DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)

 You do know the whole Russia bot thing was basically a hoax, right?  

This is false.

It was not a hoax.

I don't know your motivation for continuing to spread this falsehood. 

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:...

 Links to fake news sources will be discounted because Progressives listen to specific sources and would identify fake ones easily...

 
LOL
says the person who believes Hillary eats hot sauce to win black votes. And that Bernie wuz robbed! of the nomination because of a DNC conspiracy.

I mean, really...

 I don't know about Hillary's hot sauce, but if you read the book, Shattered, you will see that almost everything about Hillary was staged for the audience, so the hot sauce might well have been too.
That the DNC worked for Hillary and against Bernie in 2016 is a documented fact, as shown by Wikileaks and Donna Brazille.  

 Thank you for proving my point.

mrincredible said:

 You do know the whole Russia bot thing was basically a hoax, right?  

This is false.
It was not a hoax.
I don't know your motivation for continuing to spread this falsehood. 

Well there was this:

Senate Report on Russian Interference Was Written By Disinformation Warriors Behind Alabama ‘False Flag Operation’ 

According to Google, the real accounts spent $4,700.  So it was not nothing, but limited activity.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:...

 Links to fake news sources will be discounted because Progressives listen to specific sources and would identify fake ones easily...

 
LOL
says the person who believes Hillary eats hot sauce to win black votes. And that Bernie wuz robbed! of the nomination because of a DNC conspiracy.

I mean, really...

 I don't know about Hillary's hot sauce, but if you read the book, Shattered, you will see that almost everything about Hillary was staged for the audience, so the hot sauce might well have been too.
That the DNC worked for Hillary and against Bernie in 2016 is a documented fact, as shown by Wikileaks and Donna Brazille.  

 Thank you for proving my point.

Your point is that you ignore facts.  We have gone through this so many times.  We are not going to agree.   

Amazing how Harris and Hillary create "progressive" positions to fool the voters, but Gabbard actually evolves.

Steve said:
Amazing how Harris and Hillary create "progressive" positions to fool the voters, but Gabbard actually evolves.

 She evolved with evidence.  For example, she used to be anti-LGBT and now she has a perfect record on voting for LGBT.   She went into the service and experienced combat and became anti-war.

Compare that with Harris -

She says she is for M4A and  lived in California and did nothing to help get single-payer there when she had opportunity for that.  She says half her family is Jamaican and she smokes pot, but meanwhile she was until very recently against legalization of pot and locked up lots of people for that.

Hillary says she cares about working people but she spent her time sucking up to Wall Street and she was against increasing minimum wage past $12, etc.

So, basically, we can except that people evolve on issues, but if they demonstrate that with factual examples it makes them more believable.  Gabbard is more believable on evolution than Clinton or Harris. 

says you

Nan: The progressive agenda you want is never going to happen in its purest form, and consequently, by its purest candidate. There’s no evidence to suggest that the white sector of the working and lower middle class will abandon the mindset of their racist leader. I don’t see massive numbers of Black or Latino voters clamoring for Bernie or Tulsi. Who are these voters who will wholeheartedly support the most left leaning and progressive candidate for the presidency? I know you like to throw out survey numbers, but those who might benefit the most from a progressive agenda, do not seem overly interested in the current crop of oh so pure candidates.

drummerboy said:

nan said:...

 Links to fake news sources will be discounted because Progressives listen to specific sources and would identify fake ones easily...

 
LOL
says the person who believes Hillary eats hot sauce to win black votes. And that Bernie wuz robbed! of the nomination because of a DNC conspiracy.

I mean, really...

your statement doesn't logically hold together.  The fact that there was a concerted effort by the DNC to favor Clinton doesn't mean Sanders was "robbed."  It was possible for the DNC to put a thumb on the scale for a candidate who was going to win anyway.  And starting with the debate schedule, it was obvious the DNC was going to give whatever advantages they could to candidate Clinton.  It's highly doubtful that Sanders could have won the nomination under any circumstance, but the evidence is there that the DNC wasn't taking any chances on it.  

STANV said:

conandrob240 said:
people do realize that an independent candidate run would all but assure us that Trump will win, right?

 William Weld, former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, is considering running as an Independent and says that he would take votes away from Trump. I don't agree but I wonder about people who would choose to vote for an Independent Third-Party Candidate rather than any Dem running against Trump. If there were no Independent would they just not vote? What motivates such people?

 The abject failure of the two major parties to get things done.

l_p,

The two Major Parties want to do different things. Trump supporters would argue that Trump is getting a lot done. Opponents would argue that he is getting bad things done.

A Third-Party is extremely unlikely to get anything done. 

drummerboy said:

apple44 said:
I don't agree that Trump doesn't stand a chance. Assuming that RBG stays on the bench until then, as in 2016, many Republicans who don't like Trump will vote for him so that he fills that seat in 2021. I suppose you can say the same for the Dem candidate, but polling last time showed that it was a bigger issue in 2016 for the Rep voters than for Dems. I agree he won't have the numbers he did in 2016, but if squeaks by at 271 electoral votes, that's all he needs.

 if he doesn't have the numbers of 2016, he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. He had 3 million less votes, remember?

