2020: Most Diverse Democrats Ever

[NeverTrump]

Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

• Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
• Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
• Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
• Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
• Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
• Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
• Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen:eace

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

1. I don't believe anything Tulsi Gabbard says, her background is horrifying.
It's not that I am gay, I'm straight, but her celebrated work on anti-gay measures lingers and her father's ultra-Right background and weird mixture of Hare Krishna gives me the heebie jeebies.

Iran is a bad actor, everyone knows, but it was in compliance with the terms of the Iran Deal, nevertheless Ms. Gabbard couldn't wait to applaud a pullout. Now there's no deal, therefore no need for compliance.

2. Cory Booker is big on heavy handed law enforcement and loves to protect Big Pharma drug price extortion, no thanks.

3. Pete Buttigieg might be great but he can't win, sorry.

4. I'll never ever forgive Kirsten Gillibrand for supporting the Roger Stone setup of Al Franken, because that is what it was.

5. Liz Warren - Excellent positions, lousy candidate, gets mixed up in the very kind of tar baby rhetorical nonsense Trump loves to dish out. She'll spend 90 percent of her time battling empty BS and lose, because you cannot out-BS a BS master.

6. Julian Castro - ?? I just don't know enough...yet. It would be hilarious to have "President Castro" though...a Democrat.

7. Kamala Harris - She might just do it.

8. Sherrod Brown, watch this space. He is definitely growing on me. He'll grow on a lot of you, too.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

• Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
• Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
• Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
• Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
• Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
• Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
• Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen:eace

Maybe finally straight white guys have figured out where we stand with the Left.

 

[NeverTrump]

1. I don't believe anything Tulsi Gabbard says, her background is horrifying.
It's not that I am gay, I'm straight, but her celebrated work on anti-gay measures lingers and her father's ultra-Right background and weird mixture of Hare Krishna gives me the heebie jeebies.

Iran is a bad actor, everyone knows, but it was in compliance with the terms of the Iran Deal, nevertheless Ms. Gabbard couldn't wait to applaud a pullout. Now there's no deal, therefore no need for compliance.

2. Cory Booker is big on heavy handed law enforcement and loves to protect Big Pharma drug price extortion, no thanks.

3. Pete Buttigieg might be great but he can't win, sorry.

4. I'll never ever forgive Kirsten Gillibrand for supporting the Roger Stone setup of Al Franken, because that is what it was.

5. Liz Warren - Excellent positions, lousy candidate, gets mixed up in the very kind of tar baby rhetorical nonsense Trump loves to dish out. She'll spend 90 percent of her time battling empty BS and lose, because you cannot out-BS a BS master.

6. Julian Castro - ?? I just don't know enough...yet. It would be hilarious to have "President Castro" though...a Democrat.

7. Kamala Harris - She might just do it.

8. Sherrod Brown, watch this space. He is definitely growing on me. He'll grow on a lot of you, too.

I agree pretty much with you here. Harris is by far the early favorite. I know lots of Bernie fanboys are out in force, and Biden's name rec could damage these relative newcomers. If either one enters the race this all could change, but honestly they shouldn't. Bernie is too old and his ideas already won over a lot of the party. As is Biden not to mention the Biden creepy factor and his own "colorful" past.

I don't know anything about Sherrod Brown, but I've heard mumblings from him, trying to break through. Nothing as impressive as what this group brings to the table though. After Booker it will be tough for someone else to break in I think. Brown could be the last and final one. With Biden and Bernie too, it'll be too big. I think Gabbard will be first to drop out. Then Warren.

I really like Buttigieg's message. He's on point and has a lot of new ideas my generation will like. I hope he has some breakout moments, but he's running a stealth campaign on Instagram/twitter which is already more popular than Gabbard pitiful social media attempt fueled by Russians.

 

[Crovax]

Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

• Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
• Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
• Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
• Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
• Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
• Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
• Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen:eace

Seems like diversity is still on the back burner. Right now Biden, Sanders, and Beto are 3 of the top 4 on the oddsmakers board

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I really like Buttigieg's message. He's on point and has a lot of new ideas my generation will like. I hope he has some breakout moments, but he's running a stealth campaign on Instagram/twitter which is already more popular than Gabbard pitiful social media attempt fueled by Russians.

