DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

Smedley said:
Question for the folks who say Warren self-identifying as American Indian was fine: shouldn't she still be doing so? After all, her family lore was validated by the DNA test that showed she has Native American in her ancestry. So why shouldn't she be running as the first major-party Native American presidential candidate?

 Because she is NOT native American. Should Kamala Harris run as Jamaican American? Too much attention to race in this country is what has everyone walking on cat poop! She's American, and as a young person gravitated towards the coolness of being one percent Cherokee. Move on.....

walking on cat poop?

Smedley said:
Question for the folks who say Warren self-identifying as American Indian was fine: shouldn't she still be doing so? After all, her family lore was validated by the DNA test that showed she has Native American in her ancestry. So why shouldn't she be running as the first major-party Native American presidential candidate?

 Silly question.  There's a difference between saying "I have some Native American ancestry" and saying, "I'm a Native American candidate".

One of my grandmothers was Sicilian.  Sicily basically had every possible peoples from around the Mediterranean troop through there at one time or another.  If you go back far enough in the ancestry, your basic "pure Sicilian" has a background that stretches to Asia Minor and across northern Africa.

Similarly, one of my spouse's grandmothers came to the US as a child from Mexico.  Her lineage is definitely "real" Mexican, so there's definitely some "native" background there (heck, maybe even more than Senator Warren has).  

But in both my examples, there's a difference between noting a genealogical background and claiming that as a result my kids are "African" or "Aztec" or anything else. 

nohero said:

Smedley said:
Question for the folks who say Warren self-identifying as American Indian was fine: shouldn't she still be doing so? After all, her family lore was validated by the DNA test that showed she has Native American in her ancestry. So why shouldn't she be running as the first major-party Native American presidential candidate?

There's a difference between saying "I have some Native American ancestry" and saying, "I'm a Native American candidate".

 I agree. It's the same difference that exists between saying "I have some Native American ancestry," and saying, "I'm a Native American lawyer (or law professor)".  

Smedley said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:
Question for the folks who say Warren self-identifying as American Indian was fine: shouldn't she still be doing so? After all, her family lore was validated by the DNA test that showed she has Native American in her ancestry. So why shouldn't she be running as the first major-party Native American presidential candidate?

There's a difference between saying "I have some Native American ancestry" and saying, "I'm a Native American candidate".

 I agree. It's the same difference that exists between saying "I have some Native American ancestry," and saying, "I'm a Native American lawyer (or law professor)".  

 I'm sure you think you made a point.  

Smedley said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:
Question for the folks who say Warren self-identifying as American Indian was fine: shouldn't she still be doing so? After all, her family lore was validated by the DNA test that showed she has Native American in her ancestry. So why shouldn't she be running as the first major-party Native American presidential candidate?

There's a difference between saying "I have some Native American ancestry" and saying, "I'm a Native American candidate".

 I agree. It's the same difference that exists between saying "I have some Native American ancestry," and saying, "I'm a Native American lawyer (or law professor)".  

 first off, I don't think anyone said it was "fine."  My feeling is that it's a trivial point.  And no she shouldn't claim to be Native American, because she isn't.  

This is why our political process really sucks.  Democratic candidates get drummed out of the race for such trivial transgressions.  And Republicans get behind a malignant narcissist all the way to the White House.

Jaytee said:

 Because she is NOT native American. Should Kamala Harris run as Jamaican American? Too much attention to race in this country is what has everyone walking on cat poop! She's American, and as a young person gravitated towards the coolness of being one percent Cherokee. Move on.....

 I know a lot of East Indian folks are excited about Kamala who, if elected, would be the first US President of Indian descent.

I don’t believe Democratic candidates are being “drummed out of the race”. Just don’t need candidates with obvious  vulnerabilities that can be easy targets. Because Trump and his base are not interested in details, their simplistic name calling and slogans resonate with the 35%-40% and then seep into the general media. 

Dems on FB are passing around hit pieces on several candidates with their accompanying exclamatory remarks. Saw one on Booker, another on Bernie, and on MOL we are dissecting Warren, and Biden.

I'm wondering who can pass the purity test.

Not interested in purity as much as in defiance of Trump.

annielou said:
I don’t believe Democratic candidates are being “drummed out of the race”. Just don’t need candidates with obvious  vulnerabilities that can be easy targets. Because Trump and his base are not interested in details, their simplistic name calling and slogans resonate with the 35%-40% and then seep into the general media. 

the simplistic name calling is going to occur no matter who is the nominee.  The selection of the nominee should be based on the merits, without trying to overthink what Twitter insult nickname Trump is going to bestow on him or her.

I'd be interested to know if a conservative-leaning message board in 2010 would look similar in terms of arguing who would be beat to beat Obama in 2012. Would Ron Paul supporters be chastising Romney supporters for backing a liberal candidate? Would Santorum backers be attacking Gingrich's marital infidelity?

We're all desperate to see someone beat Trump in 2020. He's a nightmare. So I think it's fueling this fever-pitched argument about who is best equipped to defeat him, and right now it's easiest to drag the other candidates. 

