistic than some of his supporters.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/09/bernie-sanders-hyde-amendment-1358518Sen.
How can that possibly be a "smear"?
nan said:Ask Bernie. They were his words.
Contained the Hyde Amendment? What does that mean?
You posted this to attack Sanders' supporters and now you are claiming that it is a positive article. Sheesh, talk about backtracking. Anyway, Politico does not publish positive articles about Sanders. Even if they contain a few positive phrases or even the occasional positive headline, if you read to the end, you feel they want you to have a negative view or a positive view of a different candidate.
Since he did not vote for the Hyde Amendment, and spoke out against it--they were unable to highlight that--so they changed it to some mysterious "contained the Hyde Amendment" phrase without giving any examples. They are building on what is obviously a loaded CNN question--no one else gets asked questions like this. Everyone (except Biden and he's supposedly changed) is against the Hyde Amendment--it's another "Free Space" on the Dem platform Bingo Card.
So here you have a senator with a long and vocal record of supporting choice and whom they state has co-sponsored a bill to get rid of the Hyde Amendment, and they try to corner him with questions about a bill he voted on that included the Hyde Amendment (again--no real example given) which was not being voted on. Why would anyone ask Bernie Sanders a question like that when they only have so much time and they could ask him a question on a real topic? Because they want to get him and they want him to look bad. And you took the bait and posted it as a smear too. You are doing exactly as you have been programmed to do.
Klinker said:
It means that there were two votes. The first to amend the bill (add the Hyde Amendment) on which Bernie voted no, the second to pass the larger bill, now containing the amendment, on which Bernie voted yes. This amendment was added to almost every major funding bill passed in the last 20 years so most Senators have voted for bills containing the amendment repeatedly. That doesn't mean that they support the amendment, it just means that they want to see funding for the government.
Exactly--it has nothing to do with support for the Hyde Amendment. It's just a "gotcha" question.
nan said:
Klinker said:Contained the Hyde Amendment? What does that mean?
The article said that Sanders had voted for bills that contained the Hyde Amendment. It didn't say that he had voted to amend the bills. That is a simple statement of fact.
Perhaps less of a "smear" and more of a misreading?
It's explained in a quote from Bernie in the article - -
"Well, look, sometimes in a large bill you have to vote for things you don't like," Sanders said.
That can be something to consider and apply to every candidate in the Democratic primary, the next time we hear a Sanders supporter say, "So-and-so voted for ___".
nan said:
You posted this to attack Sanders' supporters and now you are claiming that it is a positive article. Sheesh, talk about backtracking. Anyway, Politico does not publish positive articles about Sanders. Even if they contain a few positive phrases or even the occasional positive headline, if you read to the end, you feel they want you to have a negative view or a positive view of a different candidate.LOST said:
nan said:To me the article is a positive one about Sanders. They are writing about his appearance on CNN and are quoting him.
LOST said:Sanders has never voted for the Hyde Amendment. Politico writes at least one smear article a day about Bernie and I guess this is one of them. You can tell right away from the picture they chose--or just that it is in Politico.
Sanders is more realistic than some of his supporters.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/09/bernie-sanders-hyde-amendment-1358518Sen.
How can that possibly be a "smear"?
nan said:Ask Bernie. They were his words.
Contained the Hyde Amendment? What does that mean?Click to Read MoreLOST said:
nan said:To me the article is a positive one about Sanders. They are writing about his appearance on CNN and are quoting him.
LOST said:Sanders has never voted for the Hyde Amendment. Politico writes at least one smear article a day about Bernie and I guess this is one of them. You can tell right away from the picture they chose--or just that it is in Politico.
Sanders is more realistic than some of his supporters.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/09/bernie-sanders-hyde-amendment-1358518Sen.
How can that possibly be a "smear"?
nan said:Ask Bernie. They were his words.
Contained the Hyde Amendment? What does that mean?
Since he did not vote for the Hyde Amendment, and spoke out against it--they were unable to highlight that--so they changed it to some mysterious "contained the Hyde Amendment" phrase without giving any examples. They are building on what is obviously a loaded CNN question--no one else gets asked questions like this. Everyone (except Biden and he's supposedly changed) is against the Hyde Amendment--it's another "Free Space" on the Dem platform Bingo Card.
So here you have a senator with a long and vocal record of supporting choice and whom they state has co-sponsored a bill to get rid of the Hyde Amendment, and they try to corner him with questions about a bill he voted on that included the Hyde Amendment (again--no real example given) which was not being voted on. Why would anyone ask Bernie Sanders a question like that when they only have so much time and they could ask him a question on a real topic? Because they want to get him and they want him to look bad. And you took the bait and posted it as a smear too. You are doing exactly as you have been programmed to do.
You've made something that is quite simple and happens all the time into something mysterious and nefarious.
Featured Events
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Brazilian cleaning 973 776 2481
May 26, 2024 at 3:07pm
-
May 26, 2024 at 2:20pm
-
May 25, 2024 at 8:31am
-
May 24, 2024 at 9:20pm
-
Amazing and Experienced caregiver
May 23, 2024 at 11:23am
-
May 23, 2024 at 2:18am
-
May 22, 2024 at 7:29pm
-
May 22, 2024 at 12:57pm
Help Wanted
-
May 26, 2024 at 10:02am
-
MF1100 PT 3 day/week Nanny for 2 (Aug/Sept Start)
May 22, 2024 at 5:38pm
Lessons/Instruction
Advertisement
Not this time--they are dividing the debate up into two nights and participation on each is supposed to be random. There is some minimum funding thresholds.