DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

70% of all Americans support Medicare for All.  I think the Dems can safely support it without worrying they are going to have a hard slog wining over the country.

.

nan said:
70% of all Americans support Medicare for All.  I think the Dems can safely support it without worrying they are going to have a hard slog wining over the country.

I agree. I also believe the the Democratic nominee will come out fully in favor of Medicare for All, and that the progressive leading edge of the party will denounce said candidate for offering a watered down version that doesn't actually count as medicare for all.  

IOW, you will search in vain to find even a single scotsman in a small tent.

drummerboy said:
.

 That's the same voter shaming crap you were pushing in the last election. What makes you think doing the same thing will get different results?  After the horrible 2016 campaign, where an unpopular and baggage laden corportist warmonger lost to an orange psycho reality TV star, I expected the Dems to evolve.  I expected them to do some soul searching on why they lost and make some changes.  But, they blamed Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon and Russia instead and did not even fire the consultants who gave them bad advice and then doubled-down on the corporate warmongering.  So, here we are coming up on 2020 and you are already starting the voter shaming and here we go again: Groundhog Day.

nan said:

drummerboy said:
.

 That's the same voter shaming crap you were pushing in the last election. What makes you think doing the same thing will get different results?  After the horrible 2016 campaign, where an unpopular and baggage laden corportist warmonger lost to an orange psycho reality TV star, I expected the Dems to evolve.  I expected them to do some soul searching on why they lost and make some changes.  But, they blamed Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon and Russia instead and did not even fire the consultants who gave them bad advice and then doubled-down on the corporate warmongering.  So, here we are coming up on 2020 and you are already starting the voter shaming and here we go again: Groundhog Day.

 Amazing, the crappola that emanates from our resident anti "everybody but Bernie (or Jill)" BS artist. I disagree with db on many things, but here he is 100% spot on. Ignore her claptrap and evaluate each candidate on their own merits...not the troll known as nan.

nan said:

LOST said:
Nan,
You did not answer. It was a serious question.

nan said:

 Those are highly unlikely combinations. 

There are Catholics who are "Progressive" on all issues except abortion. I bet the Pope is for Universal Government-Funded Healthcare.
There are Libertarian Pacifists.
You were being attacked as a "single-issue voter". I was giving you a way to show that that was not correct.
 

 I was attacked and smeared as a single-issue voter.  

 No.  This is a debate.  Adults are capable of debate without considering opposing views an attack or smear.  Grow up.  

nan said:
 I was attacked and smeared as a single-issue voter.  

 well, not exactly. You were described accurately as a single issue voter because you identified a single issue which would cause to you vote or not vote for someone.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:
.

 That's the same voter shaming crap you were pushing in the last election. What makes you think doing the same thing will get different results?  After the horrible 2016 campaign, where an unpopular and baggage laden corportist warmonger lost to an orange psycho reality TV star, I expected the Dems to evolve.  I expected them to do some soul searching on why they lost and make some changes.  But, they blamed Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon and Russia instead and did not even fire the consultants who gave them bad advice and then doubled-down on the corporate warmongering.  So, here we are coming up on 2020 and you are already starting the voter shaming and here we go again: Groundhog Day.

 Amazing, the crappola that emanates from our resident anti "everybody but Bernie (or Jill)" BS artist. I disagree with db on many things, but here he is 100% spot on. Ignore her claptrap and evaluate each candidate on their own merits...not the troll known as nan.

 Of course you should evaluate each candidate on their own merits. I have repeatedly encoraged people to be informed voters. 

Red_Barchetta said:

nan said:

LOST said:
Nan,
You did not answer. It was a serious question.

nan said:

 Those are highly unlikely combinations. 

There are Catholics who are "Progressive" on all issues except abortion. I bet the Pope is for Universal Government-Funded Healthcare.
There are Libertarian Pacifists.
You were being attacked as a "single-issue voter". I was giving you a way to show that that was not correct.
 

 I was attacked and smeared as a single-issue voter.  