I can like Buttigieg's message all I want but too many will just see a distortion: He wants to be the gay president.
Great but 2020 is not the time, wishing it was doesn't change that.

I skipped over Tulsi's "Russian problem" because I think the Russians will flit about looking everywhere. They just fixated on her first, that's all. She goes, they go...only they "go" to someone else next.

Biden? Are your student loans weighing on you? Thank him, because even if the school you went to turned out to be a diploma mill, Biden made sure you cannot recourse OR bankrupt out, for life.

Pot wars? He's the king of them. Mass incarceration and private prisons? Biden territory.

Bernie ran 2016 with the parking brake on, NEVER AGAIN. His ship has sailed. Hillary will never run again either.
Beto is very likable but not much substance. We do not need a messiah, we need a real resume with real results.

I do have some conservative views on some issues but I have to say, 2020 is not a time to have "moderate" views on things.
Moderate on water and air quality? What, you are okay with SOME dumping of coal waste in waterways, just not too much?
Moderate on abortions? What, you're okay with just "sort of" closing all the clinics and only destroying Planned Parenthood a little bit?
Moderate on charter schools? Oh, so you're okay with starving destitute schools only a little bit?
Moderate on a lot of issues boils down to not being willing to take a stand. FFS take a damn stand already.

 

[joko104]

Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

• Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
• Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
• Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
• Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
• Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
• Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
• Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen:eace

I have posted many times the vanishing breed in politics are liberal/progressive white straight males. Who wants them? Not the Democratic Party. Not the Republican Party.

 

[Nap]

Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

• Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
• Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
• Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
• Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
• Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
• Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
• Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen:eace

They may not have announced, but you can pretty much count on Biden, Beto, and Bernie to run and have the customary rich old white guys at the table.

You bring up diversity, but the only diversity that truly matters is diversity of thought and that is truly lacking among that bunch with the exception of Tulsi (at least on foriegn policy, she is pretty much cookie cutter progressive on domestic policy). Why do you put so much importance on their race and what is between their legs when that has literally nothing to do with the position?

 

[Nap]

1. I don't believe anything Tulsi Gabbard says, her background is horrifying.
It's not that I am gay, I'm straight, but her celebrated work on anti-gay measures lingers and her father's ultra-Right background and weird mixture of Hare Krishna gives me the heebie jeebies.

Iran is a bad actor, everyone knows, but it was in compliance with the terms of the Iran Deal, nevertheless Ms. Gabbard couldn't wait to applaud a pullout. Now there's no deal, therefore no need for compliance.

2. Cory Booker is big on heavy handed law enforcement and loves to protect Big Pharma drug price extortion, no thanks.

3. Pete Buttigieg might be great but he can't win, sorry.

4. I'll never ever forgive Kirsten Gillibrand for supporting the Roger Stone setup of Al Franken, because that is what it was.

5. Liz Warren - Excellent positions, lousy candidate, gets mixed up in the very kind of tar baby rhetorical nonsense Trump loves to dish out. She'll spend 90 percent of her time battling empty BS and lose, because you cannot out-BS a BS master.

6. Julian Castro - ?? I just don't know enough...yet. It would be hilarious to have "President Castro" though...a Democrat.

7. Kamala Harris - She might just do it.

8. Sherrod Brown, watch this space. He is definitely growing on me. He'll grow on a lot of you, too.

You should stop buying into the smear campaign against her and actually look at what she has done. She is a part of the LBGT equality caucus and a perfect voting record in regards to protecting the rights of LBGT people.

Edit: Tell me, who do you believe more: Someone like Obama or Hillary who flipped due to the rising popularity of the position, or someone that changed their position due to witnessing first hand the type of oppression caused under a theocratic regime? If anything I would have more faith in Tulsi than the majority of politicians out there on this issue.

 

[truthatallcost]

Dems are missing the bus once again. Tulsi Gabbard is the stand out winner of the bunch, for these reasons-

- Her military service would resonate with independents and women who are looking for a genuine person over another professional politician in the mold of HRC. Harris, Warren, and Booker all smack of being lifelong politicians with no life outside of Wonkville.