I think Trump has a good chance of getting re-elected.  It scares the crap out of me, but he has a chance.

nan said:

First of all, Biden, Klobuchar and Harris are not Progressives and so alleged Russian Bots would just be telling the truth.  

Joe Biden came out publicly in favor of same-sex marriage before any other major politician.

Sherrod Brown supported it before almost everyone else. 

You can define "Progressive" however you want, but others do not have to accept your definition.

The Tea Party and Freedom Caucus types don't think Mitch McConnell is a Conservative.

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:...

 Links to fake news sources will be discounted because Progressives listen to specific sources and would identify fake ones easily...

 
LOL
says the person who believes Hillary eats hot sauce to win black votes. And that Bernie wuz robbed! of the nomination because of a DNC conspiracy.

I mean, really...

your statement doesn't logically hold together.  The fact that there was a concerted effort by the DNC to favor Clinton doesn't mean Sanders was "robbed."  It was possible for the DNC to put a thumb on the scale for a candidate who was going to win anyway.  And starting with the debate schedule, it was obvious the DNC was going to give whatever advantages they could to candidate Clinton.  It's highly doubtful that Sanders could have won the nomination under any circumstance, but the evidence is there that the DNC wasn't taking any chances on it.  

Not sure of your point. I was commenting on nan's belief that the DNC had a demonstrable affect on the outcome of the primaries in Hillary's favor. Clearly the DNC favored Hillary, but I doubt it affected even a smidgen of the electorate - mostly because the DNC simply doesn't have that kind of power. And if I recall correctly, the DNC finally relented on the debates, didn't they?

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:...

 Links to fake news sources will be discounted because Progressives listen to specific sources and would identify fake ones easily...

 
LOL
says the person who believes Hillary eats hot sauce to win black votes. And that Bernie wuz robbed! of the nomination because of a DNC conspiracy.

I mean, really...

your statement doesn't logically hold together.  The fact that there was a concerted effort by the DNC to favor Clinton doesn't mean Sanders was "robbed."  It was possible for the DNC to put a thumb on the scale for a candidate who was going to win anyway.  And starting with the debate schedule, it was obvious the DNC was going to give whatever advantages they could to candidate Clinton.  It's highly doubtful that Sanders could have won the nomination under any circumstance, but the evidence is there that the DNC wasn't taking any chances on it.  

Not sure of your point. I was commenting on nan's belief that the DNC had a demonstrable affect on the outcome of the primaries in Hillary's favor. Clearly the DNC favored Hillary, but I doubt it affected even a smidgen of the electorate - mostly because the DNC simply doesn't have that kind of power. And if I recall correctly, the DNC finally relented on the debates, didn't they?

We'll never know how much of an effect the DNC had on the outcome, and how much the outcome was affected by the fact that the pundit class kept telling voters that that Sanders campaign had no chance.  It probably didn't change the outcome.  But we can't possibly know.

I'm bothered by the fact that the DNC didn't want a competitive race against their chosen candidate.  I don't think that's the best way forward to win elections.  I'm dismayed at how few mainstream Democrats don't think it's a big deal if the party organization appeared to be in the pocket of one candidate.

Sen. Warren walks the walk on campaign donations.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/25/elizabeth-warren-campaign-donors-1182736

There is way more evidence that the DNC was helping HRC than there is of Russian Collusion within the Trump campaign.   To put it another way, there is evidence of the former and a glaring absence of the latter. 

It's interesting bringing up the 2016 election and comparing it to this one and the DNC's involvement. 2016 was an incredibly tight field. Right now I believe every registered Democrat is in the running for the 2020 nomination. The electorate has a tremendous choice this time around, so we'll see what happens, but if Sanders doesn't win I don't think you can blame DNC interference.

I know nan will argue and say that the DNC will undermine true progressives because they'd rather have Trump than a progressive. And the MSM is ignoring a ridiculing the progressive candidates. I think that's pretty weak sauce this time around. If Democrats want someone from the more Progressive end of the spectrum that's who will get the votes and the nomination.

terp said:
There is way more evidence that the DNC was helping HRC than there is of Russian Collusion within the Trump campaign.   To put it another way, there is evidence of the former and a glaring absence of the latter. 

 Gasp. The DNC was helping the candidate who is a member if their party. Oh my stars. *faints clutching pearls*

Russia had a preferred candidate. So did the DNC. One of these is an organization made up of US citizens.

mrincredible said:

terp said:
There is way more evidence that the DNC was helping HRC than there is of Russian Collusion within the Trump campaign.   To put it another way, there is evidence of the former and a glaring absence of the latter. 

 Gasp. The DNC was helping the candidate who is a member if their party. Oh my stars. *faints clutching pearls*
Russia had a preferred candidate. So did the DNC. One of these is an organization made up of US citizens.

the issue is that the Democratic Party bylaws say the primary process should be open and fair and not favor one candidate.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2989759-Impartiality-Clause-DNC-Charter-Bylaws-Art-5-Sec-4.html

Again.  When espousing the Russian Conspiracy theory you should always be careful to qualify your statements with "Although 2 years later, not a shred of evidence exists, still I fancy this theory....". 