 No.  This is a debate.  Adults are capable of debate without considering opposing views an attack or smear.  Grow up.  

 In good debates people use examples, rather than personal attacks, to argue their points. So if this is a debate, it is not a good one.

drummerboy said:

nan said:
 I was attacked and smeared as a single-issue voter.  

 well, not exactly. You were described accurately as a single issue voter because you identified a single issue which would cause to you vote or not vote for someone.

 So you have nothing of interest to say, then. You are a single issue voter, by the way. No matter what piece of sh*t candidate the DNC chooses in the back room, you will happily vote for them. So, good luck wirh that. 

Are you still using CNN as your only news source? Just wondering if anything has changed.

I hope the DNC backroom picks Beto!

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:
 I was attacked and smeared as a single-issue voter.  

 well, not exactly. You were described accurately as a single issue voter because you identified a single issue which would cause to you vote or not vote for someone.

 So you have nothing of interest to say, then. You are a single issue voter, by the way. No matter what piece of sh*t candidate the DNC chooses in the back room, you will happily vote for them. So, good luck wirh that. 


Are you still using CNN as your only news source? Just wondering if anything has changed.

Of course I will vote for any Democrat over any Republican at the national level (very broadly speaking of course). That's because I understand how politics works here.

Unfortunately, that's not the definition of a single issue voter.

The most important issue of the 2020 election is not healthcare, or global warming, or infrastructure, or even war and peace.

It's to wrest control from the Republicans. If you don't see that, you should choose a different hobby. And different news sources. I bet Jimmy Dore never told you that most obvious fact.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:
 I was attacked and smeared as a single-issue voter.  

 well, not exactly. You were described accurately as a single issue voter because you identified a single issue which would cause to you vote or not vote for someone.

 So you have nothing of interest to say, then. You are a single issue voter, by the way. No matter what piece of sh*t candidate the DNC chooses in the back room, you will happily vote for them. So, good luck wirh that. 


Are you still using CNN as your only news source? Just wondering if anything has changed.

Of course I will vote for any Democrat over any Republican at the national level (very broadly speaking of course). That's because I understand how politics works here.

Unfortunately, that's not the definition of a single issue voter.

The most important issue of the 2020 election is not healthcare, or global warming, or infrastructure, or even war and peace.

It's to wrest control from the Republicans. If you don't see that, you should choose a different hobby. And different news sources. I bet Jimmy Dore never told you that most obvious fact.

 So you did not answer my question. Is CNN still your only news source?

jamie said:
I hope the DNC backroom picks Beto!

 So the recent report on climate chage and Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies gives you no pause? I saw a presentation on climate and evidently if we can ban fracking it will make a huge difference and buy us some more time. This makes it imperative that the oil and gas industries keep their influence out if 2020.

nan said:

jamie said:
I hope the DNC backroom picks Beto!

 So the recent report on climate chage and Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies gives you no pause? I saw a presentation on climate and evidently if we can ban fracking it will make a huge difference and buy us some more time. This makes it imperative that the oil and gas industries keep their influence out if 2020.

 So coal is better than fracking gas/oil?

drummerboy said:
.

 do we really need to start compromising before there are even any declared candidates?

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:
 I was attacked and smeared as a single-issue voter.  

 well, not exactly. You were described accurately as a single issue voter because you identified a single issue which would cause to you vote or not vote for someone.

 So you have nothing of interest to say, then. You are a single issue voter, by the way. No matter what piece of sh*t candidate the DNC chooses in the back room, you will happily vote for them. So, good luck wirh that. 


Are you still using CNN as your only news source? Just wondering if anything has changed.

Of course I will vote for any Democrat over any Republican at the national level (very broadly speaking of course). That's because I understand how politics works here.

Unfortunately, that's not the definition of a single issue voter.

The most important issue of the 2020 election is not healthcare, or global warming, or infrastructure, or even war and peace.