- Gabbard is a real progressive on many issues, not a flip flopper.

- Gabbard quit her position as second in command of the DNC over HRC's takeover which screwed Bernie Sanders in 2016, giving her a potential in with the Bernie supporters. If you Dems miss the significance of this in favor of picking another HRC prototype, you're blowing a significant opportunity.

- Gabbard appears serious about changing course on the ME, which again is a progressive standpoint. Poll numbers show waning interest in endless wars and endless aid to support Israel.

- Gabbard comes across as tough enough to handle the job, but while also having a humane side as well. If you guys elect to toss her aside over the gay conversion thing (which a Republican candidate can't really use against her in the general election anyway) & her family's religion, then you're throwing away your best candidate over trivial matters.

That's my take as someone who won't be voting D in 2020, so take it for what it's worth.

 

[Surrealistik]

Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

Policy is and should be of foremost and primary importance, not race, gender or sexual orientation, though diversity is certainly a nice thing to have all else being equal.

That said, definitely more than a bit mystified by many of the contents of that list, particularly the idea of Gillibrand having a 'working class platform' in particular vs other Dem prospectives (I don't see anything that especially stands out), Kamala's very mixed and checkered history at best as a prosecutor, and the assertion that Tulsi's campaign is 'a mess' (based on what? It hasn't even really begun), nevermind the dismissive write off of Warren as a candidate predicated on Bernie talking points; agreeing with someone on policy doesn't make you a talking point parrot, just so we're clear.

1. I don't believe anything Tulsi Gabbard says, her background is horrifying.
It's not that I am gay, I'm straight, but her celebrated work on anti-gay measures lingers and her father's ultra-Right background and weird mixture of Hare Krishna gives me the heebie jeebies.

Iran is a bad actor, everyone knows, but it was in compliance with the terms of the Iran Deal, nevertheless Ms. Gabbard couldn't wait to applaud a pullout. Now there's no deal, therefore no need for compliance.

7. Kamala Harris - She might just do it.

Also more than a tad mystified by this; so to be clear, you're willing to forgive Kamala's significant and disgusting past indiscretions as prosecutor (which she hasn't really atoned for) while holding Gabbard's anti-gay past above her very pro-gay contemporary voting record?

My staunch disagreements with you on Bernie and his chances have been repeatedly established.

On the plus side, I agree with you on Sherrod Brown; he's a good man and would make a fine candidate I wouldn't mind supporting should he become nominee.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You should stop buying into the smear campaign against her and actually look at what she has done. She is a part of the LBGT equality caucus and a perfect voting record in regards to protecting the rights of LBGT people.

Edit: Tell me, who do you believe more: Someone like Obama or Hillary who flipped due to the rising popularity of the position, or someone that changed their position due to witnessing first hand the type of oppression caused under a theocratic regime? If anything I would have more faith in Tulsi than the majority of politicians out there on this issue.

Obama isn't running, Hillary isn't running, and from what I've been able to see so far, she isn't enjoying as much support from the gay community as one would be led to believe. Also, I'd like to see more about her positions on other issues, since I am not a gay man or a single issue voter. In any case, she isn't putting in the work yet to get enough of her message on all issues in front of the people.
My position on Tulsi, like my position on others, may change in time.
The thread seems to want a snapshot right now, and I submitted my snapshot right now.
And my snapshot seems to find Sherrod Brown to be one of the more viable people.
Watch this space.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

• Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
• Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
• Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
• Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
• Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
• Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
• Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen:eace

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/6/conservatives-have-happiness-advantage-over-libera/

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Policy is and should be of foremost and primary importance, not race, gender or sexual orientation, though diversity is certainly a nice thing to have all else being equal.

That said, definitely more than a bit mystified by many of the contents of that list, particularly the idea of Gillibrand having a 'working class platform' in particular vs other Dem prospectives (I don't see anything that especially stands out), Kamala's very mixed and checkered history at best as a prosecutor, and the assertion that Tulsi's campaign is 'a mess' (based on what? It hasn't even really begun), nevermind the dismissive write off of Warren as a candidate predicated on Bernie talking points; agreeing with someone on policy doesn't make you a talking point parrot, just so we're clear.





