2020 Presidential Election

[dark_crystal]

It's time.

First concern: Elizabeth Breunig (WaPo Opinion pages) tweeted "everyone saying 'coordinated attack from Bernieland [on Beto]' better be able to put their money where their mouth is" in response to a dude claiming people "view Beto as a threat to Sanders 2020 prospects."

I voted for both of them and i am not trying to discuss whether the claims of a coordinated attack are true or whether concerns about Beto's history and connections are valid...

i am asking "how do we not do this again?"

How do we not fracture in the face of fascism again?

If the answer is "the Dems have to not put up a capitalist/cop/warmonger again" what is the plan for when they inevitably do? When they put up Kamala Harris (cop), Eric Holder (cop), Joe Biden (warmonger, sexist).

Who is going to be the Jill Stein or the Green Party? Is there a DSA candidate?

I will start helping them now AND help Joe Ohnopleaseno Biden

[kittygrrl]

It's time.

First concern: Elizabeth Breunig (WaPo Opinion pages) tweeted "everyone saying 'coordinated attack from Bernieland [on Beto]' better be able to put their money where their mouth is" in response to a dude claiming people "view Beto as a threat to Sanders 2020 prospects."

I voted for both of them and i am not trying to discuss whether the claims of a coordinated attack are true or whether concerns about Beto's history and connections are valid...

i am asking "how do we not do this again?"


How do we not fracture in the face of fascism again?

If the answer is "the Dems have to not put up a capitalist/cop/warmonger again" what is the plan for when they inevitably do? When they put up Kamala Harris (cop), Eric Holder (cop), Joe Biden (warmonger, sexist).

Who is going to be the Jill Stein or the Green Party? Is there a DSA candidate?

I will start helping them now AND help Joe Ohnopleaseno Biden

i have to admit i'm so desperate to not have another round of Trump i'd vote for(just about) anyone else...notwithstanding, your descriptions of current democratic candidates, make my stomach turn..i don't want a milder version of Trump..i want someone totally different..i don't want a Soviet lover(ie, Jill S) either..no,no god no!!...so i have (about) two years to figure it out..i will read this thread with interest and try to stay calm-thanks

[Martina]

I'll let them fight it out as long as they don't cheat. I would vote for Kamala, but not Corey Booker and certainly not Eric Fucking Holder, the man who wanted the right to assassinate US citizens on American soil. If I am healthy enough to campaign, I will campaign for Bernie. I will certainly donate to Bernie. I would also vote for Elizabeth Warren. Biden is better than Obama was, but he's a mainstream Dem. But if he wins the primary, I'd vote for him. If Hillary were to get the nomination this time, I would not vote for her again. I'd just leave it blank.

People who start attacking progressives can kiss my fat white ass. Trump needs to go, but it's on the Dems to field a candidate who is not a corporate pawn. BTW, Corey Booker is.

Edited to add: I would also like someone who can kick ass. Sweet little Bernie can. Kamala can. Warren can. I think Biden can. Holder can, but he's a piece of shit. Corey Booker has kissed way more ass than he has ever kicked.

[Andrea]

Bernie was my guy the last Presidential election but i reluctantly voted for Hillary. She lost my vote, and my respect, when she stated Monica Lewinsky wasn't a victim of abuse of power because she was an adult. :|

i waver on who i want to back in 2020 because i think we have so many good options, but i also know the bar is set really, really low.

Biden has the experience to hit the ground running and the relationships to help heal some of the destruction currently happening.

Warren may make a good President but she is also needed where she is.

Others i am watching are Castro, O'Rourke, and Bernie.

Oh how i miss Obama. :(

[dark_crystal]

I'll let them fight it out as long as they don't cheat. I would vote for Kamala, but not Corey Booker and certainly not Eric Fucking Holder, the man who wanted the right to assassinate US citizens on American soil. If I am healthy enough to campaign, I will campaign for Bernie. I will certainly donate to Bernie. I would also vote for Elizabeth Warren. Biden is better than Obama was, but he's a mainstream Dem. But if he wins the primary, I'd vote for him. If Hillary were to get the nomination this time, I would not vote for her again. I'd just leave it blank.

People who start attacking progressives can kiss my fat white ass. Trump needs to go, but it's on the Dems to field a candidate who is not a corporate pawn. BTW, Corey Booker is.

Edited to add: I would also like someone who can kick ass. Sweet little Bernie can. Kamala can. Warren can. I think Biden can. Holder can, but he's a piece of shit. Corey Booker has kissed way more ass than he has ever kicked.

Ass-kicking: YES. I liked Beto for Texas but he is way too cute and cuddly for POTUS

Bernie was my guy the last Presidential election but i reluctantly voted for Hillary. She lost my vote, and my respect, when she stated Monica Lewinsky wasn't a victim of abuse of power because she was an adult. :|

i waver on who i want to back in 2020 because i think we have so many good options, but i also know the bar is set really, really low.

Biden has the experience to hit the ground running and the relationships to help heal some of the destruction currently happening.

Warren may make a good President but she is also needed where she is.

Others i am watching are Castro, O'Rourke, and Bernie.

Oh how i miss Obama. :(

YES. I have only voted for any Clinton two times (92 general, 16 general) out of six chances (92 primary, 92 general, 96 general, 12 primary, 16 primary, 16 general), so my expectations were always low, but she can fuck all the way off after that Lewinsky comment.

[Orema]

I think Hillary is more qualified than any other contenders and, if she runs again, she will most likely get my vote before anyone else ... particularly Biden. The best I have to say about Biden is that he’d be better than the current occupant in the WH.

As usual, I will vote for the Democratic nominee—whomever it is, even if i have to hold my nose while doing it, but my preference is a woman or a person of color.

[Martina]

Biden has a long track record so we can see a lot of mistakes made in different times, but if he had been the nominee in 2016, Trump would not be President. The thing about Biden to me is even though he did some of the same shit I can't forgive Bill Clinton for, because he is not the complete cynical power monger Bill and even Hillary could be, I can get past it. Biden is a relatively decent person, something no aware person could ever say about Bill Clinton.

For a mainstream Dem, Biden has done right by unions. Bill Clinton made his career out of destroying them. There's a world of difference there. When Bill started seeing that Hillary was losing working people, he basically said to her campaign, you can fool these folks. I have. The only President who has done more harm than Clinton in my lifetime is Reagan. And I include Trump and W. It's true that Biden participated in the harms done in the Clinton era, especially his support for mass incarceration. But I think he is redeemed (barely) by his support for unions and by the fact that he is not, at his core, a cynical asshole.

[Martina]

The Clintons and unions in Arkansas. From the beginning . . .
https://www.lawcha.org/2016/11/23/bill-clinton-remade-democratic-party-abandoning-unions-working-class-whites/

[dark_crystal]

I think Hillary is more qualified than any other contenders and, if she runs again, she will most likely get my vote before anyone else ... particularly Biden. The best I have to say about Biden is that he’d be better than the current occupant in the WH.

As usual, I will vote for the Democratic nominee—whomever it is, even if i have to hold my nose while doing it, but my preference is a woman or a person of color.

I think that’s my issue with Biden— there has to be someone just as strong who isn’t yet another white man. I would support the hell out of Harris but I know there are progressives who don’t like her law-and-order vibe. She’s fierce, though, and ruthlessly articulate. She would be my first choice, then Warren.

Biden does have appeal for his long history, though. Like, any bombshells there are in his past were found long ago. We would know exactly what we were getting, with him.

[Martina]

Re Kamala, I would be so happy to have someone who cares about the rule of law after this law breaking motherfucker. I lived in California when she was AG. I loved her.

But my first choice is Bernie. I love him. He changed the world. He made the Dems take economic inequality seriously. Well that and losing to Trump. Dumb ass motherfuckers. Hillary's recent statement about immigration in Europe just showed who she is and always has been. She wants to placate the center right no matter what principle gets sacrificed. That's the Clinton MO. They don't get that it doesn't work anymore.

I have never cared about having a woman President. It doesn't mean much to me. I was glad that Obama was elected. I do think it mattered having a person of color in that office. Will it matter when a woman is elected? Some. But it depends on who. I don't like to think of what type of person felt empowered by Margaret Thatcher or is inspired by Teresa May.

[dark_crystal]

Re Kamala, I would be so happy to have someone who cares about the rule of law after this law breaking motherfucker. I lived in California when she was AG. I loved her.

But my first choice is Bernie. I love him. He changed the world. He made the Dems take economic inequality seriously. Well that and losing to Trump. Dumb ass motherfuckers. Hillary's recent statement about immigration in Europe just showed who she is and always has been. She wants to placate the center right no matter what principle gets sacrificed. That's the Clinton MO. They don't get that it doesn't work anymore.

I have never cared about having a woman President. It doesn't mean much to me. I was glad that Obama was elected. I do think it mattered having a person of color in that office. Will it matter when a woman is elected? Some. But it depends on who. I don't like to think of what type of person felt empowered by Margaret Thatcher or is inspired by Teresa May.

I would love for Bernie to get the nomination. I think that would be a high-energy, very positive, very clear campaign. I say "clear" because the choice voters would be making would be very sharply defined. Would definitely be an end to the "basically-Republican-except-not-bigoted" vibe that Clinton went with-- and which i think would be a temptation for Biden and Harris.

And here i have to indict myself because part of the appeal of a Bernie campaign, to me, is that he is a white man. He will be painted as a Socialist, and Socialism is scary, and having those proposals delivered by a white man makes them less scary to other white men. That represents a huge opportunity to have a national conversation about very bold ideas, and it is just a fact that such proposals will be taken more seriously coming from a white man.

Of course, all that would happen then is that the Republicans will try to pull his white card by dog-whistling Antisemitism.

The piece i was looking at when i made the OP was Five Thirty-eight: Who’s Behaving Like A 2020 Presidential Candidate (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whos-behaving-like-a-2020-presidential-candidate/)

It has a list of people who are "behaving like" they plan to run, with 7 "behaviors" indicated and a score based on who has done them.

These are the indicators:

VISITED IOWA
VISITED N.H.
VISITED S.C.
BOOK
POLL
MAGAZINE PROFILE
CAMPAIGNED

Bernie is the only one who has hit all 7, then Biden with 6, then Booker/Bullock/Castro, etc with 5

I haven't done a deep dive on either Castro, but here in Texas they are seen as Mexican Betos. Bullock seems ok but not exciting.

[Martina]

I saw Rahm Emanuel on David Axelrod's show last night. I would bet money he's running. He's a fighter, but a mainstream Dem with a questionable record of success. If he runs, you will really see the Republicans dog-whistling anti-Semitism.

[dark_crystal]

The question in my original post was about a plan B in case the Democrats make a disappointing choice that causes progressives to peel off again.

Rather than screaming at each other about whether we should or should not be supporting the lesser of two evils, like last time, i want to figure out what steps can be taken preemptively so that there is a structure that could support a breakaway movement that would be believably viable to the Democratic base.

It was messy last time-- some people supported Stein and some people supported a Bernie write-in and the fracture itself seemed fractured. The plan B was improvised and there was no time to build momentum underneath it by the time we realized we needed one.

The DSA has been doing amazing things here in Houston-- they were very visible in Harvey relief and there is considerable goodwill from that.

Can they support a Presidential campaign? Do they want to? Their model is very bottom-up. If Sanders is shut out of the nomination and decides to run as an Independent, can the DSA provide infrastructure for that?

The word "President" is not mentioned on their Electoral committee page.

[Martina]

Now that would be an interesting election.

Truly I think any non-Clinton Democrat will beat Trump. Not everyone believes that, but I do. I think the Dems would have to make an egregious choice to mobilize progressives enough for your scenario. But I don't put it past them.

I know Hillary is considering a run. Given the progressive victories in the midterm, I just can't imagine the Dems would be stupid enough to consider her. There was a big gasp after she made that comment about European immigrants. I think people know she's part of the past.

Biden is the most likely mainstream Dem, and because of his union politics, I think he is marginally palatable to the left. I could be wrong.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I watched Senator Amy Klobuchar on “The Rachael Maddow show” recently; she is considering a campaign, and figures that the field of likely candidates will be more than 20 to start.

I’m with Martina on how outstanding a President Kamala Harris would make; she is strong and confident and knows the law. She was an excellent AG for California and would be someone I would have faith in to run this country. Hillary Clinton? Fuck Hillary Clinton and the horse she road in on. She was unable to win before because she’s an arrogant white elitist, with no concept of what middle America (or real people) cares about.

Bernie? You know, I STILL think Bernie is a great Senator, but I don’t think he is President material. In any case, (and it shows my prejudice) NO MORE OLD WHITE MEN!!! :praying:

[MsTinkerbelly]

Whoops! I didn’t see the direction you were leading the discussion in...sorry!

[dark_crystal]

Emmanuel is being roasted on twitter today bc he said Trump was a good politician in the Axelrod interview.

I would have voted for Biden with stars in my eyes the night he did that interview with Colbert where they discussed the loss of his son.

[dark_crystal]

Whoops! I didn’t see the direction you were leading the discussion in...sorry!

You’re cool! That q is not the thread topic, just the concern that prompted me to start the thread

[Martina]

I would have voted for Biden with stars in my eyes the night he did that interview with Colbert where they discussed the loss of his son.

Some of the reason I have a soft spot for Biden may be that his son died of the same disease that killed my mother: glioblastoma. It's a horrible disease, almost 100% fatal. My mom lived a little longer than his son did. They both had the average trajectory of about a year and a half. Treatment, a few months of remission that give you hope, and the inevitable unbeatable recurrence. It's brutal. As I am sure you know, McCain also passed away from it. I feel something of a bond with people who've lost family members to it.

[Martina]

What do you think of Bloomberg as the Democratic candidate?

www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/12/06/michael-bloomberg-2020-iowa-democrats-1048159

I can't imagine him getting through the primaries, but if he did, his candidacy might be one that would provoke the "dark_crystal scenario."

[cathexis]

What do you think of Bloomberg as the Democratic candidate?

www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/12/06/michael-bloomberg-2020-iowa-democrats-1048159

I can't imagine him getting through the primaries, but if he did, his candidacy might be one that would provoke the "dark_crystal scenario."

Chuck Schumer would also be a great candidate, but unfortunately I think right now when the country thinks of NY, Trump immediately comes to mind. Many people already think all NYers are of similar disposition and trustworthiness as him. Think we need someone that Mid-America can identify with. Not sure who, though.

[Martina]

Oh I did not mean to suggest I thought Bloomberg would be a good candidate.

Chuck Schumer pretty much typifies establishment Dem. I think he might tip the progressives over to third part thinking too. I haven't seen signs that he's running.

[dark_crystal]

What do you think of Bloomberg as the Democratic candidate?

www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/12/06/michael-bloomberg-2020-iowa-democrats-1048159

I can't imagine him getting through the primaries, but if he did, his candidacy might be one that would provoke the "dark_crystal scenario."

Bloomberg looks good on a lot of issues as long as you pretend not to notice the gigantic Wall Street monkey on his back.

I think a Bloomberg candidacy would trigger Trump very badly, as Bloomberg has quadruple the wealth Trump claims.

I think it would be interesting, in the case of both Bloomberg and Sanders, to see what the GOP does against a Jewish candidate. In the Obama years, we saw a whole bunch of racism come out of the woodwork that we thought had been exorcised in the 60s.

With a Jewish dem. nominee, will we find out we had vastly underestimated Holocaust deniers (lol yes)? A lot of holocaust denial and general Antisemitism has already emerged under Trump, think how much more would emerge with Trump running against a Jewish billionaire who actually is everything Trump pretends to be-- and Trump's so-called Christianity is the only place he diverges form Bloomberg.

I also looked into Klobuchar. It was not a deep dive (Wikipedia), but she does not seem like she is very far to the left of Clinton. I think running her would be like running Clinton minus the baggage. Maybe that will turn out to be what people want.

One thing i learned about myself over the past 3-4 years is that i do not vote as a progressive or as a centrist, i exclusively vote as A Gay. My choice is always the choice that makes us the safest. This is why i didn't "peel off" last time, despite having rejected every Clinton in every primary they were ever in. It's why i am so worried about a peel-off movement in 2020. Peel-off movements endanger minorities.

As long as you have one huge party that pays lip service to minorities and one huge party that welcomes people who want queers executed, there is going to be a natural ceiling on how far an insurgency from the left can go. We are not going to see a viable third party on the left until minorities feel they can abandon the democratic party without risking their lives.

[cathexis]

Oh I did not mean to suggest I thought Bloomberg would be a good candidate.

Chuck Schumer pretty much typifies establishment Dem. I think he might tip the progressives over to third part thinking too. I haven't seen signs that he's running.

Was just thinking of Dems that might have a prayer of a chance in a primary against Biden. Yup, no signs of Schumer running. Just trying to think of a Dem with good PR skills and assertive enough to pull us out of this mess we're in with allies and Russia.

He's fits that bill, but then again so does Schiff. No signs of him running either, but he has made it a point to stay in the public eye. If Bernie runs in any party, Schumer wouldn't run against his buddy anyway.

Biden is the Dems ticket to win. There were a lot of folks that wished the Amendment against 3rd termers didn't exist.

Not saying I would want to vote Dem again. Last election got burned or should say blindsided.

[cathexis]

Bloomberg looks good on a lot of issues as long as you pretend not to notice the gigantic Wall Street monkey on his back.

I think a Bloomberg candidacy would trigger Trump very badly, as Bloomberg has quadruple the wealth Trump claims.

I think it would be interesting, in the case of both Bloomberg and Sanders, to see what the GOP does against a Jewish candidate. In the Obama years, we saw a whole bunch of racism come out of the woodwork that we thought had been exorcised in the 60s.

With a Jewish dem. nominee, will we find out we had vastly underestimated Holocaust deniers (lol yes)? A lot of holocaust denial and general Antisemitism has already emerged under Trump, think how much more would emerge with Trump running against a Jewish billionaire who actually is everything Trump pretends to be-- and Trump's so-called Christianity is the only place he diverges form Bloomberg.

I also looked into Klobuchar. It was not a deep dive (Wikipedia), but she does not seem like she is very far to the left of Clinton. I think running her would be like running Clinton minus the baggage. Maybe that will turn out to be what people want.

One thing i learned about myself over the past 3-4 years is that i do not vote as a progressive or as a centrist, i exclusively vote as A Gay. My choice is always the choice that makes us the safest. This is why i didn't "peel off" last time, despite having rejected every Clinton in every primary they were ever in. It's why i am so worried about a peel-off movement in 2020. Peel-off movements endanger minorities.

As long as you have one huge party that pays lip service to minorities and one huge party that welcomes people who want queers executed, there is going to be a natural ceiling on how far an insurgency from the left can go. We are not going to see a viable third party on the left until minorities feel they can abandon the democratic party without risking their lives.

Which minority group do we endanger this time around?
The right is poised for a big leap at the country.
Anyone hear something about a left wing insurgency?

Maybe we can get the Fourth International possibility resurrected again (wishful thinking on my part).

[dark_crystal]

I haven't done a deep dive on either Castro, but here in Texas they are seen as Mexican Betos. Bullock seems ok but not exciting.

Both Castros will be on Colbert this Thursday

[Martina]

CNN is talking about Julian Castro. In passing, one woman said there were going to be 31 Democrats running. Wow.

[dark_crystal]

Alexander Bolton, The Hill: Trump shock leaves Republicans anxious over 2019 (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/421133-gop-anxiety-grows-after-seeing-negotiating-tactics-from-trump)

Republican lawmakers are struggling to coordinate their message with President Trump heading into a divided Congress after he pulled the rug out from them once again by declaring he would be “proud” to shut down the government.

Trump shocked Republicans, who were preparing to blame Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) for a potential partial shutdown, when he said he would take sole responsibility for shuttering federal agencies if Congress doesn’t meet his demand for $5 billion in wall funding.

<snip>

Trump’s theatrics left GOP lawmakers dumbfounded, and they pressed Vice President Pence at a Tuesday lunch for an explanation of Trump’s off-script swerve.

But Pence could only tell GOP lawmakers that “it was an interesting conversation,” according to senators in the room.

When asked what the president’s game plan was to get out of what many GOP lawmakers see as a blind alley, Pence told senators that a solution has yet to emerge.

It’s been conventional wisdom in Washington since the shutdown battles of the mid-1990s that the party seen at fault suffers the most political damage.

“It doesn’t help with the messaging because we’ve spent the last 20 years trying to figure out how not to get labeled with the blame for a shutdown,” said one Republican senator.

<snip>

Senate Republicans said coordination with the White House will be especially important in the 116th Congress because Trump will be at the top of the ballot in 2020, when the GOP will have to defend 22 seats in the upper chamber — more than twice as many as in 2018.

“The backlash against Trump could be even bigger with him on the ballot, even though it was big in this last election,” said a second GOP senator, who pointed to the Democrats’ dominance in suburban areas in last month’s midterm elections.

How certain do we feel that Trump will be at the top of the 2020 Ticket? What if it's Pence?

Sanders Vs Pence, Biden Vs Pence, Harris vs Pence, Beto vs Pence, Castro vs Pence

I feel like any one of them could make his head explode.

[dark_crystal]

CThink we need someone that Mid-America can identify with. Not sure who, though.

I feel like Bernie should have some appeal, but it seems like Bullock could also do well in Iowa

[Lyte]

Dear God... I hope not! :blink: For the sake of the party and the country... she needs to ride off into the sunset and be done with elected office.


I know Hillary is considering a run.

[dark_crystal]

Both Castros will be on Colbert this Thursday

All i can find to say about their appearance on Colbert is that they were very cute

[CherylNYC]

We always shred ourselves and each other looking for the perfect, pure candidate. We do such a good job that the conservatives don't have to do much to scoop up a win. They just show up looking coherent and well dressed while our people are still staggering up, trying to wipe up the mud we've slung at each other, and then our opportunity is gone. 'Perfect' is the enemy of 'good'. That said, I have my doubts about the below candidates we've been discussing.

Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, and almost but not quite Cory Booker.

All of the above have one thing in common. They're from NYC, just like Trump. In Booker's case he's from one state away, (NJ), where a huge number of citizens commute to their NYC jobs.

I'm a native New Yorker, and I think it's a bad idea for the Dems to nominate a New Yorker for Pres on this round. I think everyone is about done with it, but I may be misreading the US electorate. I also think that there are some things that work regionally that WILL NOT PLAY in Peoria. Like Bloomberg's nasal whine. Yes, I think the US is so rife with anti-semitism now that a wealthy Jewish candidate would be an impossible sell. I wish I were wrong, but I doubt it. Bloomberg, Schumer and Sanders all have Jewish heritage.

*Bloomberg became a Republican to run for Mayor of NYC and was responsible for the incredibly racist, damaging, and unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy that ended up terrorizing our young black men city-wide. He has so many other vulnerabilities as a candidate that I'm having trouble believing anyone would take him seriously. Is anyone prepared to support an extraordinarily wealthy candidate who proposed a law, (in a whiny voice), outlawing large sized soft drinks as a way to combat obesity, for instance? Not to mention that the credibility of the Democratic Party would evaporate with people of color because of Bloomberg's legacy in racist mass incarceration.

*Chuck Schumer is the very definition of slippery political insider. No, no, and HELL NO. He functions well where he is, and would be lost on the campaign trail. And he's boring. He knows how to wring concessions and get his agenda passed in the legislature. Period. Don't enact the Peter Principle.

*Bernie Sanders is too old for this job! Are you effing kidding me? PS-so are Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. I don't care how charming Sanders and Biden are now, or how supremely overqualified, (except for that pesky vagina of her's), Clinton is. They would be in their eighties for the second term. That ship has sailed.

Cory Booker is a native of NJ, and I could support him, I think. See above- 'perfect' vs 'good'. I admire him for a great many things and disagree with him on a few. He seems to have what it takes except for experience, but at this point I'm not nearly as hung up on that as I once was.

I still think it's time for someone who isn't from the New York area. Someone with manners, please. Trump was our embarrassing village idiot since his coke and disco days. I'm so embarrassed and sickened by his antics every day. Many Americans share my feelings on that subject. Because of that, I think anything that looks like 'New Yorkness' will be an even less attractive trait by 2020.

That said, I'm voting for the 2020 Democratic nominee no matter who it is.

[dark_crystal]

Elizabeth Breunig, Opinion, Washington Post: My advice to progressives: Don’t back down (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-advice-to-progressives-dont-back-down/2018/12/14/b6e0bacc-ffbf-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.738794ed79d7)

So much of centrist-Democrat fantasizing about 2020 already seems aimed at repeating a golden past. Consider the groundswell of interest in Beto O’Rourke, the Texas congressman who narrowly lost his recent Senate race against Sen. Ted Cruz. For Democrats excited about O’Rourke, his primary draw is his similarity to Barack Obama — both in form and content. O’Rourke has held conversations with the former president about a possible run, to build on a belief that O’Rourke, as my colleague Matt Viser described it, is “capable of the same kind of inspirational campaign that caught fire in the 2008 presidential election.”

