DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
And, here's an interesting observation on why Beto seems to be getting attention.
"Beto’s key to vitality appears to be unapologetically taking Trumps favorite attack lines (border wall, NFL players kneeling, enemies of the people, etc...) head on."
https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1079013224157270019?s=20
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:Sirota made a point of attacking Hillary Clinton even after his choice, Bernie, lost in the nominating process. Here's a Sirota article in the "International Business Times", where he was a commentator at the time, with a "round up" of various Clinton Foundation accusations.
jamie said:That is the right Sirota, but I think the part about being the spokesperson is wrong. Anyway, he worked for Sanders 19 years ago. How many people, outside of the CIA, continue to do the job they left 19 years ago?
nan said:ok, maybe I have the wrong David Sirota - or his wiki page is wrong:
jamie said:Fake News. He was never a Bernie spokesman. He worked for Bernie 19 years ago and also worked for APAIC and Center for American Progress--a centrist think tank.
nan said:Written by a past Bernie spokesman - what a shocker.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/22/beto-orourke-voting-record-2020-election-democrats
Beto O'Rourke is the new Obama. And that's the last thing we need
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sirota
His next job was as press aide and then spokesperson for Bernie Sanders, the then independent at-large U.S. Representative from Vermont.
What part of the article do you disagree with, by the way? He makes a good case for why another Obama type centrist will not be good for the country. Since you are (or were last week) a Beto supporter, why do you think he is wrong?
https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/clinton-foundation-investigation-updateby-key-details-about-financial-political?utm_content=buffer0e2de&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
He's basically one of those bitter Bernie fans who decided that if Bernie couldn't be President, they'd attack Hillary. Of course, that just helped Trump (and they'll yell at you if you ever suggest such a thing in their presence).
Now he's on a Beto obsession, which his Twitter feed demonstrates. As someone who put together a little sampling of that, said in a tweet presenting it, "This is an unhealthy obsession."
https://twitter.com/zatchry/status/1077303015546195973?s=20
Click on the link to see Sirota's Beto obsession scroll by.
He posted FACTS about Beto and it was called an attack. Seems like some of you would like to hide FACTS about the candidates so you can pretend that they are Progressive when they are not. In the long run it is helpful if FACTS about candidates are known ahead of time and not come as a surprise down the road in the general election. Cause the FACT that Beto broke a "No Fossil Fuel" promise is an important FACT people need to know.
South_Mountaineer said:
And, here's an interesting observation on why Beto seems to be getting attention.
"Beto’s key to vitality appears to be unapologetically taking Trumps favorite attack lines (border wall, NFL players kneeling, enemies of the people, etc...) head on."
https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1079013224157270019?s=20
Vitality great. Voting with Republicans not so much.
Beto O’Rourke frequently voted for Republican legislation, analysis reveals
Sirota was the guy who highlighted donations from individuals who were employees of companies in the energy industry, and implied that they were corporate donations. It's been discussed here.
Post edited to add - I think it's safe to say that it's wise not to rely on Sirota's summary or tally of anything when it comes to Beto, including that Guardian article.
So, Nan, I was wondering what your thoughts are on Harris. As a Californian ex pat, I am attracted to the Golden State's sole Democratic Senator but I have done literally no research on the subject.
Klinker said:
So, Nan, I was wondering what your thoughts are on Harris. As a Californian ex pat, I am attracted to the Golden State's sole Democratic Senator but I have done literally no research on the subject.
Not a fan. She had a chance to prosecute Steve Menuchin, the "Foreclosure King" and she did not and would never come up with a good reason why. She also received a donation from Menuchin.
Kamala Harris Has To Answer For Not Prosecuting Steve Mnuchin
Also:
KAMALA HARRIS FAILS TO EXPLAIN WHY SHE DIDN’T PROSECUTE STEVEN MNUCHIN’S BANK
And:
TREASURY NOMINEE STEVE MNUCHIN’S BANK ACCUSED OF “WIDESPREAD MISCONDUCT” IN LEAKED MEMO
Edited to add she argued for keeping non-violent prisioners incarcerated because they were needed for a labor pool:
Federal judges order California to expand prison releases
Most of those prisoners now work as groundskeepers, janitors and in prison kitchens, with wages that range from 8 cents to 37 cents per hour. Lawyers for Attorney General Kamala Harris had argued in court that if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool.
