Who will become the face of the Democratic Party in 2020?
A serious question, posed more to those who identify as Democrats. I would really like to know who you believe will come forth with a message of unification, prosperity, and a positive outlook toward the future... someone mainstream Americans could believe in.
I would like to think someone would come forth who presents a platform, a political agenda that people could get behind.
Something more than 'vote for me if you hate Trump', or 'vote for me because I will protect abortion/illegal immigrants/choose-your-minority-group'.
I believe that many mainstream Americans will have grown tired of Trump by 2020. Don't mistake me, I don't think they are falling for CNN's alternate reality reporting, I don't think the majority are gullible enough to believe any of the Russian tripe, or the Racist rants, I just don't think that impacts the majority... you have to be on the far left to lend any of that garbage credibility, or waste any of your time worrying about it.
But I do think the majority will be tired of the constant battling and bickering, the constant tweeting and ego-stroking, to be willing to consider someone who comes along and presents a more mild mannered, thoughtful, and intelligent persona.
It could be someone of Hispanic descent, it could be someone with little political background/experience, but it has to be someone with charisma, and a positive message that people will be drawn to.
Yes Trump took mud-slinging and hard-hitting to new levels no one living had seen in American politics, and that was what worked for that moment in time in America. I believe America will be looking for something different in 2020... but I have yet to see anyone who will be in the running in 2020 that I think can deliver it for the Democrats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … 0-ranked-3It is interesting that Beto O'Rourke is not mentioned in the article, or did I miss it?
I personally have no preconceived notion of who would best serve as President or who might rise to the top. There are several I could get behind, but sometimes how they handle themselves during the rigors of campaigning can be revealing and change my opinion. Also, a candidate's ability to select excellent staff and run an efficient, well-oiled campaign can be indicative of leadership ability and good decision making..
Let's face it, the policy differences won't be that dramatic among most of them, so I will be looking for character, poise, intelligence, compassion, common sense, vigor, and ability to lead and inspire.
Those qualities will be revealed as we learn more about them. I do like my Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, but I would not describe him as charismatic.
Senator Jeff Merkley, a Quiet Stalwart of the Left, Has a Breakout Moment at the Border
I have not seen him mentioned in any of the recent potential Dem candidate articles I have read, or Gillum for that matter.
I know both were heavily funded by billionaires that hoped their charisma and D.C. outsider qualities could fast track them to the 2020 Presidential election... but as they both lost their elections I'm skeptical that they can get the backing to take a shot at it.
I fully support that, and to my mind that is not Clinton or Biden or any of the lifer D.C. politicians the DNC seems to want to wheel out again for another go at it.
I would at least like an option to consider, an alternative to contemplate, not some archaic corrupt politician that has nothing to offer us but more divisiveness and lies."Let's face it, the policy differences won't be that dramatic among most of them, so I will be looking for character, poise, intelligence, compassion, common sense, vigor, and ability to lead and inspire."
I found this statement interesting. You did not mention an interest in what a candidate offered in the way of agenda?Yes, their agenda matters, but generally speaking, Democratic candidates' agendas are usually not that far apart from each other. That is why I said, "Let's face it, the policy differences won't be that dramatic. " When it was Obama versus Clinton, for example, the policy differences were minimal. The differences were greater with Bernie versus Clinton, but still pretty close in most major areas.
What gets me about you, Ken, is that if we don't all buy into the conservative, right wing dogma, we are thus being deceived by the entirety of mass media?
Since you are not on the receiving end of Trump's race baiting and rants, it is irrelevant to you, but that perspective is not held univerasally and that will hurt Trump in the future.
You are right that a more congenial candidate will need to replace Trump if anything in Washington is ever to be accomplished. Someone who can work both sides of the isle and master the art of compromise in a way beyond mere "lip service" is desperately needed.
Political realities change like the weather, out of relative nowhere came Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. I know which direction I want to see the Dems move in, as to who will take up mantle could well be a surprise to us all.
Trump has hurt the Republican Party and the Brand. Both style and substance are important in the real political world.
Ken,
An excellent question. I'd like to think that the Democrats could find somebody who was fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, and could appeal to working class white males in some way (rather than alienating them by attempting to corral the Latino vote and the female vote).