O’Rourke’s politics also fall into the same ambiguously centrist zone as Obama’s. “Like Mr. Obama as he entered the 2008 campaign, Mr. O’Rourke can be difficult to place on an ideological spectrum, allowing supporters to project their own politics onto a messaging palette of national unity and common ground,” a recent New York Times report observed . Meanwhile, other candidates straight from Obama’s orbit — such as former vice president Joe Biden and former housing secretary Julián Castro — are also eyeing the nomination, with appeals to unity and centrist perspectives.

When not absorbed in hopes of re-creating the Obama era, Democrats mainly seem intent on beating Trump, with little comment or insight, at least so far, on what they will do with power once they have it. (After I questioned in my last column whether O’Rourke has demonstrated serious commitment to progressive values, some readers responded by arguing they’re glad he hasn’t — that Democrats need to run an Obama-style centrist to win back conservatives who might otherwise favor Trump. “A too-progressive Democratic nominee in 2020,” one reader wrote, “would be a gift to President Trump.”)

If all the Democrats can manage is to hark back to the past and focus on winning for its own sake, they’re missing an opportunity to lay out a blueprint for the future. I don’t think that putting forth progressive priorities is incompatible with beating Trump; in fact, I think that having a clear and persuasive vision of what a better America can look like is likely to be more attractive to voters than promising them something vaguely like the past.

I just don't see Beto beating Trump, and i don't see him having much of an economic platform at all. My mind keeps seeing him skateboarding and that is who he is to me. And i say this as someone who was bombarded by all things Beto all summer

[Martina]

Rolling Stone magazine's list of potential Democratic candidates (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/2020-democrat-candidates-771735/amp/)

Nothing on Earth could compel me to vote for Booker or Kerry. There may be some worse candidates on the list, but I don't know them all. I would campaign for a third party candidate if either Booker or Kerry got the nomination.

[Kätzchen]

Something that I think is worthwhile to think about is the type of candidate, preferably a candidate who can combine a powerhouse of solid members who will commit to steering the US toward better social policy and committed to restructuring the economy by shoring up Labor policy because the economy is tanking under a variety of pressures created and exacerbated by the current administration.

Also, worth thinking about: How will any candidate seeking office deal with the fall-out over immigration policy and the treatment of those who seek a better life in the US due to horrific and life threatening situations in progress?


And, last but not least, another thing I've been thinking about: There's an awful lot of global upheaval and unrest due to turbulent changes in other global societies, as well as social upheaval and unrest in our own country. I don't know what type of things to question appropriately, given the type of political and social climate of today, but I feel compelled to think about these types of things due to political and social unrest.


My eldest brother is an long-time federal employee with the USFS. He has to file for unemployment, since this federal agency is part of the greater federal agencies under attack by the current administration. I often wonder if you-know-who has been silently, with help by crooked, heartless members in the current administration, undermining agencies established by the Rooseveltian social policy of the Post-Depression era.


I keep thinking that it is super important that we as a country need to shore up and protect social agency's affected by the upheaval committed against them by the current administration (….).


I'm also worried about Supreme Court Justice, RBG and the Supreme Court Justice system as a whole. How can we as a country have an independent arm of the Justice system if the SCJ bench is representative of repressive forms of 'justice'??? I am still upset over the placement of Kava-Not to the US Supreme Court.


The proverbial clock is ticking and two years from now, will be here soon.

[dark_crystal]

NBC News: Inside Bernie-world's war on Beto O'Rourke, By Jonathan Allen and Alex Seitz-Wald (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/inside-bernie-world-s-war-beto-o-rourke-n951016)

WASHINGTON — Forces loyal to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are waging an increasingly public war against Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, the new darling of Democratic activists, as the two men weigh whether to seek the party's presidential nomination in 2020.

The main line of attack against O'Rourke is that he isn't progressive enough — that he's been too close to Republicans in Congress, too close to corporate donors and not willing enough to use his star power to help fellow Democrats — and it is being pushed almost exclusively by Sanders supporters online and in print.

It's been the first flashpoint in what promises to be a politically bloody primary.

[snip]

O'Rourke's ability to connect with younger and progressive white voters — Sanders' source of strength in his losing 2016 primary against Hillary Clinton — puts him in direct competition with the Vermont senator.

[snip]

Sanders supporters insist there's nothing coordinated about the attacks on O'Rourke and note Sanders himself and his top allies have said nothing about O'Rourke. Sanders' is an unusually decentralized political world, with a loose collection of activists and operatives who often take actions without direction or approval from any central authority. But they acknowledge that there's increasing public examination of his record.

It started with David Sirota, a liberal activist and journalist who worked for Sanders many years ago. In a long tweetstorm, Sirota noted that O'Rourke had received more donations from the oil and gas industry than any candidate in the 2018 cycle other than Cruz.
NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE

My fear of this type of thing right here is where i started this thread. Sanders has my primary vote this time same as last time, but we do not need to attack the cuddly skater boy. Beto already has all the rope he is going to need to hang himself, in his voluntary association with the establishment wing of the party, and Sanders supporters have a bad reputation.

I personally believe that bad reputation is an artifact of Russian interference, but i think the best thing for the candidate would be if everyone takes the extreme high road until after Iowa at least.

Newsweek: BIDEN DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR MILLENNIALS COMPLAIN: 'GIVE ME A BREAK,'
BY SUMMER MEZA (https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-says-millennials-dont-have-it-tough-780348)

Millennials who think that times are tough in 2018 have no room to complain, according to former Vice President Joe Biden, who said that he had “no empathy” for young people who compared today to the struggles of the 1960s.

“The younger generation now tells me how tough things are—give me a break,” said Biden, while speaking to Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times to promote his new book. “No, no, I have no empathy for it, give me a break.”

Biden compared the complaints of millennials to what he experienced growing up in the 1960s and '70s, mentioning the civil rights and women’s liberation movements that were gaining traction simultaneously with the Vietnam War, making the United States a troubling place for young activists at the time.

NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE. That is the oldest tiredest baby boomer shit i have ever heard and i have now changed my mind about Uncle Joe and i don't care how sweet he was on Colbert.

[cathexis]

NBC News: Inside Bernie-world's war on Beto O'Rourke, By Jonathan Allen and Alex Seitz-Wald (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/inside-bernie-world-s-war-beto-o-rourke-n951016)

WASHINGTON — Forces loyal to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are waging an increasingly public war against Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, the new darling of Democratic activists, as the two men weigh whether to seek the party's presidential nomination in 2020.

The main line of attack against O'Rourke is that he isn't progressive enough — that he's been too close to Republicans in Congress, too close to corporate donors and not willing enough to use his star power to help fellow Democrats — and it is being pushed almost exclusively by Sanders supporters online and in print.

It's been the first flashpoint in what promises to be a politically bloody primary.

[snip]

O'Rourke's ability to connect with younger and progressive white voters — Sanders' source of strength in his losing 2016 primary against Hillary Clinton — puts him in direct competition with the Vermont senator.

[snip]

Sanders supporters insist there's nothing coordinated about the attacks on O'Rourke and note Sanders himself and his top allies have said nothing about O'Rourke. Sanders' is an unusually decentralized political world, with a loose collection of activists and operatives who often take actions without direction or approval from any central authority. But they acknowledge that there's increasing public examination of his record.

It started with David Sirota, a liberal activist and journalist who worked for Sanders many years ago. In a long tweetstorm, Sirota noted that O'Rourke had received more donations from the oil and gas industry than any candidate in the 2018 cycle other than Cruz.
NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE

My fear of this type of thing right here is where i started this thread. Sanders has my primary vote this time same as last time, but we do not need to attack the cuddly skater boy. Beto already has all the rope he is going to need to hang himself, in his voluntary association with the establishment wing of the party, and Sanders supporters have a bad reputation.

I personally believe that bad reputation is an artifact of Russian interference, but i think the best thing for the candidate would be if everyone takes the extreme high road until after Iowa at least.

Newsweek: BIDEN DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR MILLENNIALS COMPLAIN: 'GIVE ME A BREAK,'
BY SUMMER MEZA (https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-says-millennials-dont-have-it-tough-780348)

Millennials who think that times are tough in 2018 have no room to complain, according to former Vice President Joe Biden, who said that he had “no empathy” for young people who compared today to the struggles of the 1960s.

“The younger generation now tells me how tough things are—give me a break,” said Biden, while speaking to Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times to promote his new book. “No, no, I have no empathy for it, give me a break.”

Biden compared the complaints of millennials to what he experienced growing up in the 1960s and '70s, mentioning the civil rights and women’s liberation movements that were gaining traction simultaneously with the Vietnam War, making the United States a troubling place for young activists at the time.

NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE. That is the oldest tiredest baby boomer shit i have ever heard and i have now changed my mind about Uncle Joe and i don't care how sweet he was on Colbert.

Biden is correct. Those of us who were actually fighting the battles of those 60s-70s that are so readily dismissed know how rough it was. What I am reading is an attempt to smooth the creases by using terms like "civil rights," "women's liberation," and "Vietnam War." Tell it like it was, race wars where activists were getting killed often for merely registering voters, the fight to legalize abortion and Equal Rights Amendment where women and lgbtq were being assaulted on a regular basis, and the Anti-War Movement where you had thousands of people in the streets protesting a conflict, we had no business involved in, that had the daily deaths tallied by Walter Cronkite each night at 6. Young men were having to escape the country to stay safe or even alive. The draft, where a simple paper burning could get a man beat up or worse.

Today's struggles don't even hold a match, let alone a candle, to what was happening during that period. It was not the romantic time of purple haze and flower children that some remember, the times were really tough.

[C0LLETTE]

Bravo Cathexis!
I am so tired of people thinking that they are fighting a battle from Square One and ignoring the blood, courage, determination, and , frankly, remarkably intelligent genius that came before.

Bring on your inspiring leaders, those who can lead us into the future with great ideas. Till then admire with great gratitude those who could do that and did.

[dark_crystal]

Biden is correct. Those of us who were actually fighting the battles of those 60s-70s that are so readily dismissed know how rough it was. What I am reading is an attempt to smooth the creases by using terms like "civil rights," "women's liberation," and "Vietnam War." Tell it like it was, race wars where activists were getting killed often for merely registering voters, the fight to legalize abortion and Equal Rights Amendment where women and lgbtq were being assaulted on a regular basis, and the Anti-War Movement where you had thousands of people in the streets protesting a conflict, we had no business involved in, that had the daily deaths tallied by Walter Cronkite each night at 6. Young men were having to escape the country to stay safe or even alive. The draft, where a simple paper burning could get a man beat up or worse.

Today's struggles don't even hold a match, let alone a candle, to what was happening during that period. It was not the romantic time of purple haze and flower children that some remember, the times were really tough.

Mr. Jenny went to jail in bar raids, and her family were not allowed in her hometown's drug store or the burger joint until 1973, because Jim Crow lasted into my lifetime down here, and applied to Mexicans, too.

Minorities like us faced brutality, but Joe Biden's share of that struggle was selected from a place of privilege. Our blood is not his to claim.

The economic struggles that millennials face now, that they did not select, are likewise not his to dismiss. And even if ya'll are correct, and Millennials aren't deserving of empathy, what kind of candidate says that out loud? Take it from an X-er, 60s nostalgia has a very limited appeal.

Boomers like Joe Biden could pay for college off a summer job sacking groceries-- they didn't have to take on a lifetime of debt to attend college, and they didn't face bankruptcy over medical bills. They didn't need gofundme to get chemo.

Boomers were able to retire. Millenials won't have that.

In the 1960s a high school graduate could own a home and support a family of four all by themselves. Now there is no city where the minimum wage will cover an apartment.

Their moms stayed home. Their parents stayed married.

Our incarceration rate has tripled.

Our war now is even stupider than Vietnam, it's just less culturally painful because not so many white kids are going-- and i say this as someone who is watching her father die of Agent Orange exposure.

The draft saved as many lives as it destroyed-- the draft was what drove the protests that made the war unpopular. Our current wars can continue indefinitely precisely because the kids of the privileged aren't at risk.

If life was so much harder in the 1960s, why is there a 30% increase in suicide since 2000-- largely among boomers?

[dark_crystal]

Bravo Cathexis!
I am so tired of people thinking that they are fighting a battle from Square One and ignoring the blood, courage, determination, and , frankly, remarkably intelligent genius that came before.

Bring on your inspiring leaders, those who can lead us into the future with great ideas. Till then admire with great gratitude those who could do that and did.

We’re not going to get anywhere by telling half the population that their experience means nothing bc they missed the Summer of Love. Nobody under age 60 was old enough to participate in “the real struggle.” Scoffing at people who had the audacity to be born in the 70s does not drive turnout. Or are we thinking we can beat Trump without the 18-34 (or 48! I’m 48 and y’all are going all “you damn kids” on me) vote?

[Martina]

Economically, it's a much bleaker world to get by in now. Yes, there's less institutional and casual racism and homophobia, but economic inequality has destroyed the prospects for many young people. It's a totally different economy. There's way more poverty and much less chance of climbing out of it.

When Hillary began her campaign, they wouldn't refer to economic inequality. Obama was out there campaigning for her saying things are great, that there are just a few pockets of misery that remain. The popularity of Bernie's message and later the election of Trump forced them to wake up. But the question is how could they have been so out of touch.

Biden's comments prove he is still woefully out of touch. I don't like it. However, I would still vote for him. One of the ways we can begin to emerge from this death of neoliberalism is by strengthening unions, and I trust Biden to do that. He's not my first pick, and there are mainstream Dems I wouldn't vote for, but I would still cast a ballot for Biden against Trump.

[ksrainbow]

... being that the electoral college has the final *vote* in every presidential election: my vote does not always guarantee my voice was the most popular.

Ks-

p.s.: the Electrical College is set by gerrymandered districts who suppress voter turnout.

[dark_crystal]

Rolling Stone magazine's list of potential Democratic candidates (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/2020-democrat-candidates-771735/amp/)

Nothing on Earth could compel me to vote for Booker or Kerry. There may be some worse candidates on the list, but I don't know them all. I would campaign for a third party candidate if either Booker or Kerry got the nomination.

If Kerry gets the nomination that would mean the Democrats just like losing. I did not vote for him in 2004, but that was because i voted third party in both 2000 and 2004 because back then it was safe to do that in Texas.

Why do you find Booker more problematic than Biden?

[dark_crystal]

Why do you find Booker more problematic than Biden?

OK NEVERMIND I JUST FOUND OUT HE SUPPORTS SCHOOL CHOICE.

I am the daughter, granddaughter, and niece of public school teachers. I have taught at a charter school and i do homeschool support daily as part of my job.

School choice ain't it, chief.

[Martina]

Ks, I know the selection of electors is political, but don't they just follow the voting at state level, meaning if the popular vote in the entire state goes to a candidate, then all electors, regardless of party, vote for that candidate? I know a couple of states split them. Maine?

I know it's not legally required, and I kind of wish they hadn't done it the last time, but . . . .


p.s.: the Electrical College is set by gerrymandered districts who suppress voter turnout.

[C0LLETTE]

We’re not going to get anywhere by telling half the population that their experience means nothing bc they missed the Summer of Love. Nobody under age 60 was old enough to participate in “the real struggle.” Scoffing at people who had the audacity to be born in the 70s does not drive turnout. Or are we thinking we can beat Trump without the 18-34 (or 48! I’m 48 and y’all are going all “you damn kids” on me) vote?

No one is going "you damned kids" on a middle-aged 48 y/0. Someone is trying to point out that maybe her political views, and the courage to maintain/act on them did not just pop out of some seashell on a beach.

BTW, unless you really insist, I am happily done with this aspect of the thread.
Thank you.

[Martina]

OK NEVERMIND I JUST FOUND OUT HE SUPPORTS SCHOOL CHOICE.

I am the daughter, granddaughter, and niece of public school teachers. I have taught at a charter school and i do homeschool support daily as part of my job.

School choice ain't it, chief.

Oops. I didn't see your question in that previous post. Yes. That FB/Newark Public Schools partnership was a travesty.

And the vote against allowing US citizens to buy Canadian drugs. People die because drugs are so expensive. He is loved by Silicon Valley and Wall Street. That's the kind of candidate he is. No improvement on Clinton.

[dark_crystal]

No one is going "you damned kids" on a middle-aged 48 y/0. Someone is trying to point out that maybe her political views, and the courage to maintain/act on them did not just pop out of some seashell on a beach.

BTW, unless you really insist, I am happily done with this aspect of the thread.
Thank you.

i am pretty sure everyone's participation here has been voluntary.

All i said was that Biden is a dumbass for saying the 60s were harder than now. I did not say that anyone's politics popped out of a seashell.

I could say that today's gay teens don't know real struggle because they weren't there with me watching the government kill my friends. But i don't say that because it does not matter that it might be true, as it is not in any way productive.

Say you're a 16-year-old lesbian getting bullied my grown adults on facebook bc your school elected you prom king. Would it help you for me to say "oh cry me a river, at least you don't have AIDS?"

[C0LLETTE]

You insist. OK :

Actually, it would be useful to say "Wow, you got elected prom king. Congratulations! But please do remember, hard as it is, a lot of people probably worked hard and suffered a great deal to get us to this point. Being prom king would have been unthinkable then."

[kittygrrl]

i think all our experience is relevant and we can learn things from each other-we need to stick together and be supportive of all views-that's what we have going for us is our diversity, intelligence and ability to compromise.

[Martina]

I think it's important for people to remember the past, but not so they are grateful or even inspired. The fact is that the past contains possibilities that seem closed off to us now.

Republicans prior to Reagan weren't, for the most part, rabid deregulators. So many things we feel are almost impossible goals now were accepted from the end of the war through the seventies. I wish people knew that.

I don't care if today's activists appreciate what previous folk did, even the terrible loss of life. I would just like it if they had a sense of the world before Reagan when corporate greed had not corrupted most aspects of life. People label as socialist policies that Nixon supported.

We are lying to kids about their future prospects. We don't have the jobs anymore to support most people as middle class workers unless we really tax the rich, create a high minimum wage, and do unprecedented things to make housing affordable. That looks like, and is, socislist. Before we exported jobs and gutted viable businesses to sell them for parts, before our economy was based on finance and services for the rich, it was possible to be a working person and own a house. You could send your kids to college, take vacations, afford health care. We won't be going back to that without also returning to pre-Reagan tax rates. We will never go back to that without changes that seem extremely radical to most Americans. But no Republican of even the Reagan era could have foreseen how fast and deep the decline of the working and middle classes would be.

[dark_crystal]

I think it's important for people to remember the past, but not so they are grateful or even inspired. The fact is that the past contains possibilities that seem closed off to us now.

Republicans prior to Reagan weren't, for the most part, rabid deregulators. So many things we feel are almost impossible goals now were accepted from the end of the war through the seventies. I wish people knew that.

I don't care if today's activists appreciate what previous folk did, even the terrible loss of life. I would just like it if they had a sense of the world before Reagan when corporate greed had not corrupted most aspects of life. People label as socialist policies that Nixon supported.

We are lying to kids about their future prospects. We don't have the jobs anymore to support most people as middle class workers unless we really tax the rich, create a high minimum wage, and do unprecedented things to make housing affordable. That looks like, and is, socislist. Before we exported jobs and gutted viable businesses to sell them for parts, before our economy was based on finance and services for the rich, it was possible to be a working person and own a house. You could send your kids to college, take vacations, afford health care. We won't be going back to that without also returning to pre-Reagan tax rates. We will never go back to that without changes that seem extremely radical to most Americans. But no Republican of even the Reagan era could have foreseen how fast and deep the decline of the working and middle classes would be.

In 2016 i would get really mad when i felt like progressives seemed to want to de-emphasize social justice in favor of economic justice.

This remark of Biden's really makes the point about that, though. Because all of the struggles he pointed to, with the exception of the draft, were minority struggles. It was totally possible for the average white person to almost completely ignore them. I know because my parents appear to have experienced the 60s exactly as if they were still in the 50s, although they did remark that we were lucky to be attending already-integrated schools and not living through the process of getting them there, like they did.

Today's economic struggle has started hurting the majority, and in 2016 it was easy to point to this as the reason there were suddenly so many whiteboy Marxists, who then began to make a case for why we should tolerate pro-lifers, risk the supreme court with write-in votes, etc.

But if it's a choice between whiteboy Marxists claiming identity politics are a distraction, or a bourgeois cishet white man pointing to civil rights gains as a way to dismiss what we're doing to our young people? I might switch my morning dogwalking podcast from Rachel Maddow to Chapo Traphouse

[dark_crystal]

Say you're a 16-year-old lesbian getting bullied my grown adults on facebook bc your school elected you prom king. Would it help you for me to say "oh cry me a river, at least you don't have AIDS?"

Bullied kids are at risk for suicide, so this would not be helpful-- because i would be shaming the kid and implying she's ungrateful, thus adding to any spiral she's experiencing from having her friends' parents on messenger telling her to drink bleach.

A black kid died bc he couldn't buy insulin. The important thing here is that he wasn't lynched, though, in Biden's world.

[Martina]

Just picking up on part of your post, dark_crystal. I think as you point out, there is privilege on both sides, the third party voters and, as you called them in a long ago post (I think) Democrats who are Republicans except for social justice issues.

I don't think Bernie is either-or. And while some of his followers may be up to no good -- the Beto baiting -- it's obviously possible to care about both inequality and social justice.

Rachel Maddow was horrible during the election. She completely misrepresented Bernie's politics and mocked his supporters. I am so tired of her.

I am looking forward to Mueller's actual report though, in part so she can stop obsessing. We know the SOB is guilty of obstruction. It will be a blessing to get that out there.

[dark_crystal]

Just picking up on part of your post, dark_crystal. I think as you point out, there is privilege on both sides, the third party voters and, as you called them in a long ago post (I think) Democrats who are Republicans except for social justice issues.

I don't think Bernie is either-or. And while some of his followers may be up to no good -- the Beto baiting -- it's obviously possible to care about both inequality and social justice.

Rachel Maddow was horrible during the election. She completely misrepresented Bernie's politics and mocked his supporters. I am so tired of her.

I am looking forward to Mueller's actual report though, in part so she can stop obsessing. We know the SOB is guilty of obstruction. It will be a blessing to get that out there.

I first heard about Bernie on TRMS, because she was excited about the momentum he had at his rallies and she was indignant that the media were ignoring his movement.

I did listen to Chapo Traphouse today. The hosts are very cool and hip and edgy and ironic. They were having a really good time joking about "accusations of a coordinated attack on Beto" with Liz Breunig, during which they ironically and edgily attacked Beto. I think this was the 12/23 episode.

I think Beto had a big day yesterday, though? With his anti-The Wall video that got millions of views in five seconds or something?

The Wall is some super low-hanging fruit, post-midterms, and i wish liberals and progressives would ignore it.

It would be too easy for BOTH sides to make immigration the focus of 2020, which would be as big of a so-called distraction as social justice.

It's urgent to stop the detentions and restore the asylum process, create paths to citizenship, protect DREAMers, etc,

Many of my friends and family are not citizens, so these are issues that we can get motivated about: the WH has floated the idea of revoking green cards from non-citizens that use social services-- if my mother-in-law gets deported i will have to go with her.

But i don't think immigration affects the majority in the way that healthcare, employment, wages, and education do-- and a Democratic vs a Republican victory on immigration is not going to change their daily lives.

Letting Republicans trick us into making immigration the battleground is going to lower the stakes of the whole election. Most people's opinions about it are compassion- or ideology-based. It's all theoretical to most people. The only people really passionate about it are the immigrants themselves, their families, plus five zillion racists.

If those are the groups driving turnout, Trump wins.

[Martina]

I recall Rachel pretty much shaking with anger talking about Bernie supporters. I recall her saying in a really snarky way that they didn't understand the TPP. One time she was criticizing Bernie for some inconsistency as she saw it, and one of her own wonks fact checked her. I think she showed her ass re Bernie.

I haven't seen the Beto video. I think that Bernie's message re jobs, taxing the rich, Medicare for all, free college, and fighting corporate corruption of politics is the way to go. Clearly, depending on social justice issues alone didn't work. But Bernie is solid on those as well, IMO. Any candidate the Democrats field is likely to be.

[C0LLETTE]

That is clear-eyed realpolitik. Thank you.

Figure out how to get there. Strategy is often not the strongest attribute of the Left as they get pushed further and further out into the weeds by the Right.

You'd think this was obvious to the Left and to the Democrats, but it seems not. How hard can it be to figure that out? If you keep pounding out your point and stop being distracted, ppl will tune out all that other crap. Find your own Kelly Anne Conway ... just as skilled but not as morally corrupt.

I know that it's not as sweet to win through "impure means" ( and there are plenty of ethical/moral arguments about that ) but sometimes, "winning is all" and start from there.

[C0LLETTE]

oops, I was replying to dark-crystal's post.

[dark_crystal]

I recall Rachel pretty much shaking with anger talking about Bernie supporters. I recall her saying in a really snarky way that they didn't understand the TPP. One time she was criticizing Bernie for some inconsistency as she saw it, and one of her own wonks fact checked her. I think she showed her ass re Bernie.

I haven't seen the Beto video. I think that Bernie's message re jobs, taxing the rich, Medicare for all, free college, and fighting corporate corruption of politics is the way to go. Clearly, depending on social justice issues alone didn't work. But Bernie is solid on those as well, IMO. Any candidate the Democrats field is likely to be.