It's to wrest control from the Republicans. If you don't see that, you should choose a different hobby. And different news sources. I bet Jimmy Dore never told you that most obvious fact.

 So you did not answer my question. Is CNN still your only news source?

 Since the question rests on yet another incorrect premise of yours, there was no need to answer it.

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
.

 do we really need to start compromising before there are even any declared candidates?

 well, yeah. What are the odds that you won't vote for the Dem in 2020?

nan said:

jamie said:
I hope the DNC backroom picks Beto!

 So the recent report on climate chage and Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies gives you no pause? I saw a presentation on climate and evidently if we can ban fracking it will make a huge difference and buy us some more time. This makes it imperative that the oil and gas industries keep their influence out if 2020.

you're so cute. You think there's a chance you will live in world where the petro industry will not wield significant influence.

nan said:

jamie said:
I hope the DNC backroom picks Beto!

 So the recent report on climate chage and Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies gives you no pause? 

 "Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies"?  Other than a recent attempt by a pro-Bernie guy to imply that, do you have any reference?

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

jamie said:
I hope the DNC backroom picks Beto!

 So the recent report on climate chage and Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies gives you no pause? 

 "Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies"?  Other than a recent attempt by a pro-Bernie guy to imply that, do you have any reference?

 I've always wanted to point this out, but when someone says something like "x's backing by [pick your industry]", that simply means that the employees of that industry have donated to x. It is, at best, an imperfect (and lazy, for that matter) measure of an industry's influence.  

My own contributions technically fall into the "insurance industry" bucket, because I work for an insurance company. But I don't contribute based on a candidate's positions on insurance regulation - to include my contribution as part of the insurance industry's influence would be wrong.

Anyway, I'm less concerned about metrics like that than I am about what a candidate says their position is, and if they attempt to carry out their stated positions while in office. I don't really care where the money comes from.

tjohn said:

nan said:

jamie said:
I hope the DNC backroom picks Beto!

 So the recent report on climate chage and Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies gives you no pause? I saw a presentation on climate and evidently if we can ban fracking it will make a huge difference and buy us some more time. This makes it imperative that the oil and gas industries keep their influence out if 2020.

 So coal is better than fracking gas/oil?

 No, I'm looking for support for a Green New Deal. Another no brainer that would help Dems win. But winning is not the goal. It seems.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:
 I was attacked and smeared as a single-issue voter.  

 well, not exactly. You were described accurately as a single issue voter because you identified a single issue which would cause to you vote or not vote for someone.

 So you have nothing of interest to say, then. You are a single issue voter, by the way. No matter what piece of sh*t candidate the DNC chooses in the back room, you will happily vote for them. So, good luck wirh that. 


Are you still using CNN as your only news source? Just wondering if anything has changed.

Of course I will vote for any Democrat over any Republican at the national level (very broadly speaking of course). That's because I understand how politics works here.

Unfortunately, that's not the definition of a single issue voter.

The most important issue of the 2020 election is not healthcare, or global warming, or infrastructure, or even war and peace.

It's to wrest control from the Republicans. If you don't see that, you should choose a different hobby. And different news sources. I bet Jimmy Dore never told you that most obvious fact.

 So you did not answer my question. Is CNN still your only news source?

 Since the question rests on yet another incorrect premise of yours, there was no need to answer it.

 So, I'll take that as a "YES"

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

jamie said:
I hope the DNC backroom picks Beto!

 So the recent report on climate chage and Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies gives you no pause? 

 "Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies"?  Other than a recent attempt by a pro-Bernie guy to imply that, do you have any reference?

 It is on Open Secrets. He is something like the number 2 guy in terms of funding from them. Not saying it is an issue, but certainly a red flag. 

nan said:

 So, I'll take that as a "YES"

Fun fact: “I’ll take that as a yes/no” is the fifth most common symptom of a heedless discussion partner.

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
.

 do we really need to start compromising before there are even any declared candidates?

 well, yeah. What are the odds that you won't vote for the Dem in 2020?