Also more than a tad mystified by this; so to be clear, you're willing to forgive Kamala's significant and disgusting past indiscretions as prosecutor (which she hasn't really atoned for) while holding Gabbard's anti-gay past above her very pro-gay contemporary voting record?

My staunch disagreements with you on Bernie and his chances have been repeatedly established.

On the plus side, I agree with you on Sherrod Brown; he's a good man and would make a fine candidate I wouldn't mind supporting should he become nominee.

I just said to Nap that this is essentially a snapshot of "now" and my positions may change.
Now that you brought up what you say is "bad stuff" about Harris, off I go to go find it.
Hopefully if there's bad stuff, I can look it up. That might change my perception of Harris, but I have to keep in mind that prosecutors are all about bad stuff. They're also all about prosecuting people who DO bad stuff, so when they get it right, they can do a lot of good with a broom.
We have a lot of bad folks doing a lot of bad stuff in this country right now.
I didn't say I forgave Harris, I simply said "she just might do it", meaning she seems to have a lot of mojo.

As for Bernie, to clarify one more time, I do love the guy. I did love the guy, I did support him.
I just can't take one more "race with the parking brake on" in 2020.

Once again, this is a snapshot. We may see a bunch of skeletons come out of a bunch of closets, even Sherrod Brown's.
Right now though, he seems to be a pretty good egg. He's not even as liberal as I'd like on issues, like Medicare For All or single payer, but he seems to have some clever ideas on how to get there anyway through another door.

 

[code1211]

Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

• Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
• Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
• Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
• Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
• Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
• Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
• Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen:eace

A group of people with various genders and races walking in lock step to exactly the same tune all repeating one mindless mantra:

We hate!

This passes for diversity in the minds of the Liberal mind.

Interesting...

 

[digsbe]

Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

• Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
• Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
• Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
• Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
• Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
• Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
• Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen:eace

Here's the problem with "your party." They want diversity over merit because someone's genetic background somehow makes them more qualified than an "undesirable" white male with merited experiences? I'll vote for the best candidate, which at this time does not appear to be anyone in the Democrat party.

 

[Superfly]

Here's the problem with "your party." They want diversity over merit because someone's genetic background somehow makes them more qualified than an "undesirable" white male with merited experiences? I'll vote for the best candidate, which at this time does not appear to be anyone in the Democrat party.

Right, because Trump is so meritorious. He had no merit, yet he was elected, so why not people of color who already have more experience than him?

Sounds to me like you refuse diversity based on your idea of who has merit, as you are assuming those who are diverse couldn't possibly have merit.

Apparently, merit is very subjective. :roll:

 

[NeverTrump]

A group of people with various genders and races walking in lock step to exactly the same tune all repeating one mindless mantra:

We hate!

This passes for diversity in the minds of the Liberal mind.

Interesting...

Better than a group of Fox News watching, red capped, racist idiots all walking in lock step to exactly the same tune all repeating one mindless mantra:

Trump is God Emperor of the United States and can do no wrong. Build the Wall! MAGA!!!

This passes for conservative in the minds of conservatives?

Interesting...

 

[NeverTrump]

Here's the problem with "your party." They want diversity over merit because someone's genetic background somehow makes them more qualified than an "undesirable" white male with merited experiences? I'll vote for the best candidate, which at this time does not appear to be anyone in the Democrat party.

All of these people have more gov't experience and are more qualified than Trump.

 

[Dutch]

Here are my very basic thoughts on the 2020 race so far.

• Elizabeth Warren- older woman adapting Bernie Sanders talking points/ Holding Trump accountable
• Kirsten Gillibrand- Middle age woman, NY Senator, working class platform
• Sen. Cory Booker- single middle aged African American man, 420 platform, Is he still Spartacus?
• Kamala Harris- African American Woman, biggest glass ceiling ever, prosecutor, most impressive media blitz/campaign speech so far.
• Julián Castro- Latino male. Southwest. my dark horse candidate.
• Tulsi Gabbard- Hawaiian. Hindu. But campaign is a mess
• Pete Buttigieg- Married Gay Man. Youngest candidate. Message geared towards Millennials. Future leader of Democratic Party. VP/Whip?