That is clear-eyed realpolitik. Thank you.

Figure out how to get there. Strategy is often not the strongest attribute of the Left as they get pushed further and further out into the weeds by the Right.

You'd think this was obvious to the Left and to the Democrats, but it seems not. How hard can it be to figure that out? If you keep pounding out your point and stop being distracted, ppl will tune out all that other crap. Find your own Kelly Anne Conway ... just as skilled but not as morally corrupt.

I know that it's not as sweet to win through "impure means" ( and there are plenty of ethical/moral arguments about that ) but sometimes, "winning is all" and start from there.

It seems like a unique opportunity to me because there should be no need to even engage Trump. We know his tricks, and he can't count on the disruptive novelty factor that he had last time, because he never stopped doing that. He never even stopped doing rallies. His campaign is already going on. It is completely our choice how and with whom to take the battle to him.

The democrats can set literally any agenda they choose. Making it about jobs, taxing the rich, Medicare for all, free college, and fighting corporate corruption, and refusing to talk about anything else would be easy and effective.

It will be the GOP who run on social issues. Even their economic platform usually has hate somewhere at the heart of it, via cutting taxes by punishing freeloaders, etc. Also they have to keep the religious right and the 2a people, and you need hate for gays and "thugs" to do that.

We can ignore it all, because their candidate is weak. He can't run on his record and his agenda holds no surprises. Every democrat is already on the record about all of it. Nobody needs to respond to him in any way. This is what was disappointing about Warren's DNA test.

[C0LLETTE]

Want to elect a winning Democratic President?

Find a good-looking white guy with a good-looking wife and a few good-looking kids.

Write all his speeches for him.Tell him to keep his mouth shut at all other times and his hands down his own pants. Shove your hand up his ass and make his mouth move when necessary. Fact is, none of the "presentables" are as smart and worthy as the "uglies ". So just go for a Ken doll and find a few ugly folks with progressive ideas to stand behind the curtain and do some telepathy and ventriloquism.

"Camelot" was the beginning of the Hollywood aspiration presidency...the handsome president leading his handsome people who all knew that under that mantle was a really good-guy who only wanted the best for them...and he made them feel proud cause he "looked good" on stage..

Has anyone considered drafting George Clooney recently? He sure looks good. That's likely good for 40% of the vote right there, even before his running shoes touch the starter-blocks. ( He can adopt some cute kids later.)

[kittygrrl]

Free College is a nice idea but unless we get a Democrat in the White House, win 61 seats in the Senate and sweep the House, not very likely..and forget Medicare for all..our country isn't ready for that much social change yet. Besides, Medicare is almost broke, Social Security without fixes will be in deep trouble by the mid 2020's. And we are looking at a 23-25 trillion dollar deficit in 2021. I'm not saying these things won't ever be possible but probably not in my lifetime or for those over 30. I wish these things were already in place but society (as a whole) isn't ready. Currently we have too much debt, baby boomer political power will have to be neutralized and societal norms have to change drastically before these things can be a possibility :tea:

[C0LLETTE]

Free College is a nice idea but unless we get a Democrat in the White House, win 61 seats in the Senate and sweep the House, not very likely..and forget Medicare for all..our country isn't ready for that much social change yet. Besides, Medicare is almost broke, Social Security without fixes will be in deep trouble by the mid 2020's. And we are looking at a 23-25 trillion dollar deficit in 2021. I'm not saying these things won't ever be possible but probably not in my lifetime and perhaps not in the Millennials lifetime either. :tea:

Then maybe it's time to get dirty. Lie about the true agenda. Say nice soothing things. Get elected and work on the agenda in the shadows till the power is there. The electorate's memory seems very short. Maybe they'll forgive the lies once they get the benefits. Seems to have worked for others. Politics is a dirty business. Getting elected in front of 380 million people is even dirtier. Particularly if the vast majority are dumb as dirt or don't give a shit. ( Why are so many afraid to say that?)

[Martina]

We just had a tax cut that could have paid for these things. We've thrown away enough to pay for these things twenty times over in war and tax breaks. It's not at all out of the range of the possible. Polls show the majority of Americans support Medicare for all. It could happen by 2021. That was the whole point of a post I made previously about how people have forgotten how many progressive policies were considered mainstream forty years ago.

The point is the money, and we have it if we'd stop letting the rich out of paying their fair share. We wouldn't be in this position if mainstream Dems had not handed our wealth over to banks and exported our jobs to benefit corporations. The world is NOT the one mainstream Dems describe where we are doomed to poverty because of the irresistible workings of a global economy.

Re having a puppet, we've had those. Reagan and W. It doesn't tend to work out well. People love Bernie, and he is not handsome. In spite of our having elected Trump, most of us do take our government and electoral process seriously. While our political process and politicians may seem a joke to some, we are not alone. The world is struggling with these issues. I'd rather be facing something like Brexit than have Trump as President, but honestly, Trump will be gone in two years, and they're going to have a hell of a time undoing Brexit.

And while there are many dumb and apathetic Americans, we are not unique in these qualities.

I have to say that as disturbing as it has been to see all of the racism post Trump (I am white. I was in denial.), we don't hold a candle to France, for example. Even Scandinavian countries don't have a clue how to live in a multi-cultural society. Their non-native speakers drop out of high school in numbers that make us look great. I read an article about Eastern Europe the other day, and they are sick of getting blamed for the rise of populism in Europe, but not long before that I saw a video of an orthodox priest justifying segregation. Not a right wing fanatic, just an ordinary guy to whom it seemed obvious that people would not want to mix with folk from other races . The U.S. has a long and bloody history of racism, but we've actually learned a lot.

[cathexis]

Then maybe it's time to get dirty. Lie about the true agenda. Say nice soothing things. Get elected and work on the agenda in the shadows till the power is there. The electorate's memory seems very short. Maybe they'll forgive the lies once they get the benefits. Seems to have worked for others. Politics is a dirty business. Getting elected in front of 380 million people is even dirtier. Particularly if the vast majority are dumb as dirt or don't give a shit. ( Why are so many afraid to say that?)

Maybe it's because, you play a good game of pin the donkey (elephant). His base is the 1st graders in the room. What deplorables! First graders have more ability to evaluate trust v con

[Martina]

Elizabeth Warren is gonna run in case anyone was in doubt.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-exploratory-committee-2020/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

[WheatToast]

Elizabeth Warren is gonna run in case anyone was in doubt.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-exploratory-committee-2020/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Well, bless her heart and best of luck to her!:rrose:

[C0LLETTE]

Elizabeth Warren:

Early kindling in the fire for a male Dem winning candidate. Hope she isn't deluded and gave informed consent.
She might want to have a chat with Kim Campbell, our 19th Prime Minister...and that BBQ wasn't even turned on yet...not to mention that they didn't even use tongs to pull her out of the dying coals.

I'm not sure where she is now.

[homoe]

Elizabeth Warren is gonna run in case anyone was in doubt.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/31/politics/elizabeth-warren-exploratory-committee-2020/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Oh sure NOW she runs!!!!

Where in the hell was she 2 years ago when we could of used her?!

[cathexis]

Oh sure NOW she runs!!!!

Where in the hell was she 2 years ago when we could of used her?!

Remember, she was out there simply to prove herself worthy to walk the same pathway as the other Senators. She was trying to right herself after all the ethnic baiting about having Native American blood. She was also trying to fend off others claiming her to be uppity. She had her plate full.

[dark_crystal]

Elizabeth Warren drinks beer, gives 2020 thoughts in Instagram livestream (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/warren-drinks-beer-gives-2020-thoughts-in-instagram-livestream): By Gregg Re, Fox News

In a seemingly spontaneous livestream posted on Instagram that channeled similar social-media efforts by former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke and incoming New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren cracked open a beer on-camera and took some questions from her followers on New Year's Eve.

Warren announced at a news conference outside her home hours earlier Monday that she was filing paperwork to launch an exploratory committee for president, becoming the first candidate to take the major step toward a 2020 run -- and she reminded her audience that the day had been a break from her normal routine.

"I'm here in my kitchen, uh, and um, I thought maybe we'd just take some questions and I'd see what I can do," Warren, 69, began as she looked into a camera apparently set up on a countertop.

She continued: "It's been kind of an amazing day. So, today, I, um, got up early this morning, and, uh, talked to a bunch of folks on the phone, and then went outside and talked to the press -- and this is our house, and has been for a long time, and there are all these reporters, and trucks, and everybody outside the house."

The liberal firebrand pointed to her dog, Bailey, who was also in the kitchen and who accompanied her earlier in the day.

"And I went out and talked to the press, and Bailey went out -- it was his first press conference -- and my husband Bruce [Mann] was with me," Warren said.

Seconds later, Warren's apparent craving struck: "Hold on a second -- I'm gonna get me a beer," she said, as she walked out of view of the camera.

"Um, want a beer?" she then asked as her husband briefly entered the room.

"No, I'll pass on a beer for now," he responded. Then, matter-of-factly from across the camera as he left the kitchen, he offered a quick farewell: "Enjoy your beer."

The senator then elaborated on her plans for the evening.

"Here it is -- getting ready for New Year's Eve. It's easy for Bruce and I to make plans, because we pretty much do the same things every year," Warren said. "Um, for New Year's Eve we watch Casablanca, we get some good food ... and, um, we sit there upstairs and we watch Casablanca." She added that the movie "fills me with hope."

Ocasio-Cortez, 29, popularized the use of Instagram stories and livestreams earlier this year to connect with her supporters. O'Rourke, too, often broadcast himself while in his home cooking and performing other tasks.

Charles Hurt on Warren's Lack of 'Authenticity': 'Only to Trump's Advantage' (http://insider.foxnews.com/2019/01/01/charles-hurt-warrens-lack-authenticity-only-trumps-advantage)

Fox News contributor and Washington Times opinion editor Charles Hurt said Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren's lack of "authenticity" will only help President Trump heading into the 2020 election.

The Massachusetts senator on Monday announced she was forming an exploratory committee in preparation of what will likely be a presidential run.

Hours later, in a seemingly spontaneous Instagram livestream, Warren cracked open a beer and took some questions from her followers.

On "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, Hurt said it was an unsuccessful and inauthentic attempt to channel similar social-media efforts by Democrats like former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke and incoming New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

"Imagine a Donald Trump announcement video or any kind of announcement, and you imagine the electricity that's involved, the authenticity that's involved, and you compare that to this," Hurt said, calling Warren's livestream "low-energy" and "devoid of anything that seems real whatsoever."

In an interview with Fox News Monday, Trump said he hopes Warren gets the nomination, saying that would be a "wonderful thing for me."

Hurt agreed, saying that Trump's natural, off-the-cuff style would provide a strong contrast.

"The juxtaposition is only to Trump's advantage."
LOL Fox News is extra salty today.

Do we think Warren has an authenticity problem?

When i saw the livestream my thought was that i hope she does a lot more, and i realized this was bc i am looking forward to getting to know her, and that i don't really have a sense of her personality except a vague impression of a less wooden Hillary.

She always seems very sincere and concerned when i see or hear her on TV, etc., though

[Martina]

She seems kinda awkward to me. Hillary could be genuine, but she schooled herself not to improvise or veer from the party line. You could see her thinking sometimes during pauses. Then she'd take a deep breath and resume the same ole script.

I don't care that Warren is kinda Minnie Mouse in her demeanor. The people who vote for movie star smarminess or parental figures are probably going to vote Biden. I don't know. There's so much misogyny out there that I am not looking forward to another woman candidate. Hillary Clinton was an asshole and deserved much of the animosity directed towards her. But not all of it. Not looking forward to the screaming and bile that will come from the right. I'd far prefer Warren to Biden, but she's still not a true progressive. It doesn't matter. Only Bernie is, of the candidates I know, and while I think he could beat Trump, I have little hope of him getting through the primaries even without super delegates.

[Martina]

I could totally live with Sherrod Brown.

[homoe]

Oh sure NOW she runs!!!!

Where in the hell was she 2 years ago when we could of used her?!



Two years ago if Warren would of ran, I would of volunteered or gave her campaign $$, BUT now, if Harris runs, I'd back Harris!

[dark_crystal]

She seems kinda awkward to me. Hillary could be genuine, but she schooled herself not to improvise or veer from the party line. You could see her thinking sometimes during pauses. Then she'd take a deep breath and resume the same ole script.

I don't care that Warren is kinda Minnie Mouse in her demeanor. The people who vote for movie star smarminess or parental figures are probably going to vote Biden. I don't know. There's so much misogyny out there that I am not looking forward to another woman candidate. Hillary Clinton was an asshole and deserved much of the animosity directed towards her. But not all of it.

This was a good twitter thread:

THREAD (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250328367419392): After seeing this tweet (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250328367419392) from Politico, I decided to search for tweets by several mainstream news orgs and see how they use the terms “likeable,” “unlikable,” and “likability” when applied to men vs. women. The results are...stark.

First of all, those words are used far more often to refer to women. Politico did note in 2014 (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250334591795202) that Hillary Clinton—who at the time had a favorable rating in the 60s—was now “likable enough” vs 2008.

If you’re Politico and reporting that a male politician—former Illinois Mayor Rod Blahojevich—has been found guilty of trying to sell a US Senate seat like, though, it’s important to note that the jurors found him likable, criminality aside. (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250341223030786)

During the 2008 Democratic primary, the New York Times sarcastically referred to Hillary Clinton’s campaigning as a “likability tour (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250347673788417).”

Last year, the @nytimes tweeted out a quote (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250354112049153) about British Prime Minister Theresa May that described her as “not human enough to be likable.”

In 2016, the Washington Post pondered whether Hillary Clinton was likable enough (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250374882246657) to win the election.

When it came to Republican former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, though, the Washington Post argued that “‘electability’ is not ‘likability.’” (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250383283429376)

The Washington Post also wondered if Mitt Romney would even “need to be” “likable” (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250390220804097) to win in 2012. Like, is that really necessary for a candidate?

Over at the Atlantic (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250429584355328), we find that Gary Johnson — who had no idea what Aleppo was — was very likable in 2016 despite his “troubling economic policy.”

Of course, “Hillary Clinton’s whole likability thing” was “still an issue,” The Atlantic noted (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250435997454337) that year.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton should have asked NJ Gov Chris Christie how—a year after the Bridgegate scandal that saw his approval rating plummet to the lowest in the nation at 15%—he managed to get The Atlantic to consider that he might be the guy to “make Republicans likable again.” (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250442305716226)

Fox News has good news for at least one Democrat in 2016, though: Voters considered Sen. Bernie Sanders—known for lots of shouting and doom-and-gloom finger wagging—“likable enough to serve effectively we president.” (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250452640444416)

Also on Fox News, Newt Gingrich praised Sen. Marco Rubio for being “very likable.” (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250459200344065)

Republicans at Fox News even had high praise for Vice President Joe Biden’s likability in 2015 (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250465718288384). “One of the most likable people in Washington,” Dana Perino said.

Hillary Clinton, though? “When she’s not being criminal, she’s just being wooden and unlikable.” (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080250485062410240)

If you’re Politico and reporting that a male politician—former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich—has been found guilty of trying to sell a US Senate seat like, though, it’s important to note that the jurors found him likable, criminality aside.
(https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080322417757773824)
This follow-up thread (https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1080384836324470784) includes A. Receipts of folks who argued in 2015/2016 that Elizabeth Warren would be a “likable” alternative to Hillary Clinton and B. Social science research that explains the “likability” conundrum for women in leadership.

Any woman who runs, it's going to be "of course a woman can be president, just not that particular woman."

Along with a heaping helping of "you shouldn't vote for a demographic but for the best candidate."

For 232 years all candidates were from a single demographic, which means exactly zero of them can now be remembered as "the best candidate."

"Its not fair to dismiss people's achievements in the past just because they were white males."

Actually it is because the means by which they were out into position to have the opportunity to achieve anything were unfair.

Is any election from before 1920 even still legitimate?

[Martina]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/03/elizabeth-warren-likability-us-media-sexist-hillary-clinton

[Kätzchen]

I think dark_crystal's post raises some important things that are persistent in current day American society: 1) sexism, 2) privilege and access to power, and 3) the voting and electoral system by which presidential candidates are measured as having 'won' any executorial seat of power.


And the article by The Guardian, found by Martina (her latest post): One of the persistent ideas I found in this particular article seems to pair nicely with the prevailing sexist tide of how sexism prevails within American Society. Per the article, Clinton won the popular vote by a large margin, yet wasn't chosen as President, due to what? Can it be said that her loss was due to unlikability? I don't think it can solely be said that unlikability was the determining factor. I think the reason Clinton couldn't secure the Presidency was related to the implementation of the super vote, the Electoral vote. I could be entirely wrong about that, but it just seems like what needs to be addressed is the voting system and use of the super delegate seat of determinant power utilized in the Electoral vote system.


Now that the House of Representatives (USHOR) is seated with an majority of Democrats, I wonder if the USHOR will make it a priority to address and rectify voting issues, which seem to persist in too many states of the Union.



On a personal note: Things I think about in choosing who I want to vote for in any election process seem to share a set of criteria I look for in any person who seeks an executorial seat of power. What I look for is things the person has done. For example, their track record pertaining to:

1) current and future US social policy, 2) labor, 3) economy, 4) who they partnered with to get things accomplished (past, present or future), 5) will they uphold past case law ruled in favor of Women's rights, LGTBQ rights, and Race (ie, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc) because in my mind, it's about social equity. Social equity issues and how do we collaborate to provide the best possible way to co-exist. These types of things are of importance to me when deciding who gets my proverbial vote of approval.

[cathexis]

Then maybe it's time to get dirty. Lie about the true agenda. Say nice soothing things. Get elected and work on the agenda in the shadows till the power is there. The electorate's memory seems very short. Maybe they'll forgive the lies once they get the benefits. Seems to have worked for others. Politics is a dirty business. Getting elected in front of 380 million people is even dirtier. Particularly if the vast majority are dumb as dirt or don't give a shit. ( Why are so many afraid to say that?)

When we legitimize playing dirty and lying in order to further our cause, we are no longer a Constitutional Democracy true to what the Founding Fathers were trying to create in our country. When the country advocates going against it's principles, we widen the crevasse to a canyon permitting right wing and fascist ideologies to further chip away at our democratic principles.

The electorate has awakened and begun to care again. We just need to assure that they vote the path of freedom instead of towards the right or "alt-right" to a more Nationalistic and Populist form of government which would lead to a more xenophobic, racist, and homophobic insular society. If the rural "silent majority" gives us another reactionary blindside, we are really in trouble. I hope this "blue wave" is sustained. We can be celebratory and elated, but looking out the back to Check Six is a prudent move given the 2016 shock.

[WheatToast]

I'll let them fight it out as long as they don't cheat. I would vote for Kamala, but not Corey Booker and certainly not Eric Fucking Holder, the man who wanted the right to assassinate US citizens on American soil. If I am healthy enough to campaign, I will campaign for Bernie. I will certainly donate to Bernie. I would also vote for Elizabeth Warren. Biden is better than Obama was, but he's a mainstream Dem. But if he wins the primary, I'd vote for him. If Hillary were to get the nomination this time, I would not vote for her again. I'd just leave it blank.

People who start attacking progressives can kiss my fat white ass. Trump needs to go, but it's on the Dems to field a candidate who is not a corporate pawn. BTW, Corey Booker is.

Edited to add: I would also like someone who can kick ass. Sweet little Bernie can. Kamala can. Warren can. I think Biden can. Holder can, but he's a piece of shit. Corey Booker has kissed way more ass than he has ever kicked.

Why Bernie, if I may ask?

[WheatToast]

I want to put the Bernie thread to rest.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021248/russian-election-interference-sanders-stein-trump

To me, he joined the race to siphon votes from Hillary, and then to pocket tons of campaign contributions.
He's been up the Russian's ass since the 70's.

[Kätzchen]

It's late tonight but I think WheatToast's question is important: "Why Bernie?"

I admit I fell for his platform, back in 2016, and I thought he'd make a good president. But then WheatToast posted that article from VOX about Stein and Sanders also having Russian influence in their campaigns (?). That is the first time I've read about it and that article was published back in February of 2018 -- nearly a year ago.

In some ways, now, I often wonder if I didn't set the bar high enough, you know? I don't know that I could get behind a Bernie Sander's nomination again. Sure, he's got a track record that shows what he has accomplished in the US Senate, but does it make him the right person for the most important job in the world?

In the past, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to like a person, in order to feel comfortable to vote for them. But this past election made me see that it's not about the person as much as it is about their platform, their ability to lead and their ability to carry out a vision, a vison that people of every stripe and flavor can get behind and support. Which hopefully brings us to a better place in life, right?



I know dark_crystal posted about how overwhelming it was to see Beto-nirvana over the course of last year, but as appealing to others as Beto seems, I don't know if he's got what it takes to fill the bill as an US President. I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, though, so I found d_c's point of view intriguing and very interesting take on O'Rourke.

I'm with Martina though, when it comes down to Warren or Biden. I'd choose Warren over Biden, as well.


I appreciate this thread and reading everyone's point of view and things that come to mind. It helps me to put things in perspective about the upcoming 20/20 election.

[Martina]

I want to put the Bernie thread to rest.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/16/17021248/russian-election-interference-sanders-stein-trump

To me, he joined the race to siphon votes from Hillary, and then to pocket tons of campaign contributions.
He's been up the Russian's ass since the 70's.

What do you mean up the Russians' ass? Do you have any evidence for collusion? And the idea that Bernie Sanders, of all people, is guilty of pocketing campaign funds is ludicrous. Evidence? Where on Earth do you get the idea that Sanders, a lifelong public servant whose record is as transparent as they come, ran with the intent to defeat Hillary so Trump could win, which you imply. This is laughable. And what do you mean you want to put the Bernie thread to rest? Is there a Bernie thread?

Of course the Russians encouraged third party votes. They wanted Trump. Does that mean that Stein or Bernie had any knowledge of it? It's straight out of conspiracy theory news and Trump-level despicable and irresponsible to assert such things without evidence. I said in 2016 that some of the tactics of Hillary supporters made the Republicans look like lightweights. This is that level of insanity.

[homoe]

..


......:goodpost:......

[dark_crystal]

It's late tonight but I think WheatToast's question is important: "Why Bernie?"

I admit I fell for his platform, back in 2016, and I thought he'd make a good president. But then WheatToast posted that article from VOX about Stein and Sanders also having Russian influence in their campaigns (?). That is the first time I've read about it and that article was published back in February of 2018 -- nearly a year ago.

In some ways, now, I often wonder if I didn't set the bar high enough, you know? I don't know that I could get behind a Bernie Sander's nomination again. Sure, he's got a track record that shows what he has accomplished in the US Senate, but does it make him the right person for the most important job in the world?

In the past, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to like a person, in order to feel comfortable to vote for them. But this past election made me see that it's not about the person as much as it is about their platform, their ability to lead and their ability to carry out a vision, a vison that people of every stripe and flavor can get behind and support. Which hopefully brings us to a better place in life, right?



I know dark_crystal posted about how overwhelming it was to see Beto-nirvana over the course of last year, but as appealing to others as Beto seems, I don't know if he's got what it takes to fill the bill as an US President. I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, though, so I found d_c's point of view intriguing and very interesting take on O'Rourke.

I'm with Martina though, when it comes down to Warren or Biden. I'd choose Warren over Biden, as well.


I appreciate this thread and reading everyone's point of view and things that come to mind. It helps me to put things in perspective about the upcoming 20/20 election.

There has never been any suggestion that Bernie colluded with the Russians. The article says the Russians helped him but they were doing that to help Trump

The indictment said that the Russians pushed the idea of a third-party or write-in protest vote to hurt Clinton.

It did not help Bernie, in fact it hurt him because he is now strongly associated with the #BernieOrBust movement, despite endorsing Clinton and asking his supporters to give her their votes.

Even Noam Chomsky was begging people not to fall for it.

And now it is just the gift that keeps on giving.

[charley]

What do you mean up the Russians' ass? Do you have any evidence for collusion? And the idea that Bernie Sanders, of all people, is guilty of pocketing campaign funds is ludicrous. Evidence? Where on Earth do you get the idea that Sanders, a lifelong public servant whose record is as transparent as they come, ran with the intent to defeat Hillary so Trump could win, which you imply. This is laughable. And what do you mean you want to put the Bernie thread to rest? Is there a Bernie thread?

Of course the Russians encouraged third party votes. They wanted Trump. Does that mean that Stein or Bernie had any knowledge of it? It's straight out of conspiracy theory news and Trump-level despicable and irresponsible to assert such things without evidence. I said in 2016 that some of the tactics of Hillary supporters made the Republicans look like lightweights. This is that level of insanity.

Right on, Martina, nothing more than a dreadful example of fake news. The only one up anyone's ass would be Putin up Trump's. I really didn't understand why anyone would post that link from Vox (which was nothing more than innuendo), without any corroboration from multiple credible sources. Vox is noted for being a site that does not necessarily publish facts, but has a reputation for only encouraging opinions about certain facts.

[kittygrrl]

I detest any reference to "fake news" on our side. This is a term Trump uses often and why would we want to borrow any of his crap? I think we can express ourselves without resorting to using his kind of propaganda.