 It's always a compromise, even if you write in your own name.

"Back in the day" we believed that "the only solution is revolution". Nowadays we compromise.

One "candidate" is already out:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/06/deval-patrick-2020-president-race-1046437

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

jamie said:
I hope the DNC backroom picks Beto!

 So the recent report on climate chage and Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies gives you no pause? 

 "Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies"?  Other than a recent attempt by a pro-Bernie guy to imply that, do you have any reference?

 It is on Open Secrets. He is something like the number 2 guy in terms of funding from them. Not saying it is an issue, but certainly a red flag. 

That's what I was referring to.  David Sirota, a pro-Bernie guy, publicized it in a tweet the other day.

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1069264575202189313

Something I didn’t know: Beto O’Rourke is the #2 recipient of oil/gas industry campaign cash in the entire Congress https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cycle=2018&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U …

I had conversed with @paulsurovell about it, when he wrote: 

Since when is telling the truth an "attack?" Or is it better to hide the truth and lie?

https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1069934392875892736

I wrote back: "Read the comments to Sirota's tweet. He's telling a half-truth. Lots of people in Texas work for these companies and have to list employer info when contributing to campaigns."

https://twitter.com/SMountaineer/status/1069965362450587649

I think you proved my point when you called it a "red flag", and "Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies".  

It's Texas.  Lots of people are employees of oil and gas companies.  It was misleading for Sirota to leave the impression that this was "backing by fossil fuel companies".  Sure, he has some mealy-mouthed excuse that he didn't actually say that.  But instead of saying (properly) that those were donations from people who are employees of companies in the oil and gas industry, he called it "oil/gas industry campaign cash".

He dropped his little "factoid" with no context - with his desired result.

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

South_Mountaineer said:

nan said:

jamie said:
I hope the DNC backroom picks Beto!

 So the recent report on climate chage and Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies gives you no pause? 

 "Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies"?  Other than a recent attempt by a pro-Bernie guy to imply that, do you have any reference?

 It is on Open Secrets. He is something like the number 2 guy in terms of funding from them. Not saying it is an issue, but certainly a red flag. 

That's what I was referring to.  David Sirota, a pro-Bernie guy, publicized it in a tweet the other day.
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1069264575202189313

Something I didn’t know: Beto O’Rourke is the #2 recipient of oil/gas industry campaign cash in the entire Congress https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cycle=2018&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U …

I had conversed with @paulsurovell about it, when he wrote: 

Since when is telling the truth an "attack?" Or is it better to hide the truth and lie?

https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/1069934392875892736

I wrote back: "Read the comments to Sirota's tweet. He's telling a half-truth. Lots of people in Texas work for these companies and have to list employer info when contributing to campaigns."
https://twitter.com/SMountaineer/status/1069965362450587649
I think you proved my point when you called it a "red flag", and "Beto's backing by fossil fuel companies".  
It's Texas.  Lots of people are employees of oil and gas companies.  It was misleading for Sirota to leave the impression that this was "backing by fossil fuel companies".  Sure, he has some mealy-mouthed excuse that he didn't actually say that.  But instead of saying (properly) that those were donations from people who are employees of companies in the oil and gas industry, he called it "oil/gas industry campaign cash".
He dropped his little "factoid" with no context - with his desired result.

What I mean by red flag includes all of the things you wrote about politicians and Texas, etc.  It is really critical that the next president not be beholden to the oil and gas industry in any way.  So, before backing Beto, it would be important to see if he honestly supports A Green New Deal, or just gives wishy-washy platitudes.   

LOST said:

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:
.

 do we really need to start compromising before there are even any declared candidates?

 well, yeah. What are the odds that you won't vote for the Dem in 2020?

 It's always a compromise, even if you write in your own name.
"Back in the day" we believed that "the only solution is revolution". Nowadays we compromise.

I guess my question should have been -- do we need to give up on all the progressive ideas and settle on a so-called "centrist" before there are even any declared candidates?