I'm not convinced there is any evidence of collusion to influence the presidential campaign specifically.  But there's certainly circumstantial evidence that the Trump campaign was suggesting an end to sanctions against Russia if they got favorable treatment for their business deals.

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/11/29/18117910/cohen-trump-tower-moscow-mueller-buzzfeed

Even a person who believes that ending sanctions against Russia would have been a good thing should be concerned if it was going to happen only because the Trump Organization wanted to make money in Russia.  Which may not be technically illegal, but it's certainly the height of unethical behavior from a candidate.  That's why their businesses should be in a blind trust from the moment they declare candidacy.  They shouldn't be doing business with foreign governments.  Or U.S. states or cities for that matter.  Should a presidential candidate be promising favors to Texas or Chicago in the hopes of doing business there?

terp said:
There is way more evidence that the DNC was helping HRC than there is of Russian Collusion within the Trump campaign.   To put it another way, there is evidence of the former and a glaring absence of the latter. 

As to the DNC helping Hillary, it's a fact. That is why the Chair had to resign.

But while there might not be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" of collusion there is certainly evidence.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/fox-news-hosts-see-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-team-and-russia-1.6828774

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/trump-team-had-over-100-contacts-with-russian-officials-new-report-claims-1.6827775

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/17/trump-russia-collusion-adam-schiff-1173434

“Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told host Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” pointing to communications between Russia and Donald Trump Jr. and former Trump aides George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn.

“You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, adding, “There is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.”

STANV said:
l_p,
The two Major Parties want to do different things. Trump supporters would argue that Trump is getting a lot done. Opponents would argue that he is getting bad things done.
A Third-Party is extremely unlikely to get anything done. 

The parties are so entrenched and uncompromising nothing gets done.  The last thing the two parties want is competition from a sensible party that represents the the majority of Americans.  

lord_pabulum said:

The parties are so entrenched and uncompromising nothing gets done.  The last thing the two parties want is competition from a sensible party that represents the the majority of Americans.  

 The Democratic and Republican Parties together represent the overwhelming majority of Americans. If they did not there would be a viable other Party. You just don't like the fact that neither represents your views perfectly.

STANV said:
Sen. Warren walks the walk on campaign donations.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/25/elizabeth-warren-campaign-donors-1182736

"While Warren did hold fundraisers in her years as a senator, she hasn’t held any since she first launched her exploratory bid Dec. 31, according to her campaign."

She hasn't always walked the walk.

STANV said:

lord_pabulum said:

The parties are so entrenched and uncompromising nothing gets done.  The last thing the two parties want is competition from a sensible party that represents the the majority of Americans.  

 The Democratic and Republican Parties together represent the overwhelming majority of Americans. If they did not there would be a viable other Party. You just don't like the fact that neither represents your views perfectly.

Nice try, but no. I don't think the two parties represent the majority of Americans but they are the only choice. Sure I'd love the rainbow & unicorn world of free stuff, security and the choice of a pragmatic and sensible party.  Unfortunately the choice now is the equivalent to a hamburger or chicken happy meal. 

lord_pabulum said:

STANV said:

lord_pabulum said:

The parties are so entrenched and uncompromising nothing gets done.  The last thing the two parties want is competition from a sensible party that represents the the majority of Americans.  

 The Democratic and Republican Parties together represent the overwhelming majority of Americans. If they did not there would be a viable other Party. You just don't like the fact that neither represents your views perfectly.

Nice try, but no. I don't think the two parties represent the majority of Americans but they are the only choice. Sure I'd love the rainbow & unicorn world of free stuff, security and the choice of a pragmatic and sensible party.  Unfortunately the choice now is the equivalent to a hamburger or chicken happy meal. 

 poor try. A third party in the U.S. is about as useless for achieving your goals yet as useful for  working against them as one could possibly imagine.

so you know, it's idiocy and masochistic all at the same time.

annielou said:
Nan: The progressive agenda you want is never going to happen in its purest form, and consequently, by its purest candidate. There’s no evidence to suggest that the white sector of the working and lower middle class will abandon the mindset of their racist leader. I don’t see massive numbers of Black or Latino voters clamoring for Bernie or Tulsi. Who are these voters who will wholeheartedly support the most left leaning and progressive candidate for the presidency? I know you like to throw out survey numbers, but those who might benefit the most from a progressive agenda, do not seem overly interested in the current crop of oh so pure candidates.

 Let's look at what people want:

nan said:

annielou said:
Nan: The progressive agenda you want is never going to happen in its purest form, and consequently, by its purest candidate. There’s no evidence to suggest that the white sector of the working and lower middle class will abandon the mindset of their racist leader. I don’t see massive numbers of Black or Latino voters clamoring for Bernie or Tulsi. Who are these voters who will wholeheartedly support the most left leaning and progressive candidate for the presidency? I know you like to throw out survey numbers, but those who might benefit the most from a progressive agenda, do not seem overly interested in the current crop of oh so pure candidates.

 Let's look at what people want:

 You forgot how many want a PONY !