[charley]

I detest any reference to "fake news" on our side. This is a term Trump uses often and why would we want to borrow any of his crap? I think we can express ourselves without resorting to using his kind of propaganda.

""Fake news" is a phrase that may seem specific to our particular moment and time in American history."

"But Columbia University Professor Andie Tucher says fake news is deeply rooted in American journalism."

"The first newspaper published in North America got shut down in 1690 after printing fabricated information...."

https://www.npr.org/tags/502124007/fake-news

Fakes news is spread worldwide... Propaganda has existed in all political circles where dictators rule. One can give it other names, use euphemisms, but it's all lies.

Personally, I have tried to talk with some Philippines here, who absolutely believe all that they read in "social media" in the Philippines, suggesting how wonderful Duterte is, despite an overall pov in those who can read between the lines that he is a dictator.

I can cite many examples that are worldwide. So, I see no reason whatsoever not to use such an expression, because everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is "fake news", and that is because he is a "fake".

[kittygrrl]

""Fake news" is a phrase that may seem specific to our particular moment and time in American history."

"But Columbia University Professor Andie Tucher says fake news is deeply rooted in American journalism."

"The first newspaper published in North America got shut down in 1690 after printing fabricated information...."

https://www.npr.org/tags/502124007/fake-news

Fakes news is spread worldwide... Propaganda has existed in all political circles where dictators rule. One can give it other names, use euphemisms, but it's all lies.

Personally, I have tried to talk with some Philippines here, who absolutely believe all that they read in "social media" in the Philippines, suggesting how wonderful Duterte is, despite an overall pov in those who can read between the lines that he is a dictator.

I can cite many examples that are worldwide. So, I see no reason whatsoever not to use such an expression, because everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is "fake news", and that is because he is a "fake".

Notwithstanding your effort to promote it's usage as acceptable. it was popularized by Trump every time he heard something from the free press that was the truth , he would insist it was "fake news" to deflect. Knowing that why would you want to promote your ideas by using his propaganda method? It's not logical. He's polluted the term, as he has many things, so associating any rational argument using his methods doesn't help the reader to sympathize with your opinion or argument, just the opposite. But it's a free country and my opinion is just one opinion. There are some good ideas here but i find some of the ways it is expressed rude and coarse. That's a shame.

[WheatToast]

It's late tonight but I think WheatToast's question is important: "Why Bernie?"

I admit I fell for his platform, back in 2016, and I thought he'd make a good president. But then WheatToast posted that article from VOX about Stein and Sanders also having Russian influence in their campaigns (?). That is the first time I've read about it and that article was published back in February of 2018 -- nearly a year ago.

In some ways, now, I often wonder if I didn't set the bar high enough, you know? I don't know that I could get behind a Bernie Sander's nomination again. Sure, he's got a track record that shows what he has accomplished in the US Senate, but does it make him the right person for the most important job in the world?

In the past, I am embarrassed to admit that I had to like a person, in order to feel comfortable to vote for them. But this past election made me see that it's not about the person as much as it is about their platform, their ability to lead and their ability to carry out a vision, a vison that people of every stripe and flavor can get behind and support. Which hopefully brings us to a better place in life, right?



I know dark_crystal posted about how overwhelming it was to see Beto-nirvana over the course of last year, but as appealing to others as Beto seems, I don't know if he's got what it takes to fill the bill as an US President. I don't know much about Beto O'Rourke, though, so I found d_c's point of view intriguing and very interesting take on O'Rourke.

I'm with Martina though, when it comes down to Warren or Biden. I'd choose Warren over Biden, as well.


I appreciate this thread and reading everyone's point of view and things that come to mind. It helps me to put things in perspective about the upcoming 20/20 election.

I could write a volume about why Bernie is unsuited, but I doubt he'll be an issue in 2020.
I think it's too early to start stressing over which Democrat to back in the 2020 POTUS election, but so far I like Castro, Beto and Harris.

[WheatToast]

What do you mean up the Russians' ass? Do you have any evidence for collusion? And the idea that Bernie Sanders, of all people, is guilty of pocketing campaign funds is ludicrous. Evidence? Where on Earth do you get the idea that Sanders, a lifelong public servant whose record is as transparent as they come, ran with the intent to defeat Hillary so Trump could win, which you imply. This is laughable. And what do you mean you want to put the Bernie thread to rest? Is there a Bernie thread?

Of course the Russians encouraged third party votes. They wanted Trump. Does that mean that Stein or Bernie had any knowledge of it? It's straight out of conspiracy theory news and Trump-level despicable and irresponsible to assert such things without evidence. I said in 2016 that some of the tactics of Hillary supporters made the Republicans look like lightweights. This is that level of insanity.

If you cannot be bothered to catch up on legitimate news sources, please do not expect others to brief you. Of course I have proof of all my allegations; why make claims that can be proven false?
Bernie's a bum. (w)

[WheatToast]

Both Castros will be on Colbert this Thursday

The Castro twins have great political pedigrees--Stanford undergrad and Harvard law are excellent training grounds for public service careers, plus their mother Rosie Castro co-founded the left wing liberal party "La Raza Unida."
Politics and public service have been central to them all their lives.
On the down side, they're both sort of stiff and without the charisma of Beto or Biden. But they both have been scandal free forever.
These days, politics seems to have such a heavy element of reality TV and show biz, candidates are often discounted for lacking the pizzazz we demand in entertainment.
I think many of us have forgotten that we needn't expect to be entertained by politicians--that is not their job.
I think one good way (that's more egalitarian) in selecting a candidate to support is to list your own values and line them up with platforms the candidates espouse.

For instance, I believe in gun control, global warming, health insurance like the ACA, a balanced budget, and a lock put on our Social Security and Medicare funds so the GOP can't raid them anymore.
And we need a sensible, compassionate immigration program that creates more win/win possibilities than the opposite. And of course GBLTQ rights.

[WheatToast]

Free College is a nice idea but unless we get a Democrat in the White House, win 61 seats in the Senate and sweep the House, not very likely..and forget Medicare for all..our country isn't ready for that much social change yet. Besides, Medicare is almost broke, Social Security without fixes will be in deep trouble by the mid 2020's. And we are looking at a 23-25 trillion dollar deficit in 2021. I'm not saying these things won't ever be possible but probably not in my lifetime or for those over 30. I wish these things were already in place but society (as a whole) isn't ready. Currently we have too much debt, baby boomer political power will have to be neutralized and societal norms have to change drastically before these things can be a possibility :tea:


Medicare and Social Security are not broke, not even close. If the GOP simply stops trying to raid both piggy banks to divert funds in order to further their agenda, we be cool.

[WheatToast]

Right on, Martina, nothing more than a dreadful example of fake news. The only one up anyone's ass would be Putin up Trump's. I really didn't understand why anyone would post that link from Vox (which was nothing more than innuendo), without any corroboration from multiple credible sources. Vox is noted for being a site that does not necessarily publish facts, but has a reputation for only encouraging opinions about certain facts.

Vox.com is run by Ezra Klein, a former Washington Post reporter. As many would assert, the Washington Post is as reliable an American media outlet as there ever was, so it follows their reporters have incredibly high standards.
Vox is both a news and opinion outlet, but to challenge their veracity is generally a past-time the right wing enjoys. Erza Klein is not known by any credible critics as a lying jackass. He is a reliable liberal/progressive voice.
Learning to vet sources may be the voter's best friend this time around.

[charley]

Notwithstanding your effort to promote it's usage as acceptable. it was popularized by Trump every time he heard something from the free press that was the truth , he would insist it was "fake news" to deflect. Knowing that why would you want to promote your ideas by using his propaganda method? It's not logical. He's polluted the term, as he has many things, so associating any rational argument using his methods doesn't help the reader to sympathize with your opinion or argument, just the opposite. But it's a free country and my opinion is just one opinion. There are some good ideas here but i find some of the ways it is expressed rude and coarse. That's a shame.

from Time Magazine:

"The scourge of “fake news” and its many cousins–from clickbait to “deep fakes” (realistic-looking videos showing events that never happened)–have experts fearful for the future of democracy." - Katy Steinmetz

http://time.com/5362183/the-real-fake-news-crisis/

"Fake news websites (also referred to as hoax news websites) are Internet websites that deliberately publish fake news—hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news—often using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website

I used the term correctly, which others have also used - and correctly so. And I did not misappropriate the term. I have watched news reports from other countries (I live outside the U.S. and have access to other journalists who use that term correctly.) Just because someone misuses those words does not invalidate their true meaning, and I am not responsible for anothers' misuse of words.

The only issue was proof of Bernie Sanders alleged misdeeds, of which there are none; because, if there were, Mueller would be investigating, and Republicans in the Senate and the POTUS would be calling for him to go to jail, which they are not doing.

An ad hominem attack is an attack on the person usually in the form of an insult, not for the content of what that person stands for.

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

And, the topic of hand was "Bernie Sanders"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

As such, any proposed argument dismissing the use of the term "fake news" just because someone else has misused the term is utterly fallacious and ridiculous and misleading, because it failed miserably to address the fact that someone made false allegations about someone else.

[kittygrrl]

charley i wasn't trying to insult you, but your argument and expression doesn't move me nor is your current explanation polite however, considering the combative nature of this thread in general (except for a few) and the passionate argument without careful consideration of opposing views, it's not a mystery why people in general would not want to wander in here for fear of being slaughtered. Do enjoy.

[WheatToast]

charley i wasn't trying to insult you, but your argument and expression doesn't move me nor is your current explanation polite however, considering the combative nature of this thread in general (except for a few) and the passionate argument without careful consideration of opposing views, it's not a mystery why people in general would not want to wander in here for fear of being slaughtered. Do enjoy.

Basically, don't we all want to to see Trump ousted in favor of a president who actually cares about Americans of all stripes?
I believe so,
IMHO, I love Hillary, but that doesn't give me the right to excoriate anyone who can't stand her.
Conversely, I don't like Bernie Sanders (though I used to) but I don't think that should be a ticket for anyone to play pin the tail on the donkey on my ass--which, unlike Bernie, is all Democrat.
If we could agree not to get personal with each other in a hostile way, wouldn't that beat what we may have brewing here?
I stand for the first amendment in all things, including political discussions. :|

[kittygrrl]

Basically, don't we all want to to see Trump ousted in favor of a president who actually cares about Americans of all stripes?
I believe so,
IMHO, I love Hillary, but that doesn't give me the right to excoriate anyone who can't stand her.
Conversely, I don't like Bernie Sanders (though I used to) but I don't think that should be a ticket for anyone to play pin the tail on the donkey on my ass--which, unlike Bernie, is all Democrat.
If we could agree not to get personal with each other in a hostile way, wouldn't that beat what we may have brewing here?
I stand for the first amendment in all things, including political discussions. :|

Agreed, very reasonable:hangloose:

[WheatToast]

I watched Senator Amy Klobuchar on “The Rachael Maddow show” recently; she is considering a campaign, and figures that the field of likely candidates will be more than 20 to start.

I’m with Martina on how outstanding a President Kamala Harris would make; she is strong and confident and knows the law. She was an excellent AG for California and would be someone I would have faith in to run this country. Hillary Clinton? Fuck Hillary Clinton and the horse she road in on. She was unable to win before because she’s an arrogant white elitist, with no concept of what middle America (or real people) cares about.

Bernie? You know, I STILL think Bernie is a great Senator, but I don’t think he is President material. In any case, (and it shows my prejudice) NO MORE OLD WHITE MEN!!! :praying:

Hillary beat Trump by more than 3 million popular votes, so I guess she was able to win in spite of whatever negative propaganda (or truth) is out there.
This thread begs the topic--if every qualified Democratic candidate is so hated by a segment of people because they don't fulfill their personal desires, that opens the door for some bland scrub nobody likes to sneak in via a consensus of every other candidate being hated by voters.
I think we should simplify, and let's stop adapting rhetoric from GOP assclowns who hate all Democrats and make no efforts to legitimatize their insults with facts.

By example, look no further than Nancy Pelosi. So many GOP used her as a prop to represent all that's horrible in politics, a lot of Democratic men fell for it and also starting saying she was crazy, etc.
But on the day she was sworn in as House Majority Leader, it was clear to see that all the shit piled on her was due to fear, jealousy and misogyny.

When I see lesbians talk shit about any Democratic female candidate, it's painful, especially when the woman in question is well qualified to represent most of our interests.

P.S. If I was married to Bill and he screwed Lewinsky, and people wanted me to say something PC about her, my line would be, "Fuck her." Hillary should be allowed to have her own feelings about this mess without having to pretend that Monica had no role whatsoever and should be considered an innocent victim. For the record, I like Lewinsky and considered her a young, naive fool who fell for the charms of a powerful old lecher. But then I would have divorced him when Hillary opted to stay. That made the whole thing a personal matter between those three, and who am I to condemn any of them?

I say we refuse to give the GOP talking points for more of their hatred. Yes?

[MsTinkerbelly]

Hillary beat Trump by more than 3 million popular votes, so I guess she was able to win in spite of whatever negative propaganda (or truth) is out there.
This thread begs the topic--if every qualified Democratic candidate is so hated by a segment of people because they don't fulfill their personal desires, that opens the door for some bland scrub nobody likes to sneak in via a consensus of every other candidate being hated by voters.
I think we should simplify, and let's stop adapting rhetoric from GOP assclowns who hate all Democrats and make no efforts to legitimatize their insults with facts.

By example, look no further than Nancy Pelosi. So many GOP used her as a prop to represent all that's horrible in politics, a lot of Democratic men fell for it and also starting saying she was crazy, etc.
But on the day she was sworn in as House Majority Leader, it was clear to see that all the shit piled on her was due to fear, jealousy and misogyny.

When I see lesbians talk shit about any Democratic female candidate, it's painful, especially when the woman in question is well qualified to represent most of our interests.

P.S. If I was married to Bill and he screwed Lewinsky, and people wanted me to say something PC about her, my line would be, "Fuck her." Hillary should be allowed to have her own feelings about this mess without having to pretend that Monica had no role whatsoever and should be considered an innocent victim. For the record, I like Lewinsky and considered her a young, naive fool who fell for the charms of a powerful old lecher. But then I would have divorced him when Hillary opted to stay. That made the whole thing a personal matter between those three, and who am I to condemn any of them?

I say we refuse to give the GOP talking points for more of their hatred. Yes?

I think everyone is allowed an opinion here, whether you feel they are right or wrong. If you go about pulling everyone’s posts apart, you will have no one interested in interacting with you. You may not care about that, but i have seen people much like you wanting to stir the pot, and I will not engage.

Please do not address me in any way...no questions...no comments...no reps...no nasty rep notes...no private messages . DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE my existence in any way.

I will extend to you the same courtesy.

[kittygrrl]

Hillary beat Trump by more than 3 million popular votes, so I guess she was able to win in spite of whatever negative propaganda (or truth) is out there.
This thread begs the topic--if every qualified Democratic candidate is so hated by a segment of people because they don't fulfill their personal desires, that opens the door for some bland scrub nobody likes to sneak in via a consensus of every other candidate being hated by voters.
I think we should simplify, and let's stop adapting rhetoric from GOP assclowns who hate all Democrats and make no efforts to legitimatize their insults with facts.

By example, look no further than Nancy Pelosi. So many GOP used her as a prop to represent all that's horrible in politics, a lot of Democratic men fell for it and also starting saying she was crazy, etc.
But on the day she was sworn in as House Majority Leader, it was clear to see that all the shit piled on her was due to fear, jealousy and misogyny.

When I see lesbians talk shit about any Democratic female candidate, it's painful, especially when the woman in question is well qualified to represent most of our interests.

P.S. If I was married to Bill and he screwed Lewinsky, and people wanted me to say something PC about her, my line would be, "Fuck her." Hillary should be allowed to have her own feelings about this mess without having to pretend that Monica had no role whatsoever and should be considered an innocent victim. For the record, I like Lewinsky and considered her a young, naive fool who fell for the charms of a powerful old lecher. But then I would have divorced him when Hillary opted to stay. That made the whole thing a personal matter between those three, and who am I to condemn any of them?

I say we refuse to give the GOP talking points for more of their hatred. Yes?<<<enjoyed your post

i think GOP pollution(ie hatred, intolerance, evil) has crept into our consciousness and some of us have decided that since it's working for them, we had better adopt the same malignant zombie rhetoric only with our talking points. I'd like to believe we're better then that, but now i'm worried we're not. If we use their propaganda we can't claim higher ground. We're kidding ourselves, we are in the same cesspool and no better and maybe far worse because we know better but lower ourselves to wallow on their level.

At this point, i'm not in love with any of the tentative candidates that are out there. Meh....none are impressive. And any candidate that wants to play footsie with Russians is definitely out. You can't make a pet out of a rattlesnake.

[WheatToast]

<<<enjoyed your post

i think GOP pollution(ie hatred, intolerance, evil) has crept into our consciousness and some of us have decided that since it's working for them, we had better adopt the same malignant zombie rhetoric only with our talking points. I'd like to believe we're better then that, but now i'm worried we're not. If we use their propaganda we can't claim higher ground. We're kidding ourselves, we are in the same cesspool and no better and maybe far worse because we know better but lower ourselves to wallow on their level.

At this point, i'm not in love with any of the tentative candidates that are out there. Meh....none are impressive. And any candidate that wants to play footsie with Russians is definitely out. You can't make a pet out of a rattlesnake.

People have opinions they deserve to express--but when the premise is based on horseshit that is wholly inaccurate, shall we refrain from correcting the record lest we hurt someone's little feelers? We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
Politics is a rough business and a rough topic.
Mollycoddling is for kids and old people. :|

[kittygrrl]

People have opinions they deserve to express--but when the premise is based on horseshit that is wholly inaccurate, shall we refrain from correcting the record lest we hurt someone's little feelers? We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
Politics is a rough business and a rough topic.
Mollycoddling is for kids and old people. :|

agreed we're not entitled to our own facts..nevertheless the infection is invading the democratic base..it's like the plague, it doesn't discriminate :(

[C0LLETTE]

People have opinions they deserve to express--but when the premise is based on horseshit that is wholly inaccurate, shall we refrain from correcting the record lest we hurt someone's little feelers? We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
Politics is a rough business and a rough topic.
Mollycoddling is for kids and old people. :|

What patronising muddled poppycock!

Am I to understand from this that you are tough and can handle the rough business/topic of politics while I, an old woman, am to be sidelined, mollycoddled and lumped in with kids? My "little feelers" are definitely hurt.

[charley]

In rereading some of the above posts, I confess that I was so busy prior to retiring that I really hadn't been following in detail what was happening re: American politics; and, so when Trump won the election a few years ago, I was somewhat surprised, to say the least. However, life is a learning process, and since that surprise and rereading posts here, and being online and chatting (elsewhere), and even though participating here in this thread and others, I was not expecting to learn anything of import, but I have to say thanks everyone for your input. It wasn't what I had expected, but learning is always discovery. And, I now think I understand why Trump won his election.

:readfineprint:

[Martina]

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/01/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-socialism-progressives

I certainly prefer Bernie to Warren. These differences are very real, but what a relief it would be to have Warren over other more conservative Dems if Bernie doesn't run or does not fare well in the primaries.

[dark_crystal]

Harris announced today! I think she would be a good nominee. I was watching some videos of her and she’s very sharp

[MsTinkerbelly]

Harris announced today! I think she would be a good nominee. I was watching some videos of her and she’s very sharp

I’m a big fan of Kamala Harris, both for her work as the AG of California, and as a Senator from California.

Things are getting exciting!

[homoe]

Harris announced today! I think she would be a good nominee. I was watching some videos of her and she’s very sharp



I loved watching her grill some of those bastards who appeared before her and the committee on the hill especially Kavanaugh! She not only tough, she's also nobody's fool as well!

[dark_crystal]

Here is where Harris is going to have problems (i don't endorse this magazine, but wanted to show what will come out):

Kamala Harris’ New Book Tries to Massage Her Record as a Prosecutor, But the Facts Aren’t Pretty (https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/09/kamala-harris-new-book-tries-to-massage)
As California Attorney General, Harris' office continued to display indifference toward concerns of misconduct. In March 2015, the California A.G. appealed the dismissal of a child molestation case after a Kern County prosecutor falsified an interview transcript to add an incriminating confession.

Harris' office, citing state court precedent, tried to argue that the prosecutor's action "was certainly conscience shocking in the sense that it involved false testimony by a prosecutor in a formal criminal proceeding. But it did not involve 'brutal and … offensive' conduct employed to obtain a conviction." In other words, the defendant's false confession wasn't beaten out of him, and therefore didn't violate his constitutional rights. The appeals court disagreed and threw out the conviction.

In another 2015 case, Baca v. Adams, Harris' office opposed a post-conviction appeal by a defendant who was sentenced after the prosecutor in his case lied to the jury about whether an informant received compensation for his testimony. A state court found the prosecutor's testimony was "sheer fantasy," but declined to overturn the conviction.

As attorney general of California, Harris challenged the release of a man who had been exonerated by the Innocence Project and had his conviction overturned. Harris argued that Daniel Larsen, who spent 13 years in prison for the crime of possessing a concealed knife, had not produced evidence of his innocence fast enough. A federal judge overturned his conviction after finding that Larsen had shown he was innocent, that the cops testifying at his trial weren't credible, and that his attorney, since disbarred, was constitutionally ineffective because he had failed to call any witnesses.

When the Supreme Court decided that California's overcrowded prisons represented cruel and unusual punishment, Attorney General Harris fought a ruling ordering California to release some of its prisoners. Harris claims she had to fight the ruling for Gov. Jerry Brown. "I have a client, and I don't get to choose my client," she said. But the attorney general in California is an independent, elected position, not an appointee serving at the governor's pleasure.

In October of 2016, just before she faced voters in her Senate bid, Harris spearheaded the arrest of current and former Backpage executives on charges of pimping and conspiracy, under the (ultimately unsuccessful) theory that providing an open online platform for user-generated content made them responsible for any illegal activity committed by users who connected through the site. Federal law explicitly says otherwise—something Harris certainly knew, as she had petitioned Congress a few years earlier to change the law so that she and other prosecutors could target Backpage (and its deep assets) through state criminal justice systems. What's more, myriad federal courts have affirmed that prosecutions like the one Harris attempted are illegal.

A Sacramento County Superior Court rejected Harris' case against Backpage, ruling that "Congress did not wish to hold liable online publishers for the action of publishing third party speech and it is for Congress, not this court, to revisit." Undeterred, Harris—as one of her final acts as California's top prosecutor—filed nearly identical charges against Backpage in another California court, a move the First Amendment Lawyers' Association called "a gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion" and part of Harris' pattern of disrespecting due process and constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, an actual underage sex-trafficking scandal implicated dozens of police officers and other local authorities throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Oakland went through two police chiefs trying to address it, with a third doing only questionably better. People were pleading for the state to step in and oversee an independent investigation, since local governments seemed more motivated to quash a PR nightmare than punish public officials. Harris and her office refused to intervene.

[Martina]

Tulsi Gabbard. I don't know much about her, but she was a Bernie supporters.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/11/politics/tulsi-gabbard-van-jones/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

[homoe]

..

I watched Harris this morning (Friday) on Morning Joe and she has NOT decided yet, but she said she'll be making a decision soon!

[Martina]

Julian Castro now --

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/12/julian-castro-president-democrat-san-antonio-texas-speech

[dark_crystal]

Julian Castro now --

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/12/julian-castro-president-democrat-san-antonio-texas-speech

There was a big turnout with a lot of energy at the announcement event. The article shows him on record with support for Medicare for all and raising taxes on the wealthy. Do not know about free college or student debt relief. Strong on social justice and compassionate borders.

We could do worse. Could he win?

[Martina]

I don't know. Turn out and energy are what it takes.

I noticed The Real Bernie Sanders FB group renamed itself Real Bernie Sanders / Tulsi Gabbard Activists.

[dark_crystal]

Twitter is already coming for Castro on DASP (Distressed Asset Stabilization Program)

[ksrainbow]

I am currently watching/learning/listening and researching every one who declare they are a 2020 presidential candidate.

For those who are currently in an elected position: their past/current/new future voting habits on issues will be insightful.

For those who are not: I am hopeful there is a past and current fact-based source for me to be informed.

Ks-

[homoe]

I am currently watching/learning/listening and researching every one who declare they are a 2020 presidential candidate.

For those who are currently in an elected position: their past/current/new future voting habits on issues will be insightful.

For those who are not: I am hopeful there is a past and current fact-based source for me to be informed.

Ks-

:goodpost:

[homoe]

I am currently watching/learning/listening and researching every one who declare they are a 2020 presidential candidate.

For those who are currently in an elected position: their past/current/new future voting habits on issues will be insightful.

For those who are not: I am hopeful there is a past and current fact-based source for me to be informed.

Ks-

Likewise I'm doing the same.However, I have a long memory and I will NEVER forget, forgive, nor support any of those women who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh!

[ksrainbow]

Likewise I'm doing the same.However, I have a long memory and I will NEVER forget, forgive, nor support any of those women who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh!

How they voted is definitely one item I will pay close attention too as well!

Ks-

[C0LLETTE]

Go whole hog or go home.

