2 2
turtlespeed

DNC Hopefuls

Recommended Posts

So who is your candidate, and Why?

Right now - the list doesn't contain anyone that can beat Trump in an election.

Right now there are no candidates that are even close to being moderates.

Please - PLEASE don't do what you guys did in the last election and leave out any candidates that are worth a shit.

We, the American People, are begging you.

Put up a candidate that can sway the fence sitters.

 

 

  • Michael Bennet (D), a U.S. senator from Colorado, announced that he was running for president on May 2, 2019.[3]
  • Joe Biden (D), a former vice president of the United States, announced that he was running for president on April 25, 2019.[4]
  • Bill de Blasio (D), the mayor of New York City, announced that he was running for president on May 16, 2019.[5]
  • Cory Booker (D), a U.S. senator from New Jersey, announced that he was running for president on February 1, 2019.[6]
  • Steve Bullock (D), the governor of Montana, announced that he was running for president on May 14, 2019.[7]
  • Pete Buttigieg (D), the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, announced that he was running for president on January 23, 2019.[8]
  • Julián Castro (D), a former U.S. secretary of housing and urban development and San Antonio mayor, formally announced his candidacy on January 12, 2019.[9]
  • John Delaney (D), a former U.S. representative from Maryland, filed to run for president on August 10, 2017.
  • Tulsi Gabbard (D), a U.S. representative from Hawaii, announced that she had decided to run for president on January 11, 2019.[10]
  • Kirsten Gillibrand (D), a U.S. senator from New York, announced that she was forming an exploratory committee on January 15, 2019.[11] She officially announced she was running on March 17, 2019.[12]
  • Mike Gravel (D), a former U.S. senator from Alaska, announced he was running for president on April 2, 2019.[13]
  • Kamala Harris (D), a U.S. senator from California, announced that she was running for president on January 21, 2019.[14]
  • John Hickenlooper (D), a former governor of Colorado, announced that he was running for president on March 4, 2019.[15]
  • Jay Inslee (D), the governor of Washington, announced that he was running for president on March 1, 2019.[16]
  • Amy Klobuchar (D), a U.S. senator from Minnesota, formally announced she was running for president on February 10, 2019.[17]
  • Wayne Messam (D), the mayor of Miramar, Florida, announced he was forming an exploratory committee on March 13, 2019.[18]
  • Seth Moulton (D), a U.S. representative from Massachusetts, announced he was running for president on April 22, 2019.[19]
  • Beto O'Rourke (D), former U.S. representative from Texas, formally announced he was running for president on March 14, 2019.[20]
  • Tim Ryan (D), a U.S. representative from Ohio, announced he was running for president on April 4, 2019.[21]
  • Bernie Sanders (I)[22], a U.S. senator from Vermont, announced that he was running for president on February 19, 2019.[23]
  • Eric Swalwell (D), a U.S. representative from California, announced that he was running for president on April 9, 2019.
  • President Donald Trump (R) filed to run for re-election in 2020 on January 20, 2017.
  • Elizabeth Warren (D), U.S. senator from Massachusetts, announced she had formed an exploratory committee on December 31, 2018.[24] She formally announced she was running for president on February 9, 2019.
  • Bill Weld (R), a former governor of Massachusetts, announced that he was running for president on April 15, 2019.[25]
  • Marianne Williamson (D), an author and lecturer, announced she was running for president on January 28, 2019.[26]
  • Andrew Yang (D), an entrepreneur and author from New York, filed to run for president on November 6, 2017.
Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

 

Right now - the list doesn't contain anyone that can beat Trump in an election.

Right now there are no candidates that are even close to being moderates.

 

The DNC still don't accept their culpability in utterly fucking the last election. It's always someone else's fault.