Klinker said:
As a Californian ex pat, I am attracted to the Golden State's sole Democratic Senator ...
Is that a jab at Feinstein? California hasn't had a Republican in the U.S. Senate in almost 30 years.
South_Mountaineer said:
Sirota was the guy who highlighted donations from individuals who were employees of companies in the energy industry, and implied that they were corporate donations. It's been discussed here.
Post edited to add - I think it's safe to say that it's wise not to rely on Sirota's summary or tally of anything when it comes to Beto, including that Guardian article.
Please let me know which FACTS about Beto that Sirota got wrong. In the mean time, I was surprised to see that GQ came out with the history of the fake Bernie-Beto war and some good advice for the 2020 election. :
No Democrat Deserves a Free Pass Just Because They're Not Trump
So, I haven't been following this thread much? Are you already committed to Bernie or are you playing the field?
Klinker said:
So, I haven't been following this thread much? Are you already committed to Bernie or are you playing the field?
Have to see who is running. I will support the most Progressive candidate, so probably Bernie. I want Medicare for All and a Green New Deal and some other things that most people want. If they can't support Medicate for All, which 70% of people want and will save us money than they are not working for voters, no matter what fine sounding words they use. Also, the planet has something like 12 years left unless we do something drastic, so they better be out of the clutches of fossil fuel. It would be nice to vote for someone I actually get excited about voting for. For a change.
And there we go, Elizabeth Warren is running. Not exactly my favorite candidate, but we shall see.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-exploratory-committee-2020/index.html
nan said:
Klinker said:Have to see who is running. I will support the most Progressive candidate, so probably Bernie. I want Medicare for All and a Green New Deal and some other things that most people want. If they can't support Medicate for All, which 70% of people want and will save us money than they are not working for voters, no matter what fine sounding words they use. Also, the planet has something like 12 years left unless we do something drastic, so they better be out of the clutches of fossil fuel. It would be nice to vote for someone I actually get excited about voting for. For a change.
So, I haven't been following this thread much? Are you already committed to Bernie or are you playing the field?
The idea that the planet has 12 years left is ridiculous. The planet will be fine. It will shrug us off like a popped zit and keep right on going.
nan said:
It would be nice to vote for someone I actually get excited about voting for. For a change.
I used to feel that way. In 1968 I voted fro Dick Gregory on the "Peace and Freedom" ticket, or maybe it was the "Freedom and Peace" ticket.
The following election the Dems nominated George McGovern was about as "Progressive" as anyone in the Democratic Party. I didn't vote for him because he was not far Left enough for me.
But a few years later I turned 30 and you know what they say.
Now I vote for the most Progressive candidate with a chance of winning.
LOST said:
nan said:I used to feel that way. In 1968 I voted fro Dick Gregory on the "Peace and Freedom" ticket, or maybe it was the "Freedom and Peace" ticket.
It would be nice to vote for someone I actually get excited about voting for. For a change.
The following election the Dems nominated George McGovern was about as "Progressive" as anyone in the Democratic Party. I didn't vote for him because he was not far Left enough for me.
But a few years later I turned 30 and you know what they say.
Now I vote for the most Progressive candidate with a chance of winning.
How's that working for you?
Sounds like she just launched an exploratory committee. Maybe's it's a slow news day. It feels like she did this months ago.
I wonder how often a candidate forms an exploratory committee then foregoes running.
I imagine there is quiet a science to the process. Test the fundraising waters. Run some polls in key states ... there a probably thresholds of name recognition and positive opinions that you should meet to continue your run. Like if 40% of Democrats in Iowa have heard of you and are likely to agree with your positions that's a checked box (numbers PFTA).
annielou said:
Oh God. Did Warren just announce? Or is that old news?