If Bill De Blasio declares, support and vote for him.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Go whole hog or go home.

If Bill De Blasio declares, support and vote for him.

I’m lazy this morning and don’t want to do my own research (yet), what do you think makes De Blasio stand out as a possible President?

[C0LLETTE]

I’m lazy this morning and don’t want to do my own research (yet), what do you think makes De Blasio stand out as a possible President?

look into his views on why wealth is in the wrong hands ( quite sophisticated argument), health care for undocumented, low wage workers, paid vacations for private sector workers, plus he's tall, nice looking, has a non White wife, and is likely clever enough to find ways to cover up any fuck-ups during his tenure as NYC mayor.

[MsTinkerbelly]

look into his views on why wealth is in the wrong hands ( quite sophisticated argument), health care for undocumented, low wage workers, paid vacations for private sector workers, plus he's tall, nice looking, has a non White wife, and is likely clever enough to find ways to cover up any fuck-ups during his tenure as NYC mayor.

Thanks!(f)

[C0LLETTE]

before anyone jumps on me for the "non White wife" reference, take a shot at why i might have included that.

[C0LLETTE]

Not sure why any gay/queer person would want to vote for Tulsi Gabbard ( never mind all her other stuff )

[MsTinkerbelly]

Not sure why any gay/queer person would want to vote for Tulsi Gabbard ( never mind all her other stuff )

She’s out as far as I’m concerned.

I’ve always been a bit of a “homosexual extremist”.

People can evolve and grow, but her deep dislike of homosexuals, well that is hard to hide.

[MsTinkerbelly]

before anyone jumps on me for the "non White wife" reference, take a shot at why i might have included that.

I kind of get it...he probably isn’t a racist, he probably is more inclusive?

Isn’t that a little bit like saying “I have a black friend, so I can’t be prejudiced”?

Am I missing your reasoning? I often miss the point, so............

[C0LLETTE]

Just covering all the bases. It helps him? It doesn't help him ? Is it the best thing about him?

[C0LLETTE]

Mike Pompeo to Saudi Prince : "The murder of Khashoggi was outrageous and unacceptable (wink wink )"

[homoe]

Mike Pompeo to Saudi Prince : "The murder of Khashoggi was outrageous and unacceptable (wink wink )"



Boy you really hit the nail on the head with this one COLLETTE.........:hangloose:

[kittygrrl]

before anyone jumps on me for the "non White wife" reference, take a shot at why i might have included that.

take a shot? this reminds me of covert racism..why does her, in your opinion, color give him an additional advantage? because he can use her ethnicity as an added incentive to people of color to vote for him? Why see color at all? She's a great asset because she is a wonderful support to her husband and helps him in his work. Her color has nothing to do with it.

[C0LLETTE]

take a shot? this reminds me of covert racism..why does her, in your opinion, color give him an additional advantage? because he can use her ethnicity as an added incentive to people of color to vote for him? Why see color at all? She's a great asset because she is a wonderful support to her husband and helps him in his work. Her color has nothing to do with it.

thanks, couldn't agree more

verb:To take a shot at is to try to do something. An example of take a shot at is when everyone is trying to solve a hard puzzle and you decide you'll take a look and see if you can solve it too.

I'm Canadian, maybe we just "take a shot "differently and peacefully.

[dark_crystal]

Why see color at all?

This is the rhetoric of colorblindess. Diversity education has evolved past this theory. I am not calling you a racist, i am just suggesting an update to your thoughts on this.

LIFE magazine: How Colorblindness Is Actually Racist, By Dani Bostick: (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-colorblindness-is-act_b_10886176)

Colorblindness is a common response to racism. More specifically, it is a common response from white people attempting to reject racism. "I am colorblind. I see people, not color. We are all the same." You might even teach your kids this perspective with the best intentions.

Here are ways colorblindness is actually racist:

Colorblindness foists whiteness on everyone. It is another way of saying, "I view everyone as if they were white." Your default color for sameness is white.

Colorblindness strips non-white people of their uniqueness.Your default culture for sameness is white culture. When you encourage your child to be colorblind and view everyone as "the same," you are projecting white on people of who aren't white, negating their experiences, traditions, and uniqueness.

Colorblindness suppresses critically important narratives of oppression. Once you view everyone through a colorblind, white lens, you deny the reality that non-white people face.

Colorblindness assumes everyone has the same experience here in America. When you fail to see color, you fail to recognize injustice and oppression.

Colorblindess promotes the idea that non-white races are inferior. When you teach your child to be colorblind, you are essentially telling them, "If someone isn't white, pretend they look like you so you can be friends." Stripping people of a fundamental aspect of their identity by claiming not to see color is dehumanizing.

Race is not the only factor that defines people. Gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, ability, trauma history, and socioeconomic status (to name just a few) are factors that can result in marginalization, injustice, and oppression.

Promoting colorblindness is easy. In such conversations with children, colorblindess eliminates the need to recognize and discuss extremely uncomfortable realities while perpetuating a culture of racism, injustice, and oppression. Be brave. Have the tough conversations. Acknowledging differences is not racist; it is the opposite of racist.


A couple of months ago thee was a controversy about a puppeteer claiming Bert and Ernie were always meant to be read as a gay couple. There were a lot of people who were saying "I don't care if you are gay or straight" and the lesbian comic Rhea Butcher tweeted :"please care. There are a lot of other people who care, and not in the good way"

[C0LLETTE]

Thanks. Couldn't agree more.
I'm an equal opportunity thanker.

[kittygrrl]

This is the rhetoric of colorblindess. Diversity education has evolved past this theory. I am not calling you a racist, i am just suggesting an update to your thoughts on this.

LIFE magazine: How Colorblindness Is Actually Racist, By Dani Bostick: (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-colorblindness-is-act_b_10886176)

Colorblindness is a common response to racism. More specifically, it is a common response from white people attempting to reject racism. "I am colorblind. I see people, not color. We are all the same." You might even teach your kids this perspective with the best intentions.

Here are ways colorblindness is actually racist:

Colorblindness foists whiteness on everyone. It is another way of saying, "I view everyone as if they were white." Your default color for sameness is white.

Colorblindness strips non-white people of their uniqueness.Your default culture for sameness is white culture. When you encourage your child to be colorblind and view everyone as "the same," you are projecting white on people of who aren't white, negating their experiences, traditions, and uniqueness.

Colorblindness suppresses critically important narratives of oppression. Once you view everyone through a colorblind, white lens, you deny the reality that non-white people face.

Colorblindness assumes everyone has the same experience here in America. When you fail to see color, you fail to recognize injustice and oppression.

Colorblindess promotes the idea that non-white races are inferior. When you teach your child to be colorblind, you are essentially telling them, "If someone isn't white, pretend they look like you so you can be friends." Stripping people of a fundamental aspect of their identity by claiming not to see color is dehumanizing.

Race is not the only factor that defines people. Gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, ability, trauma history, and socioeconomic status (to name just a few) are factors that can result in marginalization, injustice, and oppression.

Promoting colorblindness is easy. In such conversations with children, colorblindess eliminates the need to recognize and discuss extremely uncomfortable realities while perpetuating a culture of racism, injustice, and oppression. Be brave. Have the tough conversations. Acknowledging differences is not racist; it is the opposite of racist.


A couple of months ago thee was a controversy about a puppeteer claiming Bert and Ernie were always meant to be read as a gay couple. There were a lot of people who were saying "I don't care if you are gay or straight" and the lesbian comic Rhea Butcher tweeted :"please care. There are a lot of other people who care, and not in the good way"

stop assuming dark, i'm Hawaiian, Japanese, and Danish. I was raised in a multi-ethnic home and experienced racism every single day as a child when i moved to the mainland. I was bullied because i was different and a different color so please save your white splaining about how you know all about it. Your un-evolved covert racism is wrong. I really could care less how you would like to minimize the emotional pain i suffered as a child because of white privilege. Someone's color or lack of color doesn't even register with me anymore in my daily life except when i come here and see it from people who should know better. So yes, i will speak my mind.

[CherylNYC]

look into his views on why wealth is in the wrong hands ( quite sophisticated argument), health care for undocumented, low wage workers, paid vacations for private sector workers, plus he's tall, nice looking, has a non White wife, and is likely clever enough to find ways to cover up any fuck-ups during his tenure as NYC mayor.

As a life-long New Yorker I think it's a big mistake to promote yet another New Yorker! Americans have had enough of us, I think. My personal experience is that deBlasio is a prickly, not particularly effective control freak. He also let himself get into a dick swinging contest with our Governor, and nothing about that was/is pretty. If we're thinking strategically, the Mayor's wife, Chirlaine McCray, would be a mixed bag. She's genuine and a pleasure to be around, but her history may be waaay too hard for the average American to support. She was an out lesbian before she met her husband. I think that's fantastic, but I have a low opinion of the average American voter.

[Martina]

Looks like Bernie might run -- https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/14/bernie-sanders-campaign-2020-election-1098795

[Martina]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/15/democratic-2020-president-candidates-wall-street

[homoe]

As a life-long New Yorker I think it's a big mistake to promote yet another New Yorker! Americans have had enough of us, I think. My personal experience is that deBlasio is a prickly, not particularly effective control freak. He also let himself get into a dick swinging contest with our Governor, and nothing about that was/is pretty. If we're thinking strategically, the Mayor's wife, Chirlaine McCray, would be a mixed bag. She's genuine and a pleasure to be around, but her history may be waaay too hard for the average American to support. She was an out lesbian before she met her husband. I think that's fantastic, but I have a low opinion of the average American voter.

Thank you for your post. The last thing I want to see is more men with that "pissing contest" ego in office!

[WheatToast]

There was a big turnout with a lot of energy at the announcement event. The article shows him on record with support for Medicare for all and raising taxes on the wealthy. Do not know about free college or student debt relief. Strong on social justice and compassionate borders.

We could do worse. Could he win?

He could win if he can get past Beto O'Roarke in Texas, but it'll take some hustle. When he was mayor of San Antonio he pulled off raising city taxes to create free kindergarten for any kid who lives there, which has been a resounding success. He was also instrumental in creating "Cafe College," which I believe is a resource center that helps high school kids get into college. Both Castros are unrepenting liberals who value education, individual rights, they don't take PAC money, and the NRA gave them both F's.
Before she retired, his mom Rosie was an administrator for a large community college district in San Antonio. She managed to earn a master's degree while rearing the twins.
I also think, with all of Trump's hatred for Mexicans, Julian is the living embodiment of a second generation Mexican American, whose single mother and immigrant grandmother worked their asses off to put those twins through Stanford and Harvard Law.
Having a Mexican American candidate would, IMO, serve as a sharp contrast to Trump, or any man in the GOP who may replace Trump in 2020. Julian can run circles around Trump in debates; in history, political science, public works and sanity.
I wonder if the demographics, which depict Latinos as America's most rapidly growing population, will be enough to help this guy win?
What are your thoughts?

[dark_crystal]

stop assuming dark, i'm Hawaiian, Japanese, and Danish. I was raised in a multi-ethnic home and experienced racism every single day as a child when i moved to the mainland. I was bullied because i was different and a different color so please save your white splaining about how you know all about it. Your un-evolved covert racism is wrong. I really could care less how you would like to minimize the emotional pain i suffered as a child because of white privilege. Someone's color or lack of color doesn't even register with me anymore in my daily life except when i come here and see it from people who should know better. So yes, i will speak my mind.

You’re right, it’s only appropriate for me to challenge my own people.

As a WOC yourself you certainly have the right to draw on your experience to challenge current rhetoric, whereas I only know what I’m told.

[Orema]

Looks like it will be a crowded running field for Democrats and probably the others, too.

I’m looking forward to the debates where some of these jokers will be weeded out.

I’m thinkin’ Senators Harris will come out ahead and will probably be the next nominee.

[Kätzchen]

I read somewhere, rather recently, that Stacy Abrams is possibly seeking to become a senator for her home state, and that brought joy to my heart. I see her as a methodical individual, who is highly esteemed by constituents in the state of Georgia. I am rooting for her successful bid to become a senator in 20/20.


At this point in time, I am interested in learning more about Julian Castro. I recently was talking with a colleague from my former work campus who is from Guatemala and another friend too, who is Mexican, and both individuals find that Castro's bid for US President, is something they can get behind and support.

So I am watching with great interest, with regard to Beto O'Rourke and Julian Castro, and continue to explore background information concerning the two and remain willing to support any person who ends up being the Democratic nominee for US President.

Btw, I can see Stacy Abrams as US President. She's got a heart for helping to liberate those oppressed in her home state and I find her track record appealing --- both for a bid to be Senator and if one day too, US President. I see the spirit of Kwanzaa about her and appreciate her conduct and decorum in all things known about Stacy Abrams.

[dark_crystal]

I listened to Chapo Traphouse this morning and the first thing they did was roundly mock Julian Castro for supporting meritocracy with his "Brain power is currency" remarks.

Then, Amber A'Lee Frost read her article "It's Bernie, Bitch (https://thebaffler.com/all-tomorrows-parties/its-bernie-bitch-frost)" out loud, verbatim.

The article basically declares that if the Democrats do not nominate Bernie it is going to be 2016 all over again.

Anti-Trump forces will splinter into capitalist Dems, socialist Dems, and disenchanted Republicans, and Trump's 30% will be enough to beat all three.

I feel that Ms. Frost is encouraging the same tactic for the Democratic nomination that Trump is using for the wall: do it my way or i'll tip the whole apple cart.

As I've said, I vote as A Gay: I want socialism, too, i just don't want to live through a theocracy to get it:

another lukewarm Democratic presidency will not only further impoverish and destabilize the working class and its suffering institutions, it will also all but guarantee that 2024 brings us POTUS Hamburglar in an SS uniform. No, it’s Bernie or bust. I don’t care if we have to roll him out on a hand truck and sprinkle cocaine into his coleslaw before every speech. If he dies mid-run, we’ll stuff him full of sawdust, shove a hand up his ass, and operate him like a goddamn muppet.

If we have to tank another election and live though another four years of stochastic terrorism to get the party Ms. Frost wants, me and mine will not survive it. I guess we've been selected as martyrs?

Yes, there are guileless and gentle souls who voice concern about Sanders’s prospects, policies, or appeal to women and minority voters, and with those people we have conversations. Kindly, confidently, and thoroughly we explain that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for the working class—and we then spell out, with the same saintly patience, that this means all of the working class. But as for the liberal media, and for those who would disingenuously invoke identity politics to attack the socialist, just remember the magic words: “I know what you’re doing right now, and it doesn’t work on me.”
This irritates me because i feel the scorched-earth progressives have been just as disingenuous with "Bernie's minority problem" as neoliberal handwringers (or Joe Bidens)-- who have nothing to offer except social justice-- have: Bernie is great for minorities and Bernie's policies are great for minorities.

What's bad for minorities is splintering the Democratic party.

if indeed you are a socialist first, then you must be a contrarian pundit second, and this is your one opportunity to drop the professional artifice of “constructive criticism from the left” and choose socialism over media strategy. There are no “impartial” spectators on this one; only partisans and compradors.
That's splintering.

If you have strayed, all is forgiven, but you better come to Jesus right now because memory is long, and history judges the cowardly squish far more harshly than the honest enemy. And you can’t say that no one was there at the time to tell you that this was it—this was the pivotal moment where you had to make the right choice.
I'm not mad, i'm terrified. i'm not interested in fighting this, i want the rest of ya'll to just do as Ms. Frost says bc i'm still (as mentioned in the OP) too traumatized from #NeverHillary to go through it again.

Free college and Medicare for All are still free college and Medicare for All whether or not you're led at the point of a gun.

As a bonus we would also get President Bernie.

[charley]

I wonder what effect that most Democrats now tend to identify as "liberal", as per:


"Most Democrats now identify as liberal rather than moderate or conservative, a Gallup poll released Tuesday found, marking the first time since the polling giant began asking the question in the 1990s.

"Monday's poll found that 51 percent of Democrats self-identified as liberal in 2018, up slightly from 50 percent in 2017. The percentage of liberals has sharply climbed in recent years, Gallup noted, with 38 percent identifying as liberal in 2008.

"Roughly a third of Democrats -- 34 percent -- identified as moderates in 2018, according to the new poll.

"Members of the Republican Party have remained more staunchly conservative, pollsters found, with 73 percent identifying as conservative in 2018 and just 22 percent calling themselves moderate.

"At least 70 percent of Republicans have identified as conservative since 2008, according to Gallup.

"Monday's poll was based on telephone interviews with 13,852 random adults in 2018. The margin of error is 1 percentage point.

"The poll results come as Democrats have retaken the majority in the House with a caucus that contains a number of high-profile progressives, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who have pushed for policies like Medicare for all and a Green New Deal.

"GOP pundits and critics have questioned whether the Democratic caucus, which contains numerous more moderate members as well, will be able to push a unified agenda."

(my emphasis on the word "liberal")

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/424280-most-democrats-identify-as-liberals-for-first-time-gallup

[Martina]

I don't think it's gonna go that way. I am glad for the voices on the left. They remind us of reality in this surreal political landscape. I am not totally neverhillary because I voted for her, but I hated her as a candidate -- with a white hot heat.

I don't know if you can go by me, but I will vote for any not totally sold out Dem. I guess I am a little ideosyncratic in how I determine that. I dislike and would not vote for Corey Booker, but would vote for Biden.

I think there are a lot of lefties like me who don't feel the anti-mainstream Dem heat as strongly after two years of Trump.

[kittygrrl]

i will vote for a moderate democrat in primaries even though i am very left leaning..because i want a candidate that will appeal to a wider variety of midwest voters and those in red states. This is the smarter choice.

[dark_crystal]

I don't think it's gonna go that way. I am glad for the voices on the left. They remind us of reality in this surreal political landscape. I am not totally neverhillary because I voted for her, but I hated her as a candidate -- with a white hot heat.

I don't know if you can go by me, but I will vote for any not totally sold out Dem. I guess I am a little ideosyncratic in how I determine that. I dislike and would not vote for Corey Booker, but would vote for Biden.

I think there are a lot of lefties like me who don't feel the anti-mainstream Dem heat as strongly after two years of Trump.

I am concerned about Russia. Whether or not people are currently feeling the anti-mainstream heat, Russia will make sure sentiments like these grow legs.

Chapo Traphouse stated multiple times that interest in the Russia investigation was a litmus test for who NOT to support among the Dem candidates.

It's like they are Russian Meddling deniers, despite extensive proof that the Russians used them last time.

This will make just make the left a better weapon.

[Martina]

Kamala now, which I guess we knew. I like her.

[homoe]

..

I watched Harris this morning (Friday) on Morning Joe and she has NOT decided yet, but she said she'll be making a decision soon!

NOW it's official!

[dark_crystal]

Kamala v Trump would be very satisfying to watch.

Kamala is not worried about if she's likeable. She seems like she's very natural in her personality and comfortable speaking with authority and not likely to be terribly patient with buffoonery.

Also we've seen every trick the GOP has in their bag against a female candidate and a POC one.

[homoe]

I loved watching her grill some of those bastards who appeared before her and the committee on the hill especially Kavanaugh! She not only tough, she's also nobody's fool as well!



Trump has met his match!

[WheatToast]

I read somewhere, rather recently, that Stacy Abrams is possibly seeking to become a senator for her home state, and that brought joy to my heart. I see her as a methodical individual, who is highly esteemed by constituents in the state of Georgia. I am rooting for her successful bid to become a senator in 20/20.


At this point in time, I am interested in learning more about Julian Castro. I recently was talking with a colleague from my former work campus who is from Guatemala and another friend too, who is Mexican, and both individuals find that Castro's bid for US President, is something they can get behind and support.

So I am watching with great interest, with regard to Beto O'Rourke and Julian Castro, and continue to explore background information concerning the two and remain willing to support any person who ends up being the Democratic nominee for US President.

Btw, I can see Stacy Abrams as US President. She's got a heart for helping to liberate those oppressed in her home state and I find her track record appealing --- both for a bid to be Senator and if one day too, US President. I see the spirit of Kwanzaa about her and appreciate her conduct and decorum in all things known about Stacy Abrams.

Stacy Abrams was robbed! Still, her composure and tact were admirable, and I hope she has a bright future in Democratic politics.
In Texas, Beto really made a splash in the midterm Senate race against the loathsome Ted Cruz. He seemed to savor all the national attention and he made some noteworthy remarks on controversial issues. He's just a lovable guy.
However, his recent cross country solo tour made me wonder how he could embark on such a lengthy trip after having just been on the campaign trail the entire year before. Doesn't he like to be with his wife and little kids?
Perhaps Trump has made me paranoid about the selfishness some politicians show, but when Beto's tour included a video with him sitting in a dental chair for a tooth cleaning, it hit me the wrong way. I mean, seriously, how much does he think we want to see of him?
I still like him and hope he does well in the POTUS primaries, but I want a president who is strictly business, knows his or her shit, and frankly someone who bores me rather than grabbing my attention like some gimmicky reality star.
That brings to mind Julian Castro--a policy wonk and straight arrow* who never seemed desperate to grab the spotlight as HUD Secretary, or the mayor of a large city. His humility is at a premium after Trump's lack thereof.
Add to that, today's entrance of the fabulous Camilla Harris, a brilliant prosecutor, an effective California AG, and an even more effective legislator for California.
Seems to me, the females in both houses are more willing to lock horns with Trump and his robotic GOP legislators.
We need an Amazon or Superman to preside over the White House after this lunatic--especially when it comes to repairing the damage he did with NATO and our European allies.
I think it would also help our international reputation to elect anyone but another straight, white guy. They've had 200+ years to eff things up, and
they no longer adequately represent America's richly diverse population.

* Speaking of arrows, Hispanic Americans have started calling Trump "cool arrow," pronounced "culero," which is Spanish for asshole. lolol!

[WheatToast]

What patronising muddled poppycock!

Am I to understand from this that you are tough and can handle the rough business/topic of politics while I, an old woman, am to be sidelined, mollycoddled and lumped in with kids? My "little feelers" are definitely hurt.

Nobody said anything of the sort. My point was, talking politics often includes people making statements with a premise that is untrue. Gone unchecked, it's like the game of "gossip" where it starts with one statement, gets passed on and ends up being something entirely different.


If you keep up these personal barbs, I'll refuse to send you even one more pair of my used underwear. :|:|:|

[MsTinkerbelly]

I was listening to the Washington Post news brief today, where they mentioned Kamala Harris and what she says about 2 of her primary campaingn points...

1. Medicare for all

Doable, but a cost of $30 Trillion a year (that was the amount quoted)

2. $3 TRILLION tax cut for the middle class

Is it just me, or would she have to do some pretty fancy footwork to both SPEND $30 Trillion, and CUT $3 Trillion?

[nycfem]

WheatToast, your post was reported... for good reason.

...I'll refuse to send you even one more pair of my used underwear. :|:|:|

MODERATION

Whoa... this don't fly here. You took things to a whole 'nother level. We will write it off to poor judgment this time but your "get out of jail free" pass has now officially been used. Next time you will be timed out. If you wish to discuss in more detail why this is not ok, PM me and I will explain.

[WheatToast]

i will vote for a moderate democrat in primaries even though i am very left leaning..because i want a candidate that will appeal to a wider variety of midwest voters and those in red states. This is the smarter choice.

My sentiments exactly.
If Bernie decides to run, more power to him, but he is not a Democrat and if he runs he should proudly run as the Independent he constantly says he is.
He siphoned off votes from Clinton, partly because he refused to leave the race once the Democratic leadership felt he had overstayed his welcome.
It is my understanding he was given permission to run as a Democrat because he agreed to certain terms--like quitting the race when asked to do so, after being allowed to introduce his "radical" ideas to the wider Democratic audience, and to the entire nation.
The problems began as Bernie started ragging on Hillary, then he started complaining that the Democrats were favoring Clinton. When his rhetoric got so intense he threatened a contested DNC convention, it was too much for the Democrats who had given him permission to run under their flag.
While some may say the Democrats broke their initial agreement to treat him fairly, when he became aggressive and antagonistic, Democrats maintain it was he who was being unfair and violating their implicit agreements.

When Putin-backed WikiLeaks published the DNC's stolen e-mail, where HRC's Campaign Chair John Podesta and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz were trash talking Bernie...IT WAS PRIVATE e-mail.
Imagine if you had a house guest who begged you to allow him to stay, then when he started eavesdropping, cutting his toenails on the couch, farting all over the house, complaining about the cooking, starting arguments with the hosts and otherwise being an ungrateful mooch who had clearly overstayed his welcome, so you and your partner started plotting via private e-mail to get him out of the house.
That e-mail might contain a lot of fanciful plans to oust him. It would probably also contain some unfiltered insults that were part of the private brainstorming.
In life, it seems only the most obnoxious guests fail to get the hint when it comes to keeping their end of the bargain and not imposing.
When it becomes a he said/she said--most would agree the owner of the house should prevail.