The first debate is four months away. Everyone is going to be scrounging for things to say about candidates until then. I'm going to try and see what these candidates have to say and see which of them might emerge from the pack looking like leaders.

Morganna said:
Dems on FB are passing around hit pieces on several candidates with their accompanying exclamatory remarks. Saw one on Booker, another on Bernie, and on MOL we are dissecting Warren, and Biden.
I'm wondering who can pass the purity test.

What kind of hit pieces?  There is nothing wrong with a "purity" test based on policies and how believable those positions are and how beholden the candidate is to donors.   You want someone who is going to fight for the things you want in a way you can believe. Why would you want to vote for someone that seems to be pandering and will just cave to special interests or keep the status quo once elected?  Other considerations such as how many homes the person has, crazy people in their family, how they dress, race, gender, age, are petty and should be minimal or not considered.  

nan said:

What kind of hit pieces?  There is nothing wrong with a "purity" test based on policies and how believable those positions are and how beholden the candidate is to donors.   You want someone who is going to fight for the things you want in a way you can believe. Why would you want to vote for someone that seems to be pandering and will just cave to special interests or keep the status quo once elected?  Other considerations such as how many homes the person has, crazy people in their family, how they dress, race, gender, age, are petty and should be minimal or not considered.  

There is everything wrong with a purity test.  Pure for you is not pure for all others.  It's how we end up creating a circular firing squad and giving away the general election.  No candidate will be perfect.  Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

nan said:

Morganna said:
Dems on FB are passing around hit pieces on several candidates with their accompanying exclamatory remarks. Saw one on Booker, another on Bernie, and on MOL we are dissecting Warren, and Biden.
I'm wondering who can pass the purity test.

What kind of hit pieces?  There is nothing wrong with a "purity" test based on policies and how believable those positions are and how beholden the candidate is to donors.   You want someone who is going to fight for the things you want in a way you can believe. Why would you want to vote for someone that seems to be pandering and will just cave to special interests or keep the status quo once elected?  Other considerations such as how many homes the person has, crazy people in their family, how they dress, race, gender, age, are petty and should be minimal or not considered.  

 I'll try to find the press article on a vote which most of the Democratic Senators voted in a certain way, but only Cory Booker's picture covered the page and it was shared with such statements as "no way Booker," and several comments below. I pointed out that careful reading revealed the other candidates had voted the same way.

This morning in my news feed, another exclamatory remark, kind of a "no way Bernie" as an old video which was discussed his last run re-surfaced with his opinions on Castro. No one bothered to research his later response but there it was being shared and stamped with angry remarks.

I posted on my FB page that I hoped people would do some research before hitting share.

I'm just thinking that if we are all throwing stones while living in glass houses, we'll wind up with a lot of broken windows and no surviving candidates.

Steve said:

nan said:
What kind of hit pieces?  There is nothing wrong with a "purity" test based on policies and how believable those positions are and how beholden the candidate is to donors.   You want someone who is going to fight for the things you want in a way you can believe. Why would you want to vote for someone that seems to be pandering and will just cave to special interests or keep the status quo once elected?  Other considerations such as how many homes the person has, crazy people in their family, how they dress, race, gender, age, are petty and should be minimal or not considered.  

There is everything wrong with a purity test.  Pure for you is not pure for all others.  It's how we end up creating a circular firing squad and giving away the general election.  No candidate will be perfect.  Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 I disagree, cause how are your going to pick a candidate?  I'm suggesting that you discriminate based on substantive factors such as policy. The term "purity test" implies that there is little difference between Democrats, and only picky people would discriminate.  It's basically another form of voter shaming.  I think there are huge difference between the candidates and I am only interested in those that don't take corporate money and are believable on major issues related to health care and the environment.  Considering that we only have about 12 years left to do something drastic on the environment, it seems suicidal  to not pick someone whose passionate about a Green New Deal, which is probably not even enough.  This is not negotiable at this point.  

Getting back to 2020, Pod Save America uses word salad to manufacture consent for an incremental approach to Medicare for all and Amy Klobuchar shows us why all the voter shaming in the world won't get people inspired to get off the couch and to the polls for a corporate Democrat.  

Go start your own party and take Bernie with you.  Thanks in advance.

nan said:

 I disagree, cause how are your going to pick a candidate?  I'm suggesting that you discriminate based on substantive factors such as policy. The term "purity test" implies that there is little difference between Democrats, and only picky people would discriminate.  It's basically another form of voter shaming.  I think there are huge difference between the candidates and I am only interested in those that don't take corporate money and are believable on major issues related to health care and the environment.  Considering that we only have about 12 years left to do something drastic on the environment, it seems suicidal  to not pick someone whose passionate about a Green New Deal, which is probably not even enough.  This is not negotiable at this point.  