If they actually put up a half decent moderate they'd walk it, but they've become too ideological to contemplate that. The most recent elections have rewarded ever more extreme right and left views and so that promotes ever more of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
11 minutes ago, yoink said:

 

If they actually put up a half decent moderate they'd walk it,

People keep saying this, but I am genuinely curious - what sort of a platform do you think a "half decent moderate" would run on? Lets pick healthcare, immigration, the military, and LGBTQ rights to narrow it down a bit. (I've left gun control out because its basically binary)

Edited by Stumpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
19 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

People keep saying this, but I am genuinely curious - what sort of a platform do you think a "half decent moderate" would run on? Lets pick healthcare, immigration, the military, and LGBTQ rights to narrow it down a bit. (I've left gun control out because its basically binary)

Personally I'd like to see a stronger stance on immigration than they typically have, but not the 'BAN ALL THE PEOPLE' current one.

A more fiscally conservative general platform would be good given that our debt has ballooned - having someone with an actual understanding of global economics would be good, as would not seeing absolutely everything as a zero-sum game.

I suspect we don't need to spend quite as much on the military as we currently do. Particularly if we reduced the frequency we seem to piss off entire races / religions / countries by feeling the need to get involved in absolutely everything.

That combined with the societal freedoms the left stand for would be a good balance for me. Be as gay or as religious as you like. Just don't force any of that on other people - and yes, that includes abortion. Let people do the fuck what they want with their own body.

Leave gun control and healthcare as it is for now, broken or not. Those are the ultra-polarizing policies that have driven this self destructive period of elections. I think it's more important to stabilize the government and to start getting people to trust their leaders again, as well as to make Americans realize in general that we CAN and DO actually agree on some stuff. Not everything needs to be us vs them. This whole fake-news, shit-slinging, celebrity style of government needs to be lanced first.

 

That, for me, would be a great centrist position.

 

Edited by yoink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

I suspect that if you think no-one in that list is a moderate, what you ACTUALLY want is another conservative that isn't trump.

 

So primary him out.

Fiscally conservative - Yes

Social: Abortion - Leave well enough alone and reverse Alabama and Georgia's stupid assed laws.

            Healthcare - Come up with a real workable solution. Quit lying to us.  Something closer to medicare with coupons that are purchased through your taxes.  Private insurance is still available, and even encouraged - but basic needs are dealt with at a basic level.

            Social Security - END any more borrowing against it.  End it now.  Reduce further borrowing to 35% of what it is today.

            LGBTQLKHIJKJFK? - Who cares - Really?  Live and let live.

            Religion - Ban Them ALL (Just kidding) - Leave it alone - with stiffer penalties for hate crimes

            Gun Laws - come up with a real viable non invasive strategy - one that isn't all the way one way or all the way the other.

            Immigration - Laws need to be changed for the better; updated for technology and modern society  - but enforce the ones we have until the change is made.

            Military - Leave as is and streamline

            Foreign Policy - Quit being control Freaks.

            Drugs - Set aside a test area and let it go the way of Amsterdam - Controlled substance - but legal to have and use.

            

That would about do it.

OH - and ban tanning lotions and spray-on tanning. <Angelic>

             

             

            

            

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody keeps saying Trump can't be beaten.  All it takes is 70,000 votes across three states who sat out last election.  Trump's base has not expanded by one vote. 

As for who I like: I'd like to see Pete Buttigieg get the nod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like listening to Pete Buttigieg whenever he is on an interview/panel/talk show.  He knows his business -- not just his talking points and platform, but can have a real, intelligent conversation about anything thrown at him. He can admit when he doesn't know about an issue, and actually listens to people with different views.

I'm not yet convinced he is ready for the presidency, but I really would like to see him have a prime advisory/cabinet position in the next administration.  Maybe once he gets more experience behind him, I'll be more comfortable voting for him for the highest office.  In the meantime, he has a really good start.

Also wish Evan McMullen would get back into the race somewhere.  He had some really good positions in 2016, and demonstrated he understood where he fell out among the two major party candidates.  Had he not entered the scene less than two months before the election, he could have done much better as a write-in.  Between him and his running mate, I appreciated the domestic, defense, intelligence, legal and foreign affairs aggregate experience.

I loved Cory Booker's comments at the convention in 2016, and remember thinking very highly of him at that time. I have been less than impressed with him thus far, however. I think if Bernie Sanders wants to run, he should run as an independent. If he wants D dollars, he needs to register officially as a Democrat.