Back then, once the Democrats realized Trump was a loose cannon and would say or do anything to win, the last thing the Democrats needed was a contentious interloper to distract them from the task at hand. They did not need him to provide the GOP with talking points against Hillary, which he did in spades. His open, vituperative criticism of Hillary and the DNC siphoned votes and created massive in-fighting-- that surprisingly still prevails today between Democrats and those of his fans who are not Russian Bots.
The fact* that the Mueller investigation uncovered proof that the Russians interfered with the electoral process in order to help Trump, Bernie and Jill Stein beat Hillary makes me wonder if Bernie knew that ahead of time. Given his lifelong fascination with the Soviet Union and his irascible nature, who knows?

Note--I may wonder, but I have no desire to sword fight any of his die-hard fans on this site. Like him if you want--but I don't. Like many, I used to love him and valued his leftist agenda as a Senator. To this day, I have no burning desire for him to leave that job.
I just think he fucked the Democrats in the 2016 race, and he thereby contributed to the clusterfuck that gave us Trump.
That makes him dead to me.

Bottom line, I'm a yellow dog Democrat--if the Republicans run the risen Jesus Christ and the Democrats run a yellow dog, I'm going for Old Yeller.



*easy to vet--be my guest

[kittygrrl]

My sentiments exactly.
If Bernie decides to run, more power to him, but he is not a Democrat and if he runs he should proudly run as the Independent he constantly says he is.
He siphoned off votes from Clinton, partly because he refused to leave the race once the Democratic leadership felt he had overstayed his welcome.
It is my understanding he was given permission to run as a Democrat because he agreed to certain terms--like quitting the race when asked to do so, after being allowed to introduce his "radical" ideas to the wider Democratic audience, and to the entire nation.
The problems began as Bernie started ragging on Hillary, then he started complaining that the Democrats were favoring Clinton. When his rhetoric got so intense he threatened a contested DNC convention, it was too much for the Democrats who had given him permission to run under their flag.
While some may say the Democrats broke their initial agreement to treat him fairly, when he became aggressive and antagonistic, Democrats maintain it was he who was being unfair and violating their implicit agreements.

When Putin-backed WikiLeaks published the DNC's stolen e-mail, where HRC's Campaign Chair John Podesta and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz were trash talking Bernie...IT WAS PRIVATE e-mail.
Imagine if you had a house guest who begged you to allow him to stay, then when he started eavesdropping, cutting his toenails on the couch, farting all over the house, complaining about the cooking, starting arguments with the hosts and otherwise being an ungrateful mooch who had clearly overstayed his welcome, so you and your partner started plotting via private e-mail to get him out of the house.
That e-mail might contain a lot of fanciful plans to oust him. It would probably also contain some unfiltered insults that were part of the private brainstorming.
In life, it seems only the most obnoxious guests fail to get the hint when it comes to keeping their end of the bargain and not imposing.
When it becomes a he said/she said--most would agree the owner of the house should prevail.

Back then, once the Democrats realized Trump was a loose cannon and would say or do anything to win, the last thing the Democrats needed was a contentious interloper to distract them from the task at hand. They did not need him to provide the GOP with talking points against Hillary, which he did in spades. His open, vituperative criticism of Hillary and the DNC siphoned votes and created massive in-fighting-- that surprisingly still prevails today between Democrats and those of his fans who are not Russian Bots.
The fact* that the Mueller investigation uncovered proof that the Russians interfered with the electoral process in order to help Trump, Bernie and Jill Stein beat Hillary makes me wonder if Bernie knew that ahead of time. Given his lifelong fascination with the Soviet Union and his irascible nature, who knows?

Note--I may wonder, but I have no desire to sword fight any of his die-hard fans on this site. Like him if you want--but I don't. Like many, I used to love him and valued his leftist agenda as a Senator. To this day, I have no burning desire for him to leave that job.
I just think he fucked the Democrats in the 2016 race, and he thereby contributed to the clusterfuck that gave us Trump.
That makes him dead to me.

Bottom line, I'm a yellow dog Democrat--if the Republicans run the risen Jesus Christ and the Democrats run a yellow dog, I'm going for Old Yeller.



*easy to vet--be my guest

yes Trump was bad but then so was Bernie..he helped get Trump elected, which i will never forgive him for. He did so much damage to the Democratic party with all his snipes and outright attacks against Hillary and the party, when he had promised he would act with decorum. What a liar. He's a russian loving, non Democrat a LOT like Trump only sneakier about his real agenda. Honeymoon in Russia to visit Kremlin, how cozy..ick...i wouldn't vote for him in a million years. He's reminds me of Trump. He is every bit as nasty as Trump and is totally eaten up with how cool he is and what a large following of willing minions..Where is the difference??!? I didn't see any in 2012 and i don't see any now. He needs to go home and stay out of it.

[Martina]

I was listening to the Washington Post news brief today, where they mentioned Kamala Harris and what she says about 2 of her primary campaingn points...

1. Medicare for all

Doable, but a cost of $30 Trillion a year (that was the amount quoted)

2. $3 TRILLION tax cut for the middle class

Is it just me, or would she have to do some pretty fancy footwork to both SPEND $30 Trillion, and CUT $3 Trillion?


I keep hearing that single payer will save money, but I don't know how it works.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I keep hearing that single payer will save money, but I don't know how it works.

Assume

I would assume it is very similar to the payment system for Medicare that Seniors are held hostage to without exception. By that I mean the $100 plus per month that comes out of my check that I never see. If I spend nothing else, I am eligible for a decent plan which is similar to an HMO...but my Kasey spends an ADDITIONAL $150 a month so that she can see anyone she wants, anywhere in the country.

I will again assume, that there would be reasonably priced healthcare for everyone else, with the federal government collecting all of our payments, and then paying the bills from the doctors and hospitals. In which case, in MY opinion, we are all screwed, because we have seen just how badly the government runs the VA.

Or, we could get lucky and they follow the current Canadian system.:tea:

[dark_crystal]

I listened to Chapo Traphouse this morning and the first thing they did was roundly mock Julian Castro for supporting meritocracy with his "Brain power is currency" remarks.

Then, Amber A'Lee Frost read her article "It's Bernie, Bitch (https://thebaffler.com/all-tomorrows-parties/its-bernie-bitch-frost)" out loud,verbatim


This article was retracted by the publisher

[theoddz]

Assume

I would assume it is very similar to the payment system for Medicare that Seniors are held hostage to without exception. By that I mean the $100 plus per month that comes out of my check that I never see. If I spend nothing else, I am eligible for a decent plan which is similar to an HMO...but my Kasey spends an ADDITIONAL $150 a month so that she can see anyone she wants, anywhere in the country.

I will again assume, that there would be reasonably priced healthcare for everyone else, with the federal government collecting all of our payments, and then paying the bills from the doctors and hospitals. In which case, in MY opinion, we are all screwed, because we have seen just how badly the government runs the VA.

Or, we could get lucky and they follow the current Canadian system.:tea:

Well, I have to rush in here and defend a little bit of the "concept" of the VA health care system that has demonstrated, over the years, some features of how a single payer system might work more efficiently and economically than some other models. I have to point out here that the VA, as a national healthcare system for Veterans, has consistently, over the years, been ranked at the top levels of Patient Satisfaction above any other healthcare system. Make no mistake, however, that it is not a perfect system, by any means, but overall, most Veterans have been very satisfied with the care they receive in the VA system.

The VA, as a system, has implemented some very efficient and cost conscious measures that have really been able to deliver good care, overall. One of the best ones is the nationwide VA CPRS (Computerized Patient Records System) system. By linking the VA healthcare system together, nationally, with this computerized records system, Veterans are able to access their health care through any VA facility, nationally, no matter where they go. Because their records are accessible, procedures (x-rays, tests, labs, etc.) don't need to be repeated by practitioners outside of the Veteran's "home" area, should they relocate or travel to other areas in the nation. You'd be surprised at how very expensive it is to repeat tests, procedures, consults to specialists, etc., it can be for large groups of system beneficiaries, when they don't have access to data that has already been gathered and documented. When providers can communicate with each other over securely transmitted/encrypted data lines, care is greatly improved and consistent!! When I worked for the VA Health Care System, I accessed remote data constantly in the performance of my job. I was able to bring up records, diagnostics, sleep studies and treatment plans for Veterans who originated from cities and towns clear across the nation from where I was in Las Vegas. This improved care and consistency and saved money for the system.

Another huge cost saving measure that the VA and military medical systems both use is the process of negotiation for large quantities of pharmaceuticals. I believe that Big Pharma could be reigned in by limiting what they can charge for medicines. What Big Pharma does to the American consumer/patient is nothing short of criminal!!

Like I said, the VA system is not perfect, but it has some elements in it that could, reasonably, be implemented into a national health care system that would really "pop"!!! I still maintain that, in order to truly deliver top notch patient care, in any system, we desperately need to get the profit incentive out of medicine and health care. It's unethical and just shameful that gross, obscene profits are and have been made on the backs of a sick humanity.

One last thing I'd like to put out here for contemplation is something that I heard a while ago, while discussing some of the economic issues of the healthcare system. It has to do with the inverse relationship of access vs. quality. In other words, when the system improves access to more population, quality goes down. In order for quality to improve, however, access must be restricted. Hmm....I've been rolling that concept around in my mind for several years now, and I've realized some truth to it. I'd like to put that thought out there for others to roll around in your minds, also.

Sorry to derail here, but I did have to step in and say that I believe that there are many elements of the VA system that could be implemented into a single payer system that could treat the American population, as a whole.

Back to your regularly scheduled program!! :bolt:

~Theo~ :bouquet:

[MsTinkerbelly]

Well, I have to rush in here and defend a little bit of the "concept" of the VA health care system that has demonstrated, over the years, some features of how a single payer system might work more efficiently and economically than some other models. I have to point out here that the VA, as a national healthcare system for Veterans, has consistently, over the years, been ranked at the top levels of Patient Satisfaction above any other healthcare system. Make no mistake, however, that it is not a perfect system, by any means, but overall, most Veterans have been very satisfied with the care they receive in the VA system.

The VA, as a system, has implemented some very efficient and cost conscious measures that have really been able to deliver good care, overall. One of the best ones is the nationwide VA CPRS (Computerized Patient Records System) system. By linking the VA healthcare system together, nationally, with this computerized records system, Veterans are able to access their health care through any VA facility, nationally, no matter where they go. Because their records are accessible, procedures (x-rays, tests, labs, etc.) don't need to be repeated by practitioners outside of the Veteran's "home" area, should they relocate or travel to other areas in the nation. You'd be surprised at how very expensive it is to repeat tests, procedures, consults to specialists, etc., it can be for large groups of system beneficiaries, when they don't have access to data that has already been gathered and documented. When providers can communicate with each other over securely transmitted/encrypted data lines, care is greatly improved and consistent!! When I worked for the VA Health Care System, I accessed remote data constantly in the performance of my job. I was able to bring up records, diagnostics, sleep studies and treatment plans for Veterans who originated from cities and towns clear across the nation from where I was in Las Vegas. This improved care and consistency and saved money for the system.

Another huge cost saving measure that the VA and military medical systems both use is the process of negotiation for large quantities of pharmaceuticals. I believe that Big Pharma could be reigned in by limiting what they can charge for medicines. What Big Pharma does to the American consumer/patient is nothing short of criminal!!

Like I said, the VA system is not perfect, but it has some elements in it that could, reasonably, be implemented into a national health care system that would really "pop"!!! I still maintain that, in order to truly deliver top notch patient care, in any system, we desperately need to get the profit incentive out of medicine and health care. It's unethical and just shameful that gross, obscene profits are and have been made on the backs of a sick humanity.

One last thing I'd like to put out here for contemplation is something that I heard a while ago, while discussing some of the economic issues of the healthcare system. It has to do with the inverse relationship of access vs. quality. In other words, when the system improves access to more population, quality goes down. In order for quality to improve, however, access must be restricted. Hmm....I've been rolling that concept around in my mind for several years now, and I've realized some truth to it. I'd like to put that thought out there for others to roll around in your minds, also.

Sorry to derail here, but I did have to step in and say that I believe that there are many elements of the VA system that could be implemented into a single payer system that could treat the American population, as a whole.

Back to your regularly scheduled program!! :bolt:

~Theo~ :bouquet:

You bring up a lot of very valid points, thank you!

[dark_crystal]

in order to truly deliver top notch patient care, in any system, we desperately need to get the profit incentive out of medicine and health care. It's unethical and just shameful that gross, obscene profits are and have been made on the backs of a sick humanity.

~Theo~ :bouquet:

I read a comment that says the fact that the US has for-profit justice, health care, education, and religion is truly screwed up and unlike any other developed country.

Socialism or no socialism, it should not take a genius to understand that the essentials of human life should be exempt from capitalism.

[dark_crystal]

I am concerned about Russia. Whether or not people are currently feeling the anti-mainstream heat, Russia will make sure sentiments like these grow legs.

Chapo Traphouse stated multiple times that interest in the Russia investigation was a litmus test for who NOT to support among the Dem candidates.

It's like they are Russian Meddling deniers, despite extensive proof that the Russians used them last time.

This will make just make the left a better weapon.

Part of the reason the #NeverHillary situation last year was so terrifying to me was because it was as much IRL than online, in that i had 2 Sanders supporters close to me (both guys, one white/cishet) who hated Hillary Clinton so much that i thought they were about to stroke out over it. Ruining ever happy hour and dinner party and ranting 24/7 on facebook. And i couldn't mute them because i was going to see them.

Anyway, i feel like this lingering hatred is driving the tendency of outlets like Chapo Traphouse to mock and dismiss the Russia situation.

If Russia delivered the election to Trump, Clinton's loss was not because of how badly she sucked. It was not because the Democrats failed to nominate Bernie.

If Trump cheated, then Clinton didn't lose.

Clinton's loss validates the idea that the Democrats need to move further left. If she didn't lose, some of that validation shift back to the center.

We're not supposed to talk abut politics at work, but we have talked about the Russian meddling because it is relevant to our work.

I have colleagues who feel like what Russia did was no big deal.

If Russia changed votes by amplifying and promoting misinformation, they believe that's fair. Critical thinking is available to everyone, they say, and if people had used it, Russia's tricks wouldn't have worked.

I guess that's what Chapo Traphouse thinks, too.

But is critical thinking available to everyone? I don't feel that it is, and part of a librarian's job is to address that.

[Martina]

A lot of us on the left have a broader critique of mainstream Democrats than just our hatred of Clintons. Working people have been betrayed by corporatist Democrats, who contributed to our headlong rush into a society of extreme economic inequality. Without the challenge from the left, Democrats would still be singing their same old song.

There has not been any over correction. I was hearing that BS on NPR today. Today's left are espousing FDR brand policies. The world canted way to the right starting with Reagan. Sensible folk are pointing that out in order to create a more humane system.

I do care about defeating Trump, but I also care about the truth. The idea that the Democratic Party is too far to the left is a joke.

After Trump, these divisions will still be with us, and I am not going to pretend that the Dems have not massively betrayed this country for any single election, even 2020.

[C0LLETTE]

I love the debates in here and I read them avidly. I often read them over and over and over till I understand the point.

Would it be possible to have a rule that a writer not use any "double negatives", surely not use more than one, and just stick to simple declarative sentences.

I figure you'd save time and space and even a simpleton like me would understand what you are saying in half the time.

Just a thought.

[dark_crystal]

A lot of us on the left have a broader critique of mainstream Democrats than just our hatred of Clintons. Working people have been betrayed by corporatist Democrats, who contributed to our headlong rush into a society of extreme economic inequality. Without the challenge from the left, Democrats would still be singing their same old song.

There has not been any over correction. I was hearing that BS on NPR today. Today's left are espousing FDR brand policies. The world canted way to the right starting with Reagan. Sensible folk are pointing that out in order to create a more humane system.

I do care about defeating Trump, but I also care about the truth. The idea that the Democratic Party is too far to the left is a joke.

After Trump, these divisions will still be with us, and I am not going to pretend that the Dems have not massively betrayed this country for any single election, even 2020.

I don't think the Democratic party is too far to the left, my post was narrowly focused on why certain media and librarian progressives dismiss the Russian meddling.

There are a lot of things on the table for 2020 that would not even be in the air if Clinton had won.

We would be looking at Obamacare-with-lipstick-on for health care, rather than having a primary field where you have to support some form of single-payer. We would not even be talking about 70% tax rates on the wealthy. We would not be talking about redistribution at all.

I think all critiques of the yuppie wing of the Democratic party are valid.

I think those critiques are weakened when people are so invested in them that they ignore crimes just because the existence of those crimes challenges the critique narrative. That is what i see happening on Chapo Traphouse.

It's like the "tankie" (Tankie (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankie) = member of a communist group or a "fellow traveller" (sympathiser) who believes fully in the political system of the Soviet Union and defends/defended the actions of the Soviet Union) phenomenon: tankies are so committed to communism that they ignore or defend atrocities because the existence of Soviet history puts a question mark on communism's virtues.

Anyway i was listening to Chapo Traphouse again this morning and they were having a lot of fun with the arrest of Roger Stone, so maybe their position is more nuanced that it seemed when i first heard them discuss it.

Also i do not know if i can promise to write in short declarative sentences. Brevity has never been a strength of mine.

[C0LLETTE]

The word "short" was never mine. I asked for "simple" declarative and fewer double negatives which bog me down. lol.

There's the line that Einstein probably never really uttered: " If you can't explain it simply, you probably don't understand it ".

On the other hand, one Nobel winner probably did say" "If it was simple to explain, I wouldn't have won a Nobel prize for it ".

[homoe]

Howard Schultz, Please Don’t Run for President...........




Really, what qualifications do you have besides being a decent businessman???????

[Martina]

Seriously, wasn't that out of left field? I wish he'd run in the Republican primary.

[CherylNYC]

Seriously, wasn't that out of left field? I wish he'd run in the Republican primary.

My thoughts, exactly. Besides that he's a criminal and a traitor, Trump has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a political neophyte has no place occupying the most powerful office in the world. A person needs to have some ideas about how our political system does and doesn't work. There's no room to learn as you go.

[dark_crystal]

I thought this was an excellent article. I wish that last sentence could be shouted from every rooftop.

Bernie’s Likely 2020 Bid Could Transform the Political Landscape (https://truthout.org/articles/bernies-likely-2020-bid-could-transform-the-political-landscape/), by Norman Solomon, Truthout

The likely Bernie Sanders campaign for president offers a boost and a challenge to progressives. From the outset, the campaign’s strength would largely depend on how much synergy develops with social movements on the ground. Much more than the presidency is at stake. A powerful mix of grassroots activism and electoral work could transform the country’s political landscape.

<snip>

While conflicts between election-focused campaigns and issue-focused activism may be inevitable, there’s great potential to make such tensions creative rather than destructive. During this decade, the trajectories of progressive election campaigns and progressive organizing have become more intertwined.

<snip>

But relations between electoral campaigns and social movements are frequently difficult, and tensions are bound to develop. “Bringing the vibrancy and democracy of activist movement culture to a political campaign is necessary but complicated,” Tori Osborn, a longtime progressive organizer who eventually ran for political office, told me. “Activist protest culture is spontaneous, often angry and wildly uncontrollable. Campaigns have to be rigorously disciplined and controllable.”

<snip>

Routine media coverage about “a blue wave” has obscured the deeper opportunities for “a progressive wave” that could drastically extend the boundaries of public discussion and political power. The default position for mass media is to define electoral conflicts in partisan Democrat-vs.-Republican terms, but a key task for grassroots progressive leadership in election battles is to develop community-based power to replace corporate power.

Overall, a Sanders 2020 campaign could be a powerful catalyst for creating a new political culture that nurtures activism as a year-long, every-year way of life for millions of people across boundaries of race, class and region. For a future of democracy instead of oligarchy, that political culture has got to include and transcend electoral work.

<snip>

As progressives weigh involvement in the Sanders campaign and many other 2020 races, the Democratic Party should be approached much like we approach the government itself — an entity capable of inflicting great harm on a systemic basis, while also capable of mitigating systemic harm and doing profound good in response to social movements.

[C0LLETTE]

Any opinions on Marianne Williamson running?

[homoe]

Any opinions on Marianne Williamson running?

I'll jump in COLLETTE, again like Schultz, really what are her qualifications?


I guess this time around I'm seeking someone who has political experience.

[dark_crystal]

I'll jump in COLLETTE, again like Schultz, really what are her qualifications?


I guess this time around I'm seeking someone who has political experience.

HELLO?? She is Oprah's spiritual advisor what more do you need?

(just kidding)

Wikipedia says


She ran for congress in 2014

"She campaigned on a broad array of progressive issues, including: greater access to high-quality education and free college; child poverty; economic justice; climate change & renewable energy; campaign finance reform; universal health care; criminal justice reform; ending perpetual war and increasing investments in peacebuilding; women’s reproductive rights; and LGBTQ equality among others"

Williamson has been a public advocate in the arenas of racial justice and race relations. She is known for leading public apologies for slavery and has encouraged paying reparations for slavery. Williamson has also worked in support of reforming the criminal justice system.

Williamson advocates for an open border immigration policy, stating that as long as individuals are vetted, they should be allowed to move to the United States.


Anyway, she's toast lol

[homoe]

..

Cory Booker jumped in this morning.....

[homoe]

Howard Schultz, Please Don’t Run for President...........




Really, what qualifications do you have besides being a decent businessman???????

Schultz was faced by protesters here in his home town of Seattle, with signs that said "Grande Ego" & "Venti Mistake" in regards to his possible run for president,while promoting his new book.

[Martina]

..

Cory Booker jumped in this morning.....

Yep. He's one I would not vote for should he get the nomination. Corporate shill.

[homoe]

Oprah is going to be between a rock and a hard place!

She & Gail are friends HUGE BUDS with Cory yet with Harris in the running who knows! She could even possibly back someone other than those two!

It's going to interesting.......

[Martina]

I don't think Gail can officially endorse a candidate. She's co-anchor of a news show, which will certainly be covering the election.

[Martina]

Booker is corrupt. Big picture corrupt. I have no idea if he's actually done anything illegal, but he owes some big corporate constituencies. I read that he has already been making the rounds looking for corporate support. There are better Democrats running.

[Kätzchen]

Democrats' Tax Plans Reflects Profound Shift In Public Mood (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-tax-plans-reflect-profound-shift-in-public-mood/ar-BBT5Mid?ocid=spartandhp)

by Matt Viser | The Washington Post (click on link above for article)



I found an article tonight, published about thirty minutes ago, and it features some of the platform ideas proposed by several Democratic Presidential contenders, concerning money/inequality/tax evasion etc.

I think what I found myself nodding in agreement to was an idea expressed by Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio): Brown is stressing middle-class tax cuts and overhauling the tax code to punish companies that cut wages or ship jobs overseas. I can see how Brown's view about doing something like this would provide better oversight and transparency (if one could say that), by overhauling the tax code... like propose this idea of his as a part of a more wide reaching tax reform type House Bill.

But the tricky part of this idea Brown proposes is that how does one reign in corporate business with this type of tax reform because while it's a good idea to foster big business employers to remain located in the US and not dislocate workers who've been on the job (for years, most likely -- think Detroit-MI, Elkhart-IN, Pittsburg-PA, or even Daimler or shipping yards or iron workers or construction workers, etc), I think that lots of people living in the mid-west, or wherever big business employers are generally found, are the vanishing middle-class, if there's a middle class at all. Most of America can be understood to be a majority of citizens, who are widely recognized as "the working poor." (I am, I've never had a fabulous paying job, ever in my life).



I sometimes understand the topic concerning platform politics, but sometimes I get lost trying to understand.



The article covers ideas by Sen. Warren, Sen. Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Booker, Sen. Guillibrand, Sen. Harris, Sen. Sanders, and a few other people who weigh in on certain platform ideas by the senators featured in the article.



Lots to think about, but I do think that reforming the tax code to hold plutocrats, cazillionaires, etc, accountable so that they invest in people, the economy, and keep business here in the US is a good idea. We've all read news accounts of those who have sheltered their profits/income streams/etc by not paying taxes or investing in their employees and the US economy in general. I'd like to see that change and for the ordinary person to be able to earn a decent living, and actually not have to fret and worry about when the next check comes, will there be anything left to buy food or pay the bills in timely ways (…..).



I don't know about anyone else, but if the SOTU address is aired this week, I am SOOOOOO looking forward to hearing the rebuttal given by Stacy Abrams.

[dark_crystal]

NBC News: Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261), by Robert Windrem and Ben Popken, Feb. 2, 2019, 6:03 AM CST

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.

Since Gabbard announced her intention to run on Jan. 11, there have been at least 20 Gabbard stories on three major Moscow-based English-language websites affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government: RT, the Russian-owned TV outlet; Sputnik News, a radio outlet; and Russia Insider

Gabbard was mentioned on the three sites about twice as often as two of the best known Democratic possibilities for 2020, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, each with 10 stories. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren had fewer. In each case, the other contenders were treated more critically than Gabbard, with headlines like "'Don't Run': Vermont Paper Begs Bernie Sanders Not to Seek US Presidency in 2020" and "Sexist much? Biden blames 'conservative blonde woman' for shutdown, 'forgets' Ann Coulter's name."

<snip>

"Her promulgation of positions compatible with Russian geo strategic interests can help them mainstream such discussion in the [Democratic] party," said Alex Stamos, former chief security officer at Facebook and now an NBC News analyst. Gabbard, said Stamos, helps them with all their "lines of attack."