 Are you ******* kidding me?  Vote for whomever you want in the Primary, but fall,into line and vote for the nominee in the General.  Anything less just helps Trump.  If you can't see that, you need new glasses.  Any Democrat is better than Trump.  ANY DEMOCRAT.

basil said:

conandrob240 said:
I don’t think it’s too early to pick because in this election, I care about only ONE thing- making sure the pig in the Whitehouse goes home defeated. Period. I don’t care which Dem it is- old, young doesn’t f-ing matter. The only thing that matters is who has best chance to beat Trump. Right now that’s Biden.

He is not even running dude. Chill.

 I’m chill. And of course he’s running.

conandrob240 said:

basil said:

conandrob240 said:
I don’t think it’s too early to pick because in this election, I care about only ONE thing- making sure the pig in the Whitehouse goes home defeated. Period. I don’t care which Dem it is- old, young doesn’t f-ing matter. The only thing that matters is who has best chance to beat Trump. Right now that’s Biden.

He is not even running dude. Chill.

 I’m chill. And of course he’s running.

Too old.

nan said:
Getting back to 2020, Pod Save America uses word salad to manufacture consent for an incremental approach to Medicare for all and Amy Klobuchar shows us why all the voter shaming in the world won't get people inspired to get off the couch and to the polls for a corporate Democrat.  

 Anyone with a conscience will get off the coach, out of bed or toppling from the hammock to vote for any candidate resembling a human with a D next to their name.

She isn't the perfect drinking buddy but she may sell in the Heartland.  We'll see and no not my favorite. 

I see more moderate positions on healthcare from several candidates. Tulsi G. backs M4A but with the option to keep private insurance. I'm guessing they will all lean towards that position in the end. Neither you nor I may get our first choice but we just might defeat Trump if we stick together.

Bernie was asked last night what his #1 agenda item was - such a softball question.  His answer - All of them.  Reminded me of Palin's answer to what paper does she read.  To me this was very disingenuous for someone who knows the reality of legislation.  

Dore is such a hack.  I believe her first step to make 2 year colleges free is great.  For someone to endorse Free college for all at this stage is pretty dumb.  Change in incremental - perhaps nan can provide a video with Bernie's answer on how it will be done.

nan said:

What kind of hit pieces?  There is nothing wrong with a "purity" test based on policies and how believable those positions are and how beholden the candidate is to donors.   You want someone who is going to fight for the things you want in a way you can believe. Why would you want to vote for someone that seems to be pandering and will just cave to special interests or keep the status quo once elected?  Other considerations such as how many homes the person has, crazy people in their family, how they dress, race, gender, age, are petty and should be minimal or not considered.  

nan said:
Getting back to 2020, Pod Save America uses word salad to manufacture consent for an incremental approach to Medicare for all and Amy Klobuchar shows us why all the voter shaming in the world won't get people inspired to get off the couch and to the polls for a corporate Democrat. 

So why is "boring" relevant?

STANV said:

nan said:

What kind of hit pieces?  There is nothing wrong with a "purity" test based on policies and how believable those positions are and how beholden the candidate is to donors.   You want someone who is going to fight for the things you want in a way you can believe. Why would you want to vote for someone that seems to be pandering and will just cave to special interests or keep the status quo once elected?  Other considerations such as how many homes the person has, crazy people in their family, how they dress, race, gender, age, are petty and should be minimal or not considered.  

 

nan said:
Getting back to 2020, Pod Save America uses word salad to manufacture consent for an incremental approach to Medicare for all and Amy Klobuchar shows us why all the voter shaming in the world won't get people inspired to get off the couch and to the polls for a corporate Democrat. 

So why is "boring" relevant?

 Cause she is not relevant.  She has a lame plan. She says she is worried about money, but she had no problem giving Trump more of an increase in his military budget than he asked for. She did not ask how we would pay for that, but when it comes to a needed social program, she says, "No."  Not inspiring and boring and doubt her campaign is gaining momentum, but ya never know.

Laughable.  This nonsense brought to you by someone who thinks Tulsi Gabbard is the answer.

sbenois said:
Laughable.  This nonsense brought to you by someone who thinks Tulsi Gabbard is the answer.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

 Brought to you by someone who thought Hillary couldn't lose and wants to run Hillary 2.0 to do it again the same way.  Definition of insanity.

And yet, Hillary beat the narcissist from Vermont, Nan's looney left hero.  

And Nan thinks this non-Democrat is going to get our party's nomination.  He won't.  He is not a Democrat.   We have had enough of his crap.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/21/politics/gregory-meeks-bernie-sanders-run-as-democrat-independent-cnntv/index.html

sbenois said:
And yet, Hillary beat the narcissist from Vermont, Nan's looney left hero.  


And Nan thinks this non-Democrat is going to get our party's nomination.  He won't.  He is not a Democrat.   We have had enough of his crap.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/21/politics/gregory-meeks-bernie-sanders-run-as-democrat-independent-cnntv/index.html

 People are sick of corporate Democrats that take money and don't listen or care about voters.

people do realize that an independent candidate run would all but assure us that Trump will win, right?