There's something to be impressed about with each candidate that has officially entered the race in 2020. Each candidate brings something new and different and fresh to the table. And most importantly, according to all the polls, each one can beat Trump.

But what astounds me is that there are NO old straight white guys in the race yet. And in fact, another crazy billionaire (Schultz) has made the other old white guys take notice in their own party that maybe this should be the make-up of the race. A makeup that more represents our country than a bunch of old white guys talking about things that are out of touch with the majority of Americans.

I'm really proud of the lineup at this point in time and would be very angry with the Republicans who don't even seem to want anybody to attempt to primary Trump.

Maybe Conservatives would be less angry if they joined our party??? :mrgreen:eace

If the white working class became part of the Democratic voting base you guys would have to find a new scapegoat to hold the various Democratic voting demographics together.

The whole idea behind the Identity Politics concept is to play various demographics against each other.

In short, you need the white working class guys to keep scaring various the Democratic demographics into voting.........Democratic.

 

[digsbe]

All of these people have more gov't experience and are more qualified than Trump.

And they all support toxic, stupid policies I don't want to see implemented in our country while their party grows increasingly more hateful, racist, and economically illiterate.

 

[NeverTrump]

And they all support toxic, stupid policies I don't want to see implemented in our country while their party grows increasingly more hateful, racist, and economically illiterate.

You forgot to mention that's the republican party.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Surrealistik]

I just said to Nap that this is essentially a snapshot of "now" and my positions may change.
Now that you brought up what you say is "bad stuff" about Harris, off I go to go find it.
Hopefully if there's bad stuff, I can look it up. That might change my perception of Harris, but I have to keep in mind that prosecutors are all about bad stuff. They're also all about prosecuting people who DO bad stuff, so when they get it right, they can do a lot of good with a broom.
We have a lot of bad folks doing a lot of bad stuff in this country right now.
I didn't say I forgave Harris, I simply said "she just might do it", meaning she seems to have a lot of mojo.

As for Bernie, to clarify one more time, I do love the guy. I did love the guy, I did support him.
I just can't take one more "race with the parking brake on" in 2020.

Once again, this is a snapshot. We may see a bunch of skeletons come out of a bunch of closets, even Sherrod Brown's.
Right now though, he seems to be a pretty good egg. He's not even as liberal as I'd like on issues, like Medicare For All or single payer, but he seems to have some clever ideas on how to get there anyway through another door.

Fair enough.

On Sherrod Brown, what you said is why I would probably never vote for him as a candidate in the primaries particularly given some of the alternatives; as someone who has been otherwise so promising, and who I personally like, it especially pains and disappoints me that he is not willing to take that next step to MFA. Hopefully he changes his mind, but I rather doubt it. However, I would certainly vote for him as nominee vs Trump.

Concerning Kamala, a couple of excellent articles exploring her dubious history:

https://jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kamala-harris-trump-obama-california-attorney-general

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article224633700.html

Here's the problem with "your party." They want diversity over merit because someone's genetic background somehow makes them more qualified than an "undesirable" white male with merited experiences? I'll vote for the best candidate, which at this time does not appear to be anyone in the Democrat party.

Actually that's largely true of only a subset of the party; ironically the establishment side more than any other. I certainly don't (want diversity over merit), nor does the progressive wing of the party on the whole either: as a rule, we're more concerned about policy than skin tone and gender. Overall, we think this suffocating preoccupation with identity politics over substance and policy, as if they were somehow mutually exclusive, or the former took priority over the latter is absolute electoral poison.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Fair enough.

On Sherrod Brown, what you said is why I would probably never vote for him as a candidate in the primaries particularly given some of the alternatives; as someone who has been otherwise so promising, and who I personally like, it especially pains and disappoints me that he is not willing to take that next step to MFA. Hopefully he changes his mind, but I rather doubt it. However, I would certainly vote for him as nominee vs Trump.

Thanks for the pro tip and heads up on Kamala. I'll read them all with great gusto.

I think you might have missed something I said about Sherrod Brown, though.

