Candidates for 2020 elections.

[BmorePat87]

(01-12-2019, 03:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A good candidate if he had more name recognition.

Jon Huntsman knows a lot about that

[BmorePat87]

Tulsi Gabbard has a pretty antigay past. RIP Gabbard campaign

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/kfile-tulsi-gabbard-lgbt/index.html

[*bfine32*]

(01-14-2019, 05:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Tulsi Gabbard has a pretty antigay past. RIP Gabbard campaign

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/13/politics/kfile-tulsi-gabbard-lgbt/index.html

IDK, Obama was against SSM when he was first elected. Gabbard changed her views over 6 years ago. 

[BmorePat87]

(01-14-2019, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK, Obama was against SSM when he was first elected. Gabbard changed her views over 6 years ago. 

I think public perception has changed a lot since then, so someone who is billing themselves as a progressive is under a lot more scrutiny than someone would have been 12 years ago. 

But there's a big difference between them. Obama supported civil unions and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act. He did oppose same sex marriage, though.

 Gabbard opposed civil unions and supported her father's group that outright demonized gay people. She even said things like "This war of deception and hatred against my mom is being waged by homosexual activists because they know, that if elected, she will not allow them to force their values down the throats of the children in our schools". 

I fully believe someone's views can make complete 180's and I support people who make amends for their past. I don't think, however, the public perception will be as forgiving with this. 

[Belsnickel]

(01-14-2019, 05:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK, Obama was against SSM when he was first elected. Gabbard changed her views over 6 years ago. 

Obama's anti-SSM views weren't something he bragged about, though. There are some other things that won't go over well with her ideology. She's not going to make it very far

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-14-2019, 06:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think public perception has changed a lot since then, so someone who is billing themselves as a progressive is under a lot more scrutiny than someone would have been 12 years ago. 

This right here is why it's going to be near impossible to find a Democratic nominee that I'll be able to vote for.  Ideological purity is paramount and anything less than full compliance makes you reprehensible.

[*jason*]

(01-11-2019, 10:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Gabbard announcing has me thinking: do you think the US is willing to vote for a non-Christian POTUS? I ask because that has been a big thing for a long time where public opinion polling has indicated a non-Christian POTUS would not be happening. Do you think that has changed enough for a Hindu to be elected?

There's a non Christian in the White House right now.

[Belsnickel]

(01-14-2019, 06:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This right here is why it's going to be near impossible to find a Democratic nominee that I'll be able to vote for.  Ideological purity is paramount and anything less than full compliance makes you reprehensible.

There are a lot of us that are trying to push hard against the ideological purity thing. You're going to see those sorts of attacks from the Bernie contingent (which is ironic) and the DSA types when it comes to other candidates. For Gabbard, it is less about ideological purity and more about questions on what her ideology actually is. There's a lot of right-wing in her, including her fondness for Modi of India, who is a right-wing nationalist.

[Belsnickel]

(01-14-2019, 06:48 PM)jason Wrote: There's a non Christian in the White House right now.

I don't disagree, but he claims to be a Christian and is perceived as such. Gabbard is Hindu.

[BmorePat87]

(01-14-2019, 06:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This right here is why it's going to be near impossible to find a Democratic nominee that I'll be able to vote for.  Ideological purity is paramount and anything less than full compliance makes you reprehensible.

The deep end of the progressive wing is far more guilty of doing this than your party establishment voters, but... they're also notorious for defending their own against any and all attacks, executing mental gymnastics to excuse things that they previously wouldn't have excused. 

Bernie Bros were notoriously misogynistic and do not think complaints of rampant sexual harassment in the Bernie campaign should be tied even in the slightest to Bernie. Likewise, I ironically expect the more rabid progressives to defend Gabbard for things they attacked Hillary viciously for as the rest of the party rejects her. 

[*Nately120*]

(01-14-2019, 06:48 PM)jason Wrote: There's a non Christian in the White House right now.

Please, other than him not using an actual rope for a belt belt I can't see the difference between Trump and a legitimate saint.

(01-14-2019, 06:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree, but he claims to be a Christian and is perceived as such. Gabbard is Hindu.

That's all we need, the government forcing us to worship some blue thing. The only blue guy I worship is Gonzo.

[*bfine32*]

Looks like Gillibrand is throwing her hat into the ring:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/ap-sources-gillibrand-moving-toward-2020-bid-coming-204209519--election.html

KG used to be more toward the center, but has taken a sharp turn to the Left recently.