From https://twitter.com/tbogg/status/1079793686320361473?s=21
"Elizabeth Warren is now running for president
Waiting for deeply researched Sirota 5-part investigation into that time she didn't put an empty Starbucks coffee cup into the recycle trashcan (with photos and arrows) and is, therefore, not a true progressive."
mrincredible said:
I wonder how often a candidate forms an exploratory committee then foregoes running.
Always. An exploratory committee always goes before running. 
DaveSchmidt said:
mrincredible said:Always. An exploratory committee always goes before running.
I wonder how often a candidate forms an exploratory committee then foregoes running.
well I'll be damned...
who knew that's what it meant?
drummerboy said:
well I'll be damned...
who knew that's what it meant?
I’d like to forgo any guesses.
It appears that once again by the time we in NJ get to vote it may be too late to make a difference.
https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2020-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/
LOST said:
It appears that once again by the time we in NJ get to vote it may be too late to make a difference.
https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2020-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/
You never know, these are crazy times
I still have no problem with anyone and everyone running in a primary. Perhaps a few will bring ideas that resonate enough to be incorporated into a platform that can help whoever comes out on top win the general election. I'd like to see a barometer of the Democratic party, how liberal is it? How mainstream? Let's see it all.
nan said:
LOST said:How's that working for you?
nan said:I used to feel that way. In 1968 I voted fro Dick Gregory on the "Peace and Freedom" ticket, or maybe it was the "Freedom and Peace" ticket.
It would be nice to vote for someone I actually get excited about voting for. For a change.
The following election the Dems nominated George McGovern was about as "Progressive" as anyone in the Democratic Party. I didn't vote for him because he was not far Left enough for me.
But a few years later I turned 30 and you know what they say.
Now I vote for the most Progressive candidate with a chance of winning.
On the presumption that you have been voting and will continue to vote for the most progressive candidate whether they have a chance of winning or not, I proffer the same question.
ridski said:
nan said:On the presumption that you have been voting and will continue to vote for the most progressive candidate whether they have a chance of winning or not, I proffer the same question.
LOST said:How's that working for you?
nan said:I used to feel that way. In 1968 I voted fro Dick Gregory on the "Peace and Freedom" ticket, or maybe it was the "Freedom and Peace" ticket.
It would be nice to vote for someone I actually get excited about voting for. For a change.
The following election the Dems nominated George McGovern was about as "Progressive" as anyone in the Democratic Party. I didn't vote for him because he was not far Left enough for me.
But a few years later I turned 30 and you know what they say.
Now I vote for the most Progressive candidate with a chance of winning.
Not working well. It sucks, in fact. I don't like the two corrupt party system that has led to oligarchy instead of democracy. Because I almost always vote for the Democrat, I usually don't get to vote Progressive at all. The centrist Democrats are really Republicans and both parties are pro-war. Years of voting lesser evil and what do we have? We live in the richest country in the world and half the people are below the poverty level and so many live paycheck to paycheck. We don't have a sustainable healthcare system or affordable college and our infrastructure was a D- the last time I checked. Seems like most of our money goes to fighting imperialistic wars that only makes the world less safe. Not sure what can be done, besides putting on yellow vests and following the French. Not optimistic for 2020 either, since the Democrats would rather lose than let a Progressive win. It would be good to get rid of Donald Trump, but all of these problems were there when he took office and even if another corporate Democrat wins in 2020, it is doubtful they will do enough to stop a worse Trump-like figure taking over the next one.
Does that answer your question?
Sirota made a point of attacking Hillary Clinton even after his choice, Bernie, lost in the nominating process. Here's a Sirota article in the "International Business Times", where he was a commentator at the time, with a "round up" of various Clinton Foundation accusations.
https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/clinton-foundation-investigation-updateby-key-details-about-financial-political?utm_content=buffer0e2de&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
He's basically one of those bitter Bernie fans who decided that if Bernie couldn't be President, they'd attack Hillary. Of course, that just helped Trump (and they'll yell at you if you ever suggest such a thing in their presence).
Now he's on a Beto obsession, which his Twitter feed demonstrates. As someone who put together a little sampling of that, said in a tweet presenting it, "This is an unhealthy obsession."
https://twitter.com/zatchry/status/1077303015546195973?s=20
Click on the link to see Sirota's Beto obsession scroll by.