I said that he seems to have a clever way of getting Medicare For All through a back door.
In another thread I said that it reminded me of a speeded up version of state by state pot legalization.
It seems he wants to start by incrementalism, opening up Medicare buy in and enrollment to 50 year olds, then after a while, rolling back the age to 45, then maybe 40. At some point the dam breaks and we're finally IN Medicare For All because by that time people understand that it's actually working very well.

It isn't that I want that more than just going for it all, it's that I am weighing the possibility of one versus the other as far as their chances of actually getting enacted into law, and in today's environment it is much more likely, at least right now, that Brown's sneak attack might win a lot of people over, enough that eventually everyone will get why M4A is a good idea and just welcome the whole magilla.

So it seems like it would boil down to whether we want to engage in another protracted eight year war to get it all at once or just go with the age rollback for starters and let everyone dip their toe in the water so they can see that alligators did not bite their feet off after all. I believe it would be EXTREMELY difficult to fight an age rollback to 50 year olds. It is a fight that is realistically able to succeed even in certain split legislatures.

For the record, Sherrod Brown says he would PREFER to just go all in right now, it's just that he is IN Congress and doesn't know if it has a chance. Remember, he saw what happened to the Public Option.

 

[Surrealistik]

Thanks for the pro tip and heads up on Kamala. I'll read them all with great gusto.

I think you might have missed something I said about Sherrod Brown, though.

I said that he seems to have a clever way of getting Medicare For All through a back door.
In another thread I said that it reminded me of a speeded up version of state by state pot legalization.
It seems he wants to start by incrementalism, opening up Medicare buy in and enrollment to 50 year olds, then after a while, rolling back the age to 45, then maybe 40. At some point the dam breaks and we're finally IN Medicare For All because by that time people understand that it's actually working very well.

I've learned not to trust people who talk about incrementalist alternatives, especially when they have no clear, laid out roadmap to their supposed endgame, taking it essentially on faith that they will pull through and ultimately deliver; it rarely ends well. Since Obama, there is no faith left here: you're either for something, or you're not, and if you are, you better have the history to prove it, full stop. What I do know is the man has dubbed, and stridently at that, MFA to be unfeasible and unworkable, which is a pretty insurmountable red flag, and he has only really gone so far as Clinton's painfully unambitious 'Medicare at 55'. On this issue he is essentially a Hillary analogue, which is unacceptable as a primary candidate goes.

It isn't that I want that more than just going for it all, it's that I am weighing the possibility of one versus the other as far as their chances of actually getting enacted into law, and in today's environment it is much more likely, at least right now, that Brown's sneak attack might win a lot of people over, enough that eventually everyone will get why M4A is a good idea and just welcome the whole magilla.

When I see compelling evidence that it's a back door as opposed to a can kick, or half-hearted attempt at compromise, I might be more inclined to agree with this take. You might be right that it broadens the appeal/popularity of MFA and further shifts the Overton window on it, but MFA is already popular enough with even a solid majority of polled Republicans supporting it at this time, and I unfortunately see no proof or meaningful insinuation that full MFA adoption is the end game, and this is really some form of 3-d chess.

So it seems like it would boil down to whether we want to engage in another protracted eight year war to get it all at once or just go with the age rollback for starters and let everyone dip their toe in the water so they can see that alligators did not bite their feet off after all. I believe it would be EXTREMELY difficult to fight an age rollback to 50 year olds. It is a fight that is realistically able to succeed even in certain split legislatures.

For the record, Sherrod Brown says he would PREFER to just go all in right now, it's just that he is IN Congress and doesn't know if it has a chance. Remember, he saw what happened to the Public Option.

Yeah, I remember what happened to the public option: insurance shill blowhard and snake Joe Lieberman stopped it dead cold as he was handsomely paid to do, and neither Obama nor anyone else in the Dem party really tried to compel him to change his vote, whether by stick or carrot; it was both embarrassing and infuriating and one of the pivotal moments that forever changed how I view the interest driven cesspit Washington has become.

As anyone will tell you in any relevant field, and as I experience daily in my profession, in any negotiation, you start strong, aim high, and go from there, not at what you can expect to get, even if you feel it's as modest as Medicare at 55. Best to keep this MFA momentum going, demand the world, and receive something far better in return than if we had asked for relative crumbs in the first place.