<snip>

Gabbard's most controversial position and the one where she's most in line with Russian interests is on Syria. She's accused the U.S. of pushing a policy of "regime change" wars and in January 2017, she met with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria on what she called a "fact-finding mission."

RT began defending Gabbard as soon as she announced.
Russia-deniers on both right and left dismiss these concerns with "they're not doing anything we don't do" and that's true.

Information warfare has always existed and exists on all levels-- at work, in entertainment, in advertising, and in the official explanations of our own government on every topic.

Possibly the hysteria over information warfare is the MSM (note the source, NBC News)/centrist way of reviving Russia as an enemy now that terrorism is becoming less effective, so they can maintain the corporatist system, which is in itself yet some more information warfare.

"Beating Russia" as an agenda will be a lot cheaper than "saving the planet."

The problem i have with information warfare is it is so asymmetrical. It is the powerful against the weak on every level, and one side is not at all equipped for it.

[Martina]

I don't think she has a chance in the primaries. She has that history of anti-gay statements, and she has long been affiliated with what some deem to be a cult.

Edited to add: https://medium.com/@lalitamann/an-insiders-perspective-on-tulsi-gabbard-and-her-guru-e2650f0d09

[CherylNYC]

I don't think she has a chance in the primaries. She has that history of anti-gay statements, and she has long been affiliated with what some deem to be a cult.

Edited to add: https://medium.com/@lalitamann/an-insiders-perspective-on-tulsi-gabbard-and-her-guru-e2650f0d09

That was pretty scary.

[homoe]

That was pretty scary.



Ditto..............

[homoe]

...

Howard just wants to be referred to a "person of means"!

Perhaps he thinks that makes him more relate-able to the average working stiff?

[C0LLETTE]

...

Howard just wants to be referred to a "person of means"!

Perhaps he thinks that makes him more relate-able to the average working stiff?

I don't think he's that dumb. I don't much admire him but I don't think he's trying to be the obverse of Trump and blow "poor".

Why does he have to be more relatable to the average working stiff? Far as I can remember, the only President (in the last 100 years or so )relatable to the average working stiff is Trump and he claims no simple means. Actually, seems like working stiffs like their Presidents to have 24K water taps and solid gold bidets...it's aspirational, i guess.

[dark_crystal]

Monmouth University Polling Institute: Dems Prefer Electability in 2020 (https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_020419/)
(numbers below from poll as quoted by @ryanstruyk)

2020 numbers among whites by college education

Whites w/ a college degree:
Biden 22%
Harris 15%
Warren 13%
Sanders 12%

Whites w/o a college degree:
Biden 36%
Sanders 19%
Harris 10%
Warren 8%

2020 poll numbers by race

Whites:
Biden 30%
Sanders 16%
Harris 12%
Warren 10%

Nonwhites:
Biden 27%
Sanders 16%
O’Rourke 12%
Harris 9%

2020 poll numbers by gender

Men:
Biden 35%
Sanders 17%
Booker 7%
Warren 7%
Harris 5%
O’Rourke 5%

Women:
Biden 26%
Sanders 16%
Harris 14%
O’Rourke 8%
Warren 8%

2020 poll numbers by age

Over 50 years old:
Biden 38%
Harris 8%
Warren 7%
O’Rourke 7%
Sanders 5%
Booker 5%

Under 50 years old:
Sanders 27%
Biden 21%
Harris 13%
Warren 8%
O’Rourke 8%

This is depressing lol. But it is still early, right???

[Martina]

Look at those young folk. If they would only vote.

[homoe]

But it sure looks like Amy Klobuchar is tossing her hat into the ring!

The announcement is planned in Boom Island Minneapolis.

[Martina]

Lots of publicity about how she treats her staff.

[homoe]

Lots of publicity about how she treats her staff.

Yup, I've read that! But given the right circumstances, I think Trump would throw his own mother under the bus so there is that!

[homoe]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren officially launched her 2020 presidential campaign today at a rally in Lawrence, Massachusetts, using the backdrop of Everett Mills -- the site of a historic 1912 labor strike led by women and immigrants -- to issue a call to action against wealthy power brokers who "have been waging class warfare against hardworking people for decades."

Over 44 minutes in sub-freezing temperatures, Warren described a political elite "bought off" and "bullied" by corporate giants, and a middle class squeezed so tight it "can barely breathe."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/09/politics/elizabeth-warren-campaign-kickoff-massachusetts/index.html

[dark_crystal]

NBC News: Russia's propaganda machine discovers 2020 Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261), by Robert Windrem and Ben Popken, Feb. 2, 2019, 6:03 AM CST

The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

Several experts who track websites and social media linked to the Kremlin have also seen what they believe may be the first stirrings of an upcoming Russian campaign of support for Gabbard.

<snip>

Gabbard's most controversial position and the one where she's most in line with Russian interests is on Syria. She's accused the U.S. of pushing a policy of "regime change" wars and in January 2017, she met with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria on what she called a "fact-finding mission."

RT began defending Gabbard as soon as she announced.


My twitter account was followed this week by "Jennifer Adams @Jennife25259140 Mom,model,various other roles..., struggling human being, hoping for enlightenment"

Who is totally a Russian bot. Her account today only shows achievements in online games plus random tumblr reblogs, but when i scrolled through on the day she followed me, these were interspersed with a bunch of social justice tweets-- #metoo, #BLM, etc-- except every 7th or 8th tweet would be pro-Assad.

Weird and creepy.

i looked at accounts that follow her and a lot of them were nothing but game achievements, too. I think that's how they keep the accounts active when they don't have them doing anything else/build up their activity so they look less fake. The gaming tweets go back several years but the political tweets appear and disappear.

Now i am reverse searching their profile photos to see if they're stock or stolen. Also reporting reporting reporting, not that @jack will do anything.

[Kätzchen]

I came across a news press release, the other day, concerning Julian Castro, and how he talked about his plan to win Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Michigan, Pennsylvania (...).

For anyone who might be interested in learning more about JC and his political platform, you can read about it here (LINK (https://www.julianforthefuture.com/?source=join-us&ver=du-join-a)).


Also, there's an CNN interview clip and article too, found here (LINK (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/09/politics/julian-castro-2020-van-jones-cnntv/index.html))

[homoe]

Another article on Amy, tho IF I was to vote for her I don't think I'd let her lack of tack sway me!


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amy-klobuchar-mistreat-staff-harry-reid_us_5c5db1ece4b03afe8d674530

[Martina]

Well, between being a mainstream Dem and clearly being a jerk, she doesn't interest me much. Fortunately, we have a lot of candidates to choose from.

[charley]

Been watching the news, and apparently, Kamala Harris is leading over other candidates who are running for President in the "social media" arena... (I must say, I rather like her and every time, I have seen her face, she has brought up a smile on this face) :) and this is because of what I have seen while watching TV news - all due to her "authenticity"... In other words, she is the same person with everyone - being true to her self. Personally, this is one quality I respect above many other qualities, a person I might trust. However, having said this, I do not know how this will weigh in the selection process, especially considering how Trump won, being the most unauthentic person one could imagine. Apparently, for many Americans, popularity in the polls has more to do with "vested interests" rather than "authenticity".

[Martina]

I'm a fan of Kamala Harris, but she's a tough cookie. We need that. But I am not sure how much we know her. She's a lawyer who's career has been entirely in law enforcement. I support her. She is my second choice after Bernie. But I think she is super ambitious, super tough, and not someone I'd invite on a long walking tour. BUT, she stands for the right things, and that toughness is what we need, what we have needed. I vastly prefer Bernie, who truly inspires, but I'd be excited and hopeful if she got the nomination.

[CherylNYC]

So far Kamala is my first choice. She's tough, she's driven and she's comfortable with power. I think her history of aggressive prosecutions as a DA would have been angering had I lived through it, but it makes her a much more serious threat as a Presidential candidate. It makes her more attractive to the middle, and I don't care if that means she loses points on the left. If the next Pres is a Republican we can kiss our civil liberties, reproductive rights, and our environment goodbye.

[cathexis]

Look at those young folk. If they would only vote.

We need "get out the vote" campaigns like in the '70s-'90s. Aggressive voter registration like before would be nice. I'll stand next to Walmart with a clipboard. What happened to our organizers? Guess they burned out like us protestors. Burnout started with "next gen".

Really need this generation to pick up the baton.

[Martina]

Dems refused to fund the ground game last time, especially in the cities. Blame Clinton's campaign.

[Martina]

I heard Biden's eulogy for Rep. John Dingell on cspan, and it confirmed my willingness to vote for Biden should he get the nomination. He is a mainstream Dem with all that baggage, but he really does care about working people and unions. I think he would be a far braver President than his old boss, who I think would be braver if he had it to do again.

I like Biden. He has suffered in a particular way that I have suffered -- losing a loved one to glioblastoma. I know that's part of why my heart is more open to him. But the way he talked about the dignity of work and of being able to care for your family . . . . I know he understands that in both success and failure.

[charley]

Watching news this morning, Bernie Sanders has thrown his hat in the ring to run for President.

From my little Canadian pov, I think I like Bernie the best, having listened to what he says, since he cuts through everything and tells it like it is. I always have the greatest respect for those who dare "speak truth to power". Pls be reminded that we have medicare here for everyone, which is, in fact, nothing less than a reflection of "democratic socialism". Considering how Republican "capitalist" beliefs are spread across the U.S., I am not sure he has a chance.

Insofar as Kamala Harris is concerned, she recently stated that she is not a "democratic socialist". Personally, I think she is playing the political game of trying to win the middle ground so as to win (reminds me of Hillary)! As such, she has lost my personal interest.

This will be one scary election run-off to see who will be chosen by the Dems to run for President.

[dark_crystal]

I like that Bernie announced upon the heels of Schultz trying to blackmail the Dems over nominating him-- bc i, too, am a troll.

Now we are going to get to see who moves to the center to placate Schultz.

And any Dems who want to give Schultz the finger have only 1 way to do it: get behind Bernie. Schultz said specifically who he was most worried about.

ALSO

i like that Russia pushed his narrative to spoil Hillary/help Trump last cycle-- bc now all of their trollery bites them in the ass. Bernie's message is very visible and the Russians helped. Now their tactics become our asset.

It's beautiful.

[Andrea]

Just set up my recurring donation to Bernie's campaign. :awww:

Anyone else think a Bernie/Joe combination would be ideal?

Seems like everyone else has some baggage I can't get around.

[MsTinkerbelly]

I will vote for whichever candidate runs against the burgermeister, but I really hope it won’t be Bernie. I would rather see old man Biden winning than Bernie. I know that puts me in the minority, but there you go.

I think that I still have such resentment that Bernie waited so long, and did so little, to help his base accept Hilary as the candidate, that I just can’t see him pulling our fractured party (let alone our country) together.

Of course I have been wrong before........

[CherylNYC]

I am strongly against Sanders or Biden as Presidential candidates or as running mates. I'm against them for the same reason I would be against Hillary if she threw her hat in the ring today. They are all too darned old!

Bernie Sanders is 77 years old now. He would be 79 in 2020 and 83 by the end of a four year term. If he were to win a second term he would be 87 years old. Biden is just one year younger. Ronald Reagan was clearly experiencing dementia in his second term. He was nearly 70 when he was sworn in, which is 10 years younger than Sanders would be. The risk of dementia and disease is only part of it. The job of U.S. President calls for someone more vigorous and energetic than an 80 year old can possibly be. No insults intended, but I am not supportive of someone who I'm convinced couldn't sustain the energy needed for this job.

Apparently, this is a popular subject. I googled Biden's and Sanders' age just to be sure, and 'age' was the second and third suggested google search for each of them respectively.

[Martina]

When I saw that he had announced, I yelled, "Bernie!!!!"

I love the man. I couldn't be happier that he's running.

[C0LLETTE]

I am strongly against Sanders or Biden as Presidential candidates or as running mates. I'm against them for the same reason I would be against Hillary if she threw her hat in the ring today. They are all too darned old!

Bernie Sanders is 77 years old now. He would be 79 in 2020 and 83 by the end of a four year term. If he were to win a second term he would be 87 years old. Biden is just one year younger. Ronald Reagan was clearly experiencing dementia in his second term. He was nearly 70 when he was sworn in, which is 10 years younger than Sanders would be. The risk of dementia and disease is only part of it. The job of U.S. President calls for someone more vigorous and energetic than an 80 year old can possibly be. No insults intended, but I am not supportive of someone who I'm convinced couldn't sustain the energy needed for this job.

Apparently, this is a popular subject. I googled Biden's and Sanders' age just to be sure, and 'age' was the second and third suggested google search for each of them respectively.

Maybe you don't really figure out who you really are or what you believe in until you are in your 90s. Wouldn't that be a kick in the ass.

:dance2:

Dance Bernie, dance.

[cathexis]

Bernie is too old, and Sanchez is too green. The MW is probably going for Biden. There no really good choice. It's too bad that Bernie didn't groom someone. Want a "Democratic Socialist," but don't see anyone in the wings.
The Country has gone way to the right since 45 was elected, maybe before.

[Martina]

It's so rare for me to respond to a candidate, to feel much about their candidacy. So so rare. I think a lot of people feel that way about Bernie. It's not just that he stands for the right things, it's his clear good intentions, his decency, his determination, his humor. He's like a hundred people I have known except he is in politics, which rarely attracts the good guys. Obama is a decent man, but he did not stand for what I do. I was moved that an African-American could get elected, but because our politics didn't align, I was not super enthusiastic.

Bernie just lightens my heart and gives me hope for my country. I don't care how old he is. That he is willing to take it all on again is enough for me. He's Bernie. A national treasure. I will support him until he wins or concedes.

[Andrea]

I will vote for whichever candidate runs against the burgermeister, but I really hope it won’t be Bernie. I would rather see old man Biden winning than Bernie. I know that puts me in the minority, but there you go.

I think that I still have such resentment that Bernie waited so long, and did so little, to help his base accept Hilary as the candidate, that I just can’t see him pulling our fractured party (let alone our country) together.

Of course I have been wrong before........

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. Hilary won the popular vote. The only reason Dear Leader won was due to the electoral vote. Do you believe Bernie could have changed that outcome?

[Martina]

The votes Clinton lost that cost her the election were African Americans in Milwaukee and Detroit and white women who had voted for Obama in Pennsylvania. The African Americans didn't come out. The Pennsylvania women voted for Trump. These were never Bernie Sanders voters.

While a number of Bernie voters did not vote for Clinton, there is no analysis that says that they cost her the election. Not going to Wisconsin even one time cost her the election. Not funding the ground game cost her the election.

You can say Jill Stein won 130,000 votes in those states, but most of those were never going to be hers. The campaign didn't expect them to be. Stein under performed. The votes Clinton counted on -- African Americans and middle class women -- didn't happen. Those last few weeks she campaigned in fucking Texas, where she never had a shot, and ignored the three states that cost her the election.

[Martina]

I was just googling to make sure I was right about something I said in the last post and saw that Bernie made commercials supporting Clinton that they never aired. They did not run out of money. Just too stupid and arrogant.

[Martina]

Also, just saw this in an article about how she lost Michigan (undermining their own ground game, largely):

"Sanders threw himself into campaign appearances for Clinton throughout the fall, but familiar sources say the campaign never asked the Vermont senator’s campaign aides for help thinking through Michigan, Wisconsin or anywhere else where he had run strong."

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

[dark_crystal]

Just set up my recurring donation to Bernie's campaign

Me too! He raked in 4 million today, which is a record.

[Martina]

Didn't it end up being almost $6 million? *All proud of Bernie*

[Orema]

I’m starting to look forward to the primaries. Thank goodness the Democrats will put forth a somewhat diverse selection. And I think from here on, the Democratic primaries will be more diverse than what we’ve had. That’s an important and good change for me.

I’m open to a lot of people in the primaries. Warren, Harris, Koblachar, Holder ... and I’m looking forward to hearing from Buttigieg, Castro, Beto etc. in the debates.

I think we’ll end up with the “same old same old” as the 2020 democratic nominee, but getting this country to accept a woman, LGBTQ person, or PoC as the top dog is a process.

Still, I’m feeling hopeful and looking forward to the Democrats debating and I’m wondering who will be the moderators.

[C0LLETTE]

Jussie Smollet : got an opinion on how this is unfolding?

is this legitimate political fodder?

[dark_crystal]

I’m starting to look forward to the primaries. Thank goodness the Democrats will put forth a somewhat diverse selection. And I think from here on, the Democratic primaries will be more diverse than what we’ve had. That’s an important and good change for me.

I’m open to a lot of people in the primaries. Warren, Harris, Koblachar, Holder ... and I’m looking forward to hearing from Buttigieg, Castro, Beto etc. in the debates.

I think we’ll end up with the “same old same old” as the 2020 democratic nominee, but getting this country to accept a woman, LGBTQ person, or PoC as the top dog is a process.

Still, I’m feeling hopeful and looking forward to the Democrats debating and I’m wondering who will be the moderators.

I donated to Buttigieg today bc he posted that he has to have 65,000 donors to be in the debates.

[Andrea]

I donated to Buttigieg today bc he posted that he has to have 65,000 donors to be in the debates.

Great idea. I will give a few $ too. Thanks for mentioning it.

[C0LLETTE]

I donated to Buttigieg today bc he posted that he has to have 65,000 donors to be in the debates.

If I could, I would.

[dark_crystal]

I donated to Buttigieg today bc he posted that he has to have 65,000 donors to be in the debates.

Also on Pod Save America this morning i finally heard someone pronounce his name but i already forgot how. I have not been very mature in my attempts.

[CherylNYC]

Also on Pod Save America this morning i finally heard someone pronounce his name but i already forgot how. I have not been very mature in my attempts.

Boot-i-jug

[CherylNYC]

Boot-i-jug

I was listening to 'Ask Me Another' on the radio today and Mayor Pete was on the show. The host pronounced his name as

Boot-i-judge.

[Andrea]

Having to rethink my interest in Joe Biden.....

Joe Biden’s Drug War Record Is So Much Worse Than You Think

https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/joe-bidens-drug-war-record-is-so-much-worse-than-you-think?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=B2C%20Newsletter%20-%20Nat%27l%20-%2002/26/19&utm_content=Final&utm_term=%5BTWS%5D%20%26%20%5BMaster%20%2B%20Not%2 0Dormant%5D (https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/joe-bidens-drug-war-record-is-so-much-worse-than-you-think?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=B2C%20Newsletter%20-%20Nat%27l%20-%2002/26/19&utm_content=Final&utm_term=%5BTWS%5D%20%26%20%5BMaster%20%2B%20Not%2 0Dormant%5D)

Former Vice President Joe Biden has begun tip-toeing towards throwing his hat in the ring as a candidate in the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary.
Few politicians have done more harm in America’s war on drugs than the former senator from Delaware.

Political watchers are expecting him to formally announce any day now. But Biden, who carefully cultivated a genial “Uncle Joe” image during his eight years as Obama’s veep, knows he’s got a history that could drag him down. Few politicians have done more harm in America’s war on drugs than the former senator from Delaware.

Just last month, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, he addressed a room full of civil rights activists on the subject of criminal justice, hoping to shore up support.

“I haven’t always been right,” Biden told the National Action Network, “but I’ve always tried.”

Try telling that to the millions of people and entire communities who’ve had their lives torn apart by laws championed by kindly old Uncle Joe. From green lighting civil asset forfeiture to incentivizing mass incarceration to cheerleading mandatory minimums and the militarization of the police, Joe Biden has been a driving force behind America’s disastrous approach to drug policy.

Original Drug War Architect
Many of the original architects of America’s drug war have retired or passed away. Biden remains one of the few still in power—and may soon reach for more.

His influence over drug policy and mass incarceration began in the 1980s, when, as a senator from Delaware, he served as chair of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.

Policies Biden personally put into place greatly expanded a racist, ineffective, costly, unjust and oppressive quagmire that was already an obvious failure when he first entered government service nearly 50 years ago. That same self-destructive drug war rages on today—in America and around the world.

America Changed, Biden Didn’t
Meanwhile, Biden remains one of very few prominent Democrats who’ve still failed to endorse cannabis legalization at the federal level. A policy that’s currently supported by 62% of Americans—including 45% of Republicans—and is already the law of the land in ten states remains too radical for him to sign off on.

Biden remains one of few prominent Democrats who’ve still failed to endorse cannabis legalization at the federal level.

At the very least, Biden seems to be aware of the fact that the times and public opinion are changing around him. He was plenty outspoken about drug policy in the 1980s, but has run silent on the issue for nearly a decade. The last time he substantively addressed legalization appears to be 2010, in an ABC News interview:

“There’s a difference between sending someone to jail for a few ounces and legalizing it,” he said. “The punishment should fit the crime. But I think legalization is a mistake. I still believe [marijuana] is a gateway drug.”

Well, Joe, it’s a free country—believe anything you want. But the gateway theory has long been thoroughly debunked. Even D.A.R.E. no longer promotes that old canard.

Biden: ‘Let’s Have a Drug Czar’
Let’s circle back to Biden’s humblebrag: that he hasn’t “always been right” when it comes to criminal justice.

When pressed for specifics, he says that after pushing for vastly harsher punishments for crack than for powder cocaine, he “spent years” working to undo his own racist fuckup. But in terms of accountability, that’s basically the end of it. Biden has never truly come to terms with the scope of the damage he’s done.

Plenty of politicians from both parties supported the drug war. Only Biden went further and cooked up the idea of a Drug Czar.

A lot of politicians from both parties vocally supported the war on drugs back in the days of “Just Say No.” But it was Joe Biden who pretty much singlehandedly dreamed up the idea of a cabinet level “Drug Czar”—a term he coined in a 1982 interview with the New York Times. Seven years later, after working in tandem with the Reagan administration, he saw that dream come to life when the White House created the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).

Charged with formulating and administrating America’s drug prohibition game plan, the ONDCP almost immediately began agitating for a massive expansion of interdiction, enforcement, and incarceration efforts. A 1989 report to Congress put it in dollar figures:

No attempt should be made to disguise the fact that significant new resources will be required to pay for the many proposals advanced in this report… Last February, this Administration requested nearly $717 million in new drug budget authority for Fiscal Year 1990. Now, after six months of careful study, we have identified an immediate need for $1.478 billion more. With this report, the Administration is requesting FY 1990 drug budget authority totaling $7.864 billion—the largest single-year dollar increase in history.

Doubling Down on Propoganda
In 1996, when the ONDCP came up for reauthorization, Biden voted in the senate for a bill that basically required the Drug Czar to spearhead a massive propaganda campaign directed at the American people.

“The Director shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of [such] a substance (in any form).”

Which basically boils down to: No matter how much evidence comes to light showing cannabis is a safe and effective medicine, the Drug Czar is required, by law, to lie about it. No matter how much evidence piles up showing that the benefits of legalization far outweigh any potential harms, the Drug Czar is required by law to lie about it. Which they have all done.

The lying continues today. Under Donald Trump, the ONDCP supports the work of a secretive White House anti-cannabis committee whose membership list reads like a murderer’s row of discredited drug warriors.

A Disparity of 100:1
Should Biden decide to jump into the race for the Presidency, he’ll have to either make a late conversion to cannabis legalization or explain why not. Either way, it’s not a good look. He’s also open to charges that his signature piece of legislation in the US Senate—the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act—played a key role in supercharging the for-profit prison industry and turning the United States into the nation with the world’s highest incarceration rate.

That same law spurred a ramping up of aggressive policing in poor and minority neighborhoods, while establishing a weight disparity for crack to powder cocaine at 100:1 (for the purposes of federal sentencing guidelines). Distribution of five grams of crack triggered a five-year mandatory minimum, as opposed to 500 grams of powder. Predictably, this meant the law vastly disproportionately targeted people of color and other at-risk communities.

According to a 2006 report from the American Civil Liberties Union, Cracks in the System: Twenty Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law:

In 1986, before the enactment of federal mandatory minimum sentencing for crack cocaine offenses, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 11% higher than for whites. Four years later, the average federal drug sentence for African Americans was 49% higher. The effects of mandatory minimums not only contribute to these disproportionately high incarceration rates, but also separate fathers from families, separate mothers with sentences for minor possession crimes from their children, create massive disfranchisement of those with felony convictions, and prohibit previously incarcerated people from receiving some social services for the betterment of their families.

Golf Clap for ‘Reform’
That all sounds pretty terrible. But keep in mind, while Biden may not have always been right, he was always trying. And this is the one fuckup he reversed, right? In 2010 the Fair Sentencing Act—signed by President Obama while Biden served as his Vice President—reduced the disparity between crack and powder cocaine all the way down to 18:1—though not retroactively.

The Sins of the Father
With a crowded field of Democrats already in the race, cannabis policy and criminal justice reform could emerge as a major wedge issue during a hotly contested primary season. So far, every declared Democratic candidate fully supports federal cannabis legalization. Some, like New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, have been early sponsors of bills to do just that. So why should you vote for a guy who still thinks peaceful adults should get busted for weed?

Especially when the same rules don’t seem to apply to his own children.

In September 1998, Biden’s daughter Ashley was arrested for cannabis possession in Louisiana—a state notorious for giving decade-long sentences for miniscule amounts of marijuana. But there’s no record of a conviction in Ashley Biden’s case.