As far as "the party" putting up the candidates -- can't have it both ways.  Either "the party" chooses its top choices and allows those folks to run in the primaries, or "the party" stays the hell out and lets the votes come in where they will.  I don't have a problem with the DNC choosing their candidate toward the end of the primaries in 2016.  It's only been recently (someone fact check me, please -- 30-ish years?) that the parties have allowed such free participation in the primary/caucus process.  Used to be some party elders would get together, have some scotch and cigars with a deep discussion, and then ask their preferred candidate(s) to run.  I also would like to see the party leadership (both sides) set the standards for what the party stands for (very generalized platform -- like smaller government, free trade, etc), and insists that no one gets the party letter behind their name if they stray significantly from those issues.  It would stop these single-issue radicals from hijacking the parties.   Let them start their own parties if they want a different focus, or find a candidate that also conforms to the basic party issues as well as your own personal crusade.  Once the candidate from that party is determined, then the more focused, prioritized list of issues makes the platform for that election.  But, it has to start with the parties setting some standards and enforcing that general platform.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox.  Had to get that off my chest.

 

To the OP -- thanks for starting this thread.  I'll try to add my thoughts whenever I see a specific candidate do/say something as they go.  I hope others will do the same.  I would also like to see a discussion on R candidates.  Sure, the list is limited, but the current president does have a challenger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched John Delaney on Smerconish.  I liked what he had to say about health care and the Hyde Amendment.

Health care:  single-payer (only), "Medicare for all" = bad.  Everyone can get basic healthcare = good.  He admitted it costs money, but in his reckoning, forcing everyone to give up the system they already know/like and build a single system run by the government from scratch would be disastrous.  He had some good points there.

Hyde Amendment: he agrees with the former VP's newest position, that the restrictions on women's public healthcare are wrong, and he made no apologies for it. I liked that exchange.

Now I would like to hear his position on other issues.  I think I've been pretty clear above that I am against single-issue campaigns.  Has anyone else heard more from this candidate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TriGirl said:

To the OP -- thanks for starting this thread.  I'll try to add my thoughts whenever I see a specific candidate do/say something as they go.  I hope others will do the same.  I would also like to see a discussion on R candidates.  Sure, the list is limited, but the current president does have a challenger.

You are welcome - 
I am really hoping this wont regress too far into a thread of snarky replies. (But this IS speakers Corner so. . . .)

[I -DO- hope there is some decent humor though.] 

Quote

Health care:  single-payer (only), "Medicare for all" = bad.  Everyone can get basic healthcare = good.  He admitted it costs money, but in his reckoning, forcing everyone to give up the system they already know/like and build a single system run by the government from scratch would be disastrous.  He had some good points there.

Medicare as a backup - for most - and primary for those without means.

One full blown war - if we abstained - would pay for most of it.

16 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

 Hyde Amendment: he agrees with the former VP's newest position, that the restrictions on women's public healthcare are wrong, and he made no apologies for it. I liked that exchange.

 

Its pretty obvious that it is wrong.

 

I'm going to be looking into this guy.

BUT - 

What do you have against a woman president?  (I kid)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Drugs, including marijuana, are not legal in Amsterdam.

https://www.amsterdam.info/drugs/

Quote

 Nobody will arrest you, because it is legal. So what kind of laws are these? Aren’t the Dutch concerned about the real dangers of drug abuse? Amsterdam drug laws evolved the same way as laws in other countries during the past century, but the solutions taken in the Netherlands, differ from the rest of the world. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turtle, you’ve made it clear that “not Hillary” was about all it took to sway you. And in Texas, it’s not like your third-party vote changed anything besides hopefully legitimizing the potential of a third party  

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, turtlespeed said:
On 6/8/2019 at 1:55 PM, Coreece said:

Who's the guy that likes to stand on countertops and tell it like it is?

 

Ya, not him. . .

Hopefully we can agree that it takes more than that to sway you.