[Belsnickel]

(01-14-2019, 06:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Bernie Bros were notoriously misogynistic and do not think complaints of rampant sexual harassment in the Bernie campaign should be tied even in the slightest to Bernie. Likewise, I ironically expect the more rabid progressives to defend Gabbard for things they attacked Hillary viciously for as the rest of the party rejects her. 

The local Bernie Bros contingent around here has already moved to disavow her, which is why I don't think she'll be going anywhere. We're a Bernie stronghold in this city, so I interact with a lot of those types at local Democrat things, and all of them are against her that I have encountered.

[GMDino]

(01-14-2019, 08:10 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Please, other than him not using an actual rope for a belt belt I can't see the difference between Trump and a legitimate saint.



That's all we need, the government forcing us to worship some blue thing.  The only blue guy I worship is Gonzo.

We in the Reformed Muppet Church recognize Gonzo as Purple.  Please respect our views you blasphemer.  

[BmorePat87]

(01-15-2019, 09:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The local Bernie Bros contingent around here has already moved to disavow her, which is why I don't think she'll be going anywhere. We're a Bernie stronghold in this city, so I interact with a lot of those types at local Democrat things, and all of them are against her that I have encountered.

I've seen the opposite on Facebook. "She has a 100% voting record", "She's part of the LGBTQ caucus", etc. 

[fredtoast]

(01-14-2019, 06:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This right here is why it's going to be near impossible to find a Democratic nominee that I'll be able to vote for.  Ideological purity is paramount and anything less than full compliance makes you reprehensible.

I see something similar happening to the Dems as happened when the Tea Party crowd coined the term RINO.

[Belsnickel]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/15/democratic-2020-president-candidates-wall-street?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR0TPfspLWzSef947Nze6IPnnpnb7s_rXHDUir3Q-ZeZS2GD9BjgnEyg69A

Quote:It’s a framing that’s been everywhere over the past two years: the Resistance v Donald Trump. By some definitions that “resistance” even includes people like Mitt Romney and George W Bush. By almost all definitions it encompasses mainstream Democrats, such as the likely presidential hopefuls Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand.

In their rhetoric and policy advocacy, this trio has been steadily moving to the left to keep pace with a leftward-moving Democratic party. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand know that voters demand action and are more supportive than ever of Medicare for All and universal childcare.
Gillibrand, long considered a moderate, has even gone as far as to endorse abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) and, along with Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders’ single-payer healthcare bill. Harris has also backed universal healthcare and free college tuition for most Americans.
Advertisement

But outward appearances aren’t everything. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have been making a very different pitch of late – on Wall Street. According to CNBC, all three potential candidates have been reaching out to financial executives lately, including Blackstone’s Jonathan Gray, Robert Wolf from 32 Advisors and the Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly.

I think this is a lesson not learned. Trump didn't win the popular election, but he and Sanders garnered more enthusiasm than Clinton in large part due to their messaging that was more in favor of the middle-class. Regardless of whether the policies since then by the administration have followed through on that, the messaging is what got the enthusiasm. By running first to Wall Street, these three are showing that they didn't learn the important lesson from 2016, that the people are tired of Wall Street having the influence it does.

[BmorePat87]

(01-16-2019, 10:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/15/democratic-2020-president-candidates-wall-street?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR0TPfspLWzSef947Nze6IPnnpnb7s_rXHDUir3Q-ZeZS2GD9BjgnEyg69A


I think this is a lesson not learned. Trump didn't win the popular election, but he and Sanders garnered more enthusiasm than Clinton in large part due to their messaging that was more in favor of the middle-class. Regardless of whether the policies since then by the administration have followed through on that, the messaging is what got the enthusiasm. By running first to Wall Street, these three are showing that they didn't learn the important lesson from 2016, that the people are tired of Wall Street having the influence it does.

Court blue collar and middle class voters and paint Trump as being too tied to Wall Street and the elites. 

"Instead of tax relief for middle America, Donald Trump gave his friends on Wall Street big tax breaks"

"Donald Trump's trade wars have meant layoffs and higher costs for working families"

[*bfine32*]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/sen-kamala-harris-announces-she-run-president-2020-123603372--abc-news-topstories.html

Surprise, surprise..Kamala Harris throws her hat into the ring.

[Au165]

This group seems like a whole lot of suck. I'm hoping there is a late entrant that can get people excited.