In 2014, Biden’s son Hunter tested positive for cocaine on a drug test and was discharged from the Navy just a month after reporting for duty. No criminal charges were filed.

There’s zero evidence either of them received any special treatment because of their father’s position as a powerful politician, though it’s certainly possible. What doesn’t seem possible is that Joe Biden would support one of his own children spending years behind bars for possession of a personal amount of drugs—not now, and not back in 1994 when he championed the crime bill.

I can’t even imagine the person who would want that for their own children. So how can you want it for someone else’s?

[Gráinne]

Jussie Smollet : got an opinion on how this is unfolding?

is this legitimate political fodder?

How stupid can he be?

At the least, it was a stunt to somehow help his career. I guess said career is a goner, now.

At the worst, I've heard that it was a much bigger conspiracy involving some of the Democrats running for President.

No doubt there will be a trial, and he's looking at federal prison.

[charley]

Having to rethink my interest in Joe Biden.....

Joe Biden’s Drug War Record Is So Much Worse Than You Think
...

Political watchers are expecting him to formally announce any day now. But Biden, who carefully cultivated a genial “Uncle Joe” image during his eight years as Obama’s veep, knows he’s got a history that could drag him down. Few politicians have done more harm in America’s war on drugs than the former senator from Delaware.
...

Biden has never truly come to terms with the scope of the damage he’s done.


Indeed!, well said Andrea,
And this is not the only thing about Biden...

Moreover:

Biden has been recently criticised by Cynthia Nixon for supporting Pence, the most anti-LGBTQ leader:

Joe Biden said something nice about Mike Pence. Big mistake.

"CNN)On Thursday in Omaha, Nebraska, former Vice President Joe Biden said this about current Vice President Mike Pence: "The fact of the matter is it was followed on by a guy who's a decent guy, our vice president, who stood before this group of allies and leaders and said, 'I'm here on behalf of President Trump,' and there was dead silence. Dead silence."

"Biden was referencing the rocky reception Pence received last month at a security conference in Munich as a way to illustrate the damage President Donald Trump has done to our relationships with our allies across the world. The idea Biden was pushing was that Pence, in and of himself, is someone who would get a perfectly polite reception at a conference like the one in Munich but, because of Trump, Pence had been given the silent treatment. It was, as criticisms of Trump go, relatively pedestrian.

"Except that Biden referred to Pence as a "decent guy." Which the liberal left -- especially on Twitter -- immediately seized. Cynthia Nixon, actress and unsuccessful candidate for governor in New York, tweeted this at Biden: "@JoeBiden you've just called America's most anti-LGBT elected leader 'a decent guy.' Please consider how this falls on the ears of our community."

"Biden quickly responded to Nixon, offering an apology. "You're right, Cynthia," wrote Biden. "I was making a point in a foreign policy context, that under normal circumstances a Vice President wouldn't be given a silent reaction on the world stage," he said. "But there is nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, and that includes the Vice President."

"This entire episode is very revealing -- about Biden, his near-certain run for the 2020 Democratic nomination and the state of the party that Biden wants to lead. Here are three things it tells us:

"1) Biden is a creature of a totally different political time. Biden is a political anachronism. He's been in politics for almost 50 years; he was first elected to the Senate in 1972! Politics back then (and all the way through the mid- to late-1990s) was far more genteel and polite than it is now. Biden is a hail-fellow-well-met sort of guy. My guess is he has called roughly 200,000 people (NOTE: This is an estimate) a "decent guy" over the course of his political life. That doesn't mean he agrees with them. Or that he even likes them. Rather, it's a reflection of the general collegiality that reigned in politics when Biden came up in the game.

"Things have changed drastically since then, however. And this kerfuffle is a sign of things to come for Biden. He is a benefit-of-the-doubt guy running to lead a party who views the other side as not just dumb and incompetent, but evil. This may be the first time who Biden is as a politician runs directly into the new governing reality of the Democratic Party.

"2) Biden is definitely running for president. OK, in truth, there hasn't been much doubt about Biden's plans to run in 2020 for a while now. But just in case there was any doubt, his rapid response to Nixon should clear that up. If Biden was leaning against the 2020 race -- or had made up his mind not to run (even if he hadn't announced it publicly) -- it's hard for me to see that he would even respond to Nixon, much less do so as quickly and apologetically as he did.

"3) Biden is going to try to placate the left. While we've known that Biden is running for a while now -- see No. 2 -- it's been less clear how he will run. Will he run as an unapologetic centrist, a pillar of the establishment and conventional thinking that a candidate for the Democratic nomination can't move too far left or run the risk of losing the sensible center in the general election? Or will Biden seek to make the case that he is just as much of a liberal champion as the likes of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)? Biden's decision to engage Nixon and to say sorry so quickly suggests that he will be more reactive to the purity demands of the liberal left than I, for one, thought he might be.

"Sometime soon Biden is going to get into the presidential race. And on the day he does, he will become the front-runner for the nomination -- based on his pole position in both early state and national polling. But this "decent guy" controversy suggests that the former VP will not have an easy road. Can he adapt to the changed political world -- in his party and in the country at large? Or will it eat him alive?"

As per:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/01/politics/joe-biden-mike-pence-2020/index.html
___

Personally, my definition of decency is in no way the same as Biden's. For me, decency implies goodness. Such an old-fashioned word, "goodness", but I like it. I have a horror of people who throw out words like "decency" just to curry favour with the the gullible. In my mind, Biden will say anything to win, but his track record is not indicative of a decent person, a good person. Just because someone does not commit "crimes and misdemeanors", pays his or her taxes, works or as I have heard all too often when people want others to like them only because they are working and supporting the GDP, "I have one" (i.e. a job) - does not mean that they are a good person.

Just think about this for one second, how many women have married men because of the idea that they would offer such women financial security (the "decent" guy), only to end up as two old people who have absolutely nothing to say to each other, or as what usually happens - divorce!!!

When push comes to shove, no doubt Biden will support the illusory dreams of the silent majority - even the ones who had voted for Trump and supported him, just to have power, to wield power, to add to his reputation. And, that means, he may not be the right person to defend the weak and vulnerable minority (minorities), such as the LGBTQ community, let alone other vulnerable groups of people.

[dark_crystal]

I was listening to 'Ask Me Another' on the radio today and Mayor Pete was on the show. The host pronounced his name as

Boot-i-judge.

I listened to his interview on Pod Save America this morning and i like him! He's a little centrist in health care, though.

Well, not centrist so much as incrementalist. He wants to put a Medicare-for-all plan in among the other plans you can choose on the exchanges and let people come to their support through experience.

He said that is how we got from the "Death Panel" town halls in 2010 to the "Save the ACA" town halls of 2017-- people's impressions changed after the issue was no longer theoretical and had become part of their experience.

I also like that he is a veteran and that he is very serious and that Bernie is the politician he most admires.

Oh! And that he calls out the condescension that coastal progressives show to the midwest, which is a huge problem that only the right seems to call out (that i've noticed)

[CherylNYC]

I listened to his interview on Pod Save America this morning and i like him! He's a little centrist in health care, though.

Well, not centrist so much as incrementalist. He wants to put a Medicare-for-all plan in among the other plans you can choose on the exchanges and let people come to their support through experience.

He said that is how we got from the "Death Panel" town halls in 2010 to the "Save the ACA" town halls of 2017-- people's impressions changed after the issue was no longer theoretical and had become part of their experience.

I also like that he is a veteran and that he is very serious and that Bernie is the politician he most admires.

Oh! And that he calls out the condescension that coastal progressives show to the midwest, which is a huge problem that only the right seems to call out (that i've noticed)

I like him, too. He has good ideas and a good temperament. But I think he's just too young and green. He should run for Governor first and get more seasoned.

[dark_crystal]

I like him, too. He has good ideas and a good temperament. But I think he's just too young and green. He should run for Governor first and get more seasoned.

Yah, Mayor of South Bend is not much. The City i work for has the same population and any of the four mayors i've worked under would be laughed out of a Presidential primary, with cause.

[Martina]

I am not sure that there is anyone among the Dems running who people dislike as much as Hillary, so I guess it's encouraging. Or not. The Dems are not to be trusted. They still blame everyone else but Clinton for the loss. Anyway, this was interesting:

"Trump was able to win in 2016 because that election came down to a choice between him and Hillary Clinton. Clinton was the second-least-liked major party nominee of all time, and there was 18% of the electorate that liked neither Clinton nor Trump. Trump won this 18% of the electorate by 17 points and with it the election. In other words, Trump was seen as the lesser of two evils."

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/2020-bad-news-trump/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

[Andrea]

Since I find it difficult to remember the good and the bad for so many different 2020 candidates, I suspect others have the same problem. Heck, I am having trouble just keeping up with who has announced a run and who is just considering a run.

Would it be of interest to have one thread for each candidate? A place to list what we like about them and what we don't like?

[homoe]

Since I find it difficult to remember the good and the bad for so many different 2020 candidates, I suspect others have the same problem. Heck, I am having trouble just keeping up with who has announced a run and who is just considering a run.

Would it be of interest to have one thread for each candidate? A place to list what we like about them and what we don't like?

This is food for thought! I'm thinking maybe we should wait for individual threads for each until a bit close to election time.

Thanks for posting, I searched and searched for this thread but gave up and posted in the Breaking News thread about Bill Shine heading Trump's 2020 re-election campaign!

[C0LLETTE]

I am not sure that there is anyone among the Dems running who people dislike as much as Hillary, so I guess it's encouraging. Or not. The Dems are not to be trusted. They still blame everyone else but Clinton for the loss. Anyway, this was interesting:

"Trump was able to win in 2016 because that election came down to a choice between him and Hillary Clinton. Clinton was the second-least-liked major party nominee of all time, and there was 18% of the electorate that liked neither Clinton nor Trump. Trump won this 18% of the electorate by 17 points and with it the election. In other words, Trump was seen as the lesser of two evils."

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/03/05/politics/2020-bad-news-trump/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Please give me one good reason why Hillary was the 2nd least liked major party nominee of all time. When did that happen? Who made that happen? You all really believe there was ever only one nominee less Satanic than Hillary?

I've never really understood why Democrats and the Left allow Repubs and the Right to define and smear their candidates, accept the smear as legit, and then spend the rest of their political thought defending agst straw man bullshit

Why are so many of you such cowering wimps, so eager to self flagellate and accept every nasty distraction tossed at you.

Ignore the A..Holes. That's what they do because they understand that the public is too ignorant to distinguish fine argument.being constantly on the defensive is just dumb.

Stop going on abt how bad Hillary was. Leave that to the Right.
Want the perfect male candidate, resurrect Jesus.
Want the perfect female candidate, dig up Mother Teresa.
Want the worst possible candidate, let the Right pick one for you and then go on and on about whether they got it right.
What a divisive waste of time and resources.

[Martina]

One? One? Google for God's sake. Seriously???? And this post got thanked by sane people???

How about her strong support of the Iraq War?

How about her continuing to tout welfare reform in her 2008 campaign, legislation which increased extreme poverty by 150%. I remember that. I didn't vote for Bill the second time because of welfare reform. He said, oh we'll clean it up with further legislation. But they didn't. They didn't even follow what happened to the kids removed from welfare. We now know it was a fucking nightmare. And then, in a mind-blowingly cynical act of hypocrisy, in 2016, Hillary kept talking about her time working with Marion Wright Edelman. The Marion Wright Edelman who didn't speak to her for five years after welfare reform. But since she was dead in 2016, she couldn't be asked about it.

How about her close ties to the Walton's and her efforts to undermine labor unions in Arkansas?

How about her support for charters? How about her bone ignorance of education issues except to follow the lead of her billionaire buddies in the tech industry?

How about her opposition to nearly every effort that will probably be part of the 2020 Democratic platform?

How about her close ties to Wall Street? The money from Goldman Sachs being the tip of the iceberg?

How about the foundation which was just more cozying up to corporations from whom the Clinton's made a fortune via speaking and consulting frees.

How about the way she refused to acknowledge economic inequality until forced to? And how she continues to talk about our system as a meritocracy when there is tons of research showing upward mobility is harder than ever and that class privilege predetermines success in almost every arena.

How about her basic support for the TPP, saying it just needed tweaking, continuing her husband's disastrous economic policies which have hollowed out the American middle class?

How about her hesitation on the minimum wage?

How about her interventionist strategy in Libya, which she now regrets?

How about the phrases super-predator and the deserving poor? Those phrases came out of her mouth.

How about her support of every neo-liberal, anti-worker, anti-poor, racist policy her husband's administration came up with?

Google. You'll find more.

Oh, and I sure as hell ain't no cowering wimp. Nor am I self-flagellating when I oppose candidates like Hillary Clinton. I have NOTHING in common with the people who have been destroying our nation for thirty years. And I have about as much in common with a hard core Hillary supporter as I do a Trump supporter. You don't like left wing populists? Who the fuck cares? Bernie had to give an extra speech in Iowa today because there were so many people who couldn't get into the venue. There are lots of us, and we don't give a good God damn what you think.

You clearly know next to nothing about US politics.

[dark_crystal]

The Clintons were yuppies.

Bill won because people still liked yuppies in the early 90s and because GHWB was somehow equal parts wimpy and sinister.

I personally had a hard time with Clinton bc she reminded me of my most annoying second-wave boss, but i do not understand why people vilify her so specifically.

Every problematic thing either Clinton ever supported was typical yuppie shit.

We need to recognize and own, as a culture, everything that was wrong with the entire ethos of the have-it-all eighties and quit projecting it all onto a single woman.

She was dirty from day one bc she entered the workforce at a time when every single thing was gatekept by a male, and female empowerment, back then, was possible only under the terms set by men, which required a wholehearted embrace of capitalism. There were a zillion movies about it.

You had to get dirty to play-- it was still either that or be a teacher/nurse/secretary, and even then, while you may not have to be like men, you at least had to be for them-- compliantly pretty and demure and tolerant of mild harassment and light assault.

There is a whole lot of pernicious shit that any woman in her generation would have internalized, that we are only just now even able to begin to challenge. This is why she still has supporters-- a whole lot of women who had those same experiences are still voting.

She's not evil, she's just a yuppie.

Should she have realized, before running, that the time was past when a yuppie was anything anybody still needed?

Has any yuppie realized this, ever?

[dark_crystal]

Has any yuppie realized this, ever?
...in the interest of keeping it 2020 and not relitigating 2016:

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/114c8c6b20b7031dc9d39049d87a163fffbcef00/c=884-0-4524-2057/local/-/media/2018/06/28/USATODAY/USATODAY/636657974374437162-EPA-DENMARK-POLICY-DEMOCRACY-SUMMIT-100850631.JPG?width=580&height=326&fit=crop

[kittygrrl]

One? One? Google for God's sake. Seriously???? And this post got thanked by sane people???

How about her strong support of the Iraq War?

.

You clearly know next to nothing about US politics.

yes, etc etc etc...let's depreciate each other and listen to the clapping from fox news fans...seriously?...can we all get on the same page and just agree to disagree?? I repped her comment becuz i get super bummed listening to the whining of bernie burners and any one else getting off on the "lock her up" chant.. can we just move on with 2019 issues and get over a woman running for president?? O.m.g. get over 2016!!!!@@

[charley]

One? One? Google for God's sake. Seriously???? And this post got thanked by sane people???
...

You clearly know next to nothing about US politics.

Well, umm.... I don't equate lack of knowledge (information) about a candidate and sanity. They have nothing to do with each other.

Now, thank you for providing all this knowledge about Hillary, which I confess, I really didn't know much about. As I have said more than once, I was so busy prior to retirement, I was not prepared to understand how Trump won (how Hillary lost). It's all been a learning curve of information and subsequent understanding. So again, thank you.

Insofar as winners go, I remember seeing on TV a woman who had voted for Trump say that she had held her nose at the thought of voting for Trump, but did it anyways. Yeah, I think there are Republicans who "know" that Trump was/is an a**hole. Personally, I think most politicians are corrupt, even evil. Ya know, as Lord Acton, expressed in an opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

So, one is usually faced with a dilemma when placing anyone in a powerful position. Insofar as the States are concerned, I have understood one thing, that this powerful person is also in charge of appointing judges, besides legislation.

Since Trump has been in power, he has appointed the following:

As of March 7, 2019, the United States Senate has confirmed 89 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 34 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 53 judges for the United States District Courts, and 0 judges for the United States Court of International Trade - for a total of 178 judges appointed by a Republican government. Personally, I don't believe at all as the Chief Justice made a statement to the effect that they are impartial - rubbish!

There are currently 60 nominations to Article III courts awaiting Senate action, including 8 for the Courts of Appeals, 50 for the District Courts, and 2 for the Court of International Trade.

So, that is where the power lies.

As you are all aware, Manafort got a lesser sentence than even his defense attorney suggested, and this by a Reagan-appointed judge.

So even if Hillary smelt, the point of the election for those who did not support Trump, was to ensure that the Dems won.

[Martina]

Yes, Biden is a mainstream Dem who supported most of this stuff. However, he has been a consistent supporter of unions, whose destruction has been the linchpin of neo-liberal domestic politics. Reviving unions is also they key to returning this country to someplace workers can afford to live. The Clinton's undermined unions at every turn and from the beginning.

...in the interest of keeping it 2020 and not relitigating 2016:

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/114c8c6b20b7031dc9d39049d87a163fffbcef00/c=884-0-4524-2057/local/-/media/2018/06/28/USATODAY/USATODAY/636657974374437162-EPA-DENMARK-POLICY-DEMOCRACY-SUMMIT-100850631.JPG?width=580&height=326&fit=crop

[Martina]

Well the election is over and Trump won, thanks to mainstream Dems having their heads lodged firmly up their asses.

The point of that little thing I posted is that almost any Democratic candidate is likely to do much better this time around. It was semi-encouraging.

I will say that those who fear the left have less to worry about this time. I have read that the Bernie voters who went Trump are a group that no longer exists in terms of voting behavior. Duh.

I voted Clinton. But fuck every fucking asshole who tells third party voters not to vote their conscience after fielding a candidate like Clinton. She would have won if her campaign had not been so smug, stupid, and incompetent. I will vote for any Democrat who is nominated as I imagine most Trump haters will.

But those Clintonites excoriating third party voters then and now don't have a leg to stand on. Your horrendous candidate lost. And not because of Berners. Because she lost Obama voters and urban African Americans and because she didn't reach the suburban white women she spent so much money courting. Not a fucking thing to do with voters who never have and never will vote Dem. They honestly never expected to get them, so those post game arguments are ignorant. What she figured wrong was the base and how fucking sick to death they are of mainstream Dems not having a clue about their lives and priorities.

Listen, I have hated with a burning hot hatred both Clinton's for two decades. I hate Bill more. I am not sexist, and I don't feel one morsel of regret for hating most of what she stands for. She is a power hungry politician who doesn't give a fuck about poor and working people. She never has.

Yes, Biden has stood for most of the same. But the support for unions is redeeming. I believe him re that. He's far from my first choice. Far. But I will vote for him with much less angst than I brought to voting for Clinton.

[Martina]

All this stuff about her being a woman candidate. I don't give a damn what gender a candidate is. I never have. The Brits had Margaret Thatcher. Gender doesn't guarantee shit. I won't feel a thing when the first woman candidate wins the Presidency. I get it that is meaningful. But it doesn't mean anything to me. I don't care. Don't give a tinkers damn. I cared when Obama was elected. I thought I'd never see the day. And I will care when a gay person is elected.

There are lots of women in power. I wouldn't dream of extending them the benefit of the doubt because of gender. Women are the backbone of the Republican Party. My family is full of right wing women. I don't understand why every post mentions it. One was like if you want a perfect woman, dig up . . . Or a perfect man, dig up. Who the fuck thinks that way? I guess lots of people. I just don't care.

It's true that even decent men have blind spots. And no apologies for that. But being a decent human being, a brave and strong candidate, and standing up for the American people -- I kind of put that first.

[Martina]

They scapegoated poor people and people of color to get Bill reelected. I think that's evil.

There's a great book called Listen, Liberal, which explains the neo-liberal anti-worker politics that the Clinton's epitomized. It's not about being a yuppie yourself. It's about supporting the professional classes at the expense of workers while blaming the workers for their losses. The fact is that Clinton politics and their consequences destroyed the middle class in ways Reagan could never have envisaged.

It's a truly evil politics, capitalist to the core. Heartless and cynical.

[Martina]

To add to my list, remember NAFTA???????

Republicans wrote that in order to destroy labor unions. It could not pass because Democrats opposed it. Then Clinton was elected, and his first big accomplishment was to pass NAFTA. He wasn't the first Dem to undermine unions, but he took it to a new level. And the Democrats never looked back. They have helped engineer inequality for the sake of the professional elites and corporate interests. And then they blame working people, saying oh you should have gone to Harvard or Yale like I did.

That Listen, Liberal book by Thomas Frank takes you through the Democrats' abandonment of the working class legislation by legislation. No one, no one is more culpable than the Clintons. Boarded up main streets are their legacy. Trump is their legacy.

[Kätzchen]

To add to my list, remember NAFTA???????

Republicans wrote that in order to destroy labor unions. It could not pass because Democrats opposed it. Then Clinton was elected, and his first big accomplishment was to pass NAFTA. He wasn't the first Dem to undermine unions, but he took it to a new level. And the Democrats never looked back. They have helped engineer inequality for the sake of the professional elites and corporate interests. And then they blame working people, saying oh you should have gone to Harvard or Yale like I did.

That Listen, Liberal book by Thomas Frank takes you through the Democrats' abandonment of the working class legislation by legislation. No one, no one is more culpable than the Clintons. Boarded up main streets are their legacy. Trump is their legacy.

I do not argue your point about the book by Thomas Frank, Martina, but I think Thomas Frank, once a 'college republican', wrote a more telling book concerning conservative think tank politics: The Wrecking Crew: How The Conservatives Rule (August 2008). I read this particular book of his because he's got a bone to pick with GOP cronies who basically steered the process for NAFTA. As I recall, right after three horrid terms of Reagonomics, Bush SR was the one to instigate back room talks about NAFTA. His son Bush JR was the one who tried to push it through, but thankfully the Democratic Party denounced it, and refused to vote it in. THEN, on the tails of Bush Jr leaving office, it was Clinton who supposedly got it pushed through, but under the premise of 'bi-partisan' dialogue between two political parties: the notorious GOP; and the Democratic Party led by the Clinton voter base. Like I said, I could be wrong, but this is how I recall the spiraling NAFTA issue. I even excerpted some of The Wrecking Crew book by Thomas, in my senior capstone Labor paper for my bachelor of science degree, which highlighted key elements of NAFTA during the year Obama was elected President of the US, back in 2008.

I am personally OVER the 'blame game' of who did what, etc.

To be thread compliant, I still have not any good idea on who will ultimately lead the Democratic Party out of the depths of GOP hell. There are quite a few contenders in the field, it's early yet, I keep hoping that Texas Democrat Julian Castro will make a stronger showing than what he did a few weeks ago; but I guess since he sits on the Senate Intelligence committee (right?), he and several others have their hands full, with all the connecting-the-dots issues pertaining to the number one psycho sitting in the WH.

I don't know what the next few months will bring, but I think the democratic party has already sounded the "All Hands On Deck" alarm bells and it's going to take every bit of concentration and effort to oust this proverbial cancer from the WH and from the ranks of the GOP.

Again, I am putting all my weight behind a candidate who has the best interests of our country in terms of Economy, Labor, National Debt etc, their stand on reigning in the white collar crimes committed by big super-pac behaviors of Wall Street and the Banking industry, and bigger yet, I want a president who will back up Voting Rights issues and a contender who brings on board a team of vital political senators and representatives who can make sure voting rights, women's issues and affordable healthcare is available to everyone in our country. To me, after watching weeks of news about how the current WH resident and his team of crooked politicians and Supreme Court justices are upending and defanging time immemorial laws on the books that protect citizens of all stripes and marginalized members of society too, I seriously hope the general public is paying attention to every single detail presented via media outlets because each day we see a variety of a certain 'truth' which is hardly truthful at all, IMHO.

<<<<<<<~~~ I'm part of the democracy that abides by the mindset of:

Of The People, By The People, and For The People (that's what democracy is to me).

[Martina]

Generations devastated by mass incarceration is their legacy. That alone is an evil whose dimensions can't ever be grasped. And as a previous post pointed out, Biden played a role in that.

An irony is that while Bill Clinton kinda sorta regrets that, Biden was still playing it up as an accomplishment until very recently. Another irony is the recent reforms were facilitated by Jared Kushner.

[Martina]

That's exactly what I said re NAFTA, Katzchen. Republicans wrote it, and Dems blocked it till Clinton. What do you mean Bush Jr.? Do you mean W.? Clinton preceeded him in office. W. wasn't even Governor in 1993. I don't understand.

And Listen, Liberal isn't ABOUT Conservatives. It's about the Dems. So saying Thos Frank wrote a better book about Conservatives is kinda not the point.

It's also not about the blame game. It's about seeing what the hell has happened to this country and what we can do to help ourselves. It's not all about opposing Trump although we must. It's about charting a course that will address inequality.