Oh there's more?   Does he do flips on the dismount?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 6:43 AM, turtlespeed said:

Why do you work so hard to maintain the image of American ignorance? Why wouldn't a comment from somebody who has lived a couple of decades in The Netherlands make you do a little bit of reading?

Start your research here:

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

Read some in the footnotes.Try and not be that American who loudly proclaims he knows things, when he is clearly wrong...by the way amsterdam.info was registered by a company out of Slovakia. Not sure why you'd think that is your best source for the legality of drugs in The Netherlands?

 

Marijuana is not legal in The Netherlands. Do I have to add that Amsterdam is in The Netherlands.....I hope not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 6/10/2019 at 11:52 AM, SkyDekker said:

Why do you work so hard to maintain the image of American ignorance? Why wouldn't a comment from somebody who has lived a couple of decades in The Netherlands make you do a little bit of reading?

Start your research here:

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

Read some in the footnotes.Try and not be that American who loudly proclaims he knows things, when he is clearly wrong...by the way amsterdam.info was registered by a company out of Slovakia. Not sure why you'd think that is your best source for the legality of drugs in The Netherlands?

 

Marijuana is not legal in The Netherlands. Do I have to add that Amsterdam is in The Netherlands.....I hope not.

I was linking to show you where I received my info - 

Why didn't you start off with a list of websites that have false info on them? 

Edited to add - 

Besides - you are splitting hairs - 

If you can buy it in a coffee shop and not be arrested - you can pretty much say its legal.

Decriminalized is as close to legal as your game of semantics will allow.

Why are you pretending that for all intents and purposes, smoking marajuana in Amsterdam is anything but accepted, and if not legal, then decriminalized.

Do you have to be right so bad that you go away from the public acceptance to delve into definitions of legal vs decriminalized?

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I was linking to show you where I received my info - 

Why didn't you start off with a list of websites that have false info on them? 

Edited to add - 

Besides - you are splitting hairs - 

If you can buy it in a coffee shop and not be arrested - you can pretty much say its legal.

Decriminalized is as close to legal as your game of semantics will allow.

Why are you pretending that for all intents and purposes, smoking marajuana in Amsterdam is anything but accepted, and if not legal, then decriminalized.

Do you have to be right so bad that you go away from the public acceptance to delve into definitions of legal vs decriminalized?

I would think that for somebody who likes to portray himself as being very concerned about legality and people knowing the law, it is an important distinction. Maybe this whole "why can't people just follow the law" attitude you like to put out there is fake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

smoking marajuana in Amsterdam

Smoking marijuana in America is legal. Possessing it is not. Clinton could have inhaled, as long as he did not hold.

 

Sorry, edit for USA versus old Canadian law. Apparently US federal law prohibits use as well as possession.

Edited by gowlerk
Incorrect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I would think that for somebody who likes to portray himself as being very concerned about legality and people knowing the law, it is an important distinction. Maybe this whole "why can't people just follow the law" attitude you like to put out there is fake?

First off - They are not US laws, so I am not really entitled to any opinion of them.

Second - I was referring to changing the US laws to those LIKE Amsterdam has.

Allow sales in coffee shops and boutiques.  Have smoking clubs - whatever - but change the laws first.

Until then - enforce the laws we have until they are changed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Until then - enforce the laws we have until they are changed.

It's kind of hard to do that when several states have decided, mostly by plebiscite, to openly defy the federal laws on the matter. No one wants a civil war, some other accommodation will need to be made. The current legal situation with pot in the US is absurd. And it can only lead to more people having contempt for the law as they see their state governments ignoring it. As I see it, State officials should be liable for criminal prosecution for making pot available and allowing the state to profit from the sales. Lock 'em up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, back to the topic at hand...

Anyone have a comment about the recent conventions the Democratic hopefuls have recently attended?  I've seen some summaries, but as everyone has acknowledged, there are just way too many candidates to separate them out.  I would be interested to hear opinions of some of the not-as-well-known hopefuls and their proposals.  If they don't seem to stand a chance in this field, what else would you recommend they do to contribute?  Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2