Do I think the current Democratic Party can pull this off? I do not. I have zero faith that the current powers-that-be have any clue. Now, what is the cause of this? As you point out: money. I'm not sure we're ever going to get the politicians we want because they're all bought and paid for by somebody. There are a few, I think, like Bernie Sanders, who try to keep their support dollars clean, but it's tough for them to break through the system.
I strongly suspect that, like Trump, somebody will emerge from outside the Democratic Party system who we haven't heard of yet.I think there is a grave misconception that an outsider can change the system. Short of a revolution, change must come from within. Campaign finance reform is a must. If we don't find a way to get big money out of politics, nothing of great substance will change. We must demand our legislators, who work for us, do something about money in politics.
Good luck with that! When those same legislators are there specifically for the money rather than for the country or its people, you're going to have a tough row to how to get the money out of politics.
I agree. An almost impossible task. However, wouldn't it be something both Democrats and Republicans could agree on? Somehow limit money in politics?
Or is that a infringement on free speech?
Well, Ken, that depends on what you believe is mainstream. Your concept of "mainstream" does not mesh with mine. Trump for me is an abomination, but for you and other conservatives, he is "mainstream"?
Trump anything other than unification and prosperity, what we see that is passing as "prosperity" is just "smoke and mirrors" for now.
I am tired of the "establishment" Dems that are part of the machine I.e, Clinton or Biden. I support people like Liz Warren or Beto O'Rourke.Follow the money Credence. Liz Warren and Beto O'Rourke are just puppets of those pulling the strings.
I believe you have gone so far down the rabbit hole proffered to you by the likes of CNN and MSNBC that any type of factual evidence that goes against their tripe and propaganda you would brush off as 'alt-right' or 'Trumpian'.
You have succumbed to the 'if they ain't with us, they're against us' mindset, but that's OK, because I see what is occurring in other countries, as well as track what is going on in this one (I don't rely on our MSM which keeps us blind to most things).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RncVMTQswYA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDNq4yxEesc
Revolution is coming, to several countries, which foreshadow what will occur here, only here in America the population is armed to the teeth.
I don't identify as a Democrat, but I think Democrats would be smart to get behind Beto. I don't believe Warren has a chance at this point to defeat Trump in 2020.
Crowsnest, I stick with Warren as the balance between the 'old guard' i.e., Clinton and Biden and the new populist Left that I prefer the party to move in, i.e Bernie Sanders. She has the experience, speaking out for progressive values over many years and has been tested. Having impeccable credentials and an uncompromising style, that is what is needed to play hard ball in the Era of Trump. Beto has the right stuff, but I need more heft at this moment to defeat the Rightwinger and all his minions.
In all seriousness, find out who President Obama approves/likes. Whoever he endorses, that's the person.
I don't identify with any political party, but I'm hoping a sincere response is ok anyway.
I don't think Obama has much say in the matter, to tell the truth.
I think Billionaires who will fund the campaign efforts, people like Soros and Steyer who are incredibly active in American politics and pour hundreds of millions into elections are the ones who will decide.Trump did of course, he was largely self funded, with some grass roots donations, until the RNC had no choice but to get behind (to the degree that they did) his nomination and allow him access to the troth.
Okay, so you acknowledge that the people still can choose their own presidential candidate, despite the wishes of big money donors?
If you will acknowledge that politicians like Gillum and O'Rourke would not achieve more than town/county level recognition without someone like Soros, funding their campaigns with millions of dollars.
And when you dance with the devil, and take his treasure, he owns your soul (or in this situation, all the big decisions you make politically).
If so, then I can agree people still can choose their own presidential candidate, from the ones who are funded and able to run.Isn't that how our system works on both sides? You're either taking money from Soros or from the Koch brothers, right?
And in Trump's case, he took money from neither, both Koch and Soros directed funding to those running against his campaign.
It was a rare occurrence in our more recent National history for sure, I don't expect it will be repeated in our lifetimes. Where someone who has enough wealth funds his own campaign, and has the personality and wit to garner enough votes to get elected.
He is a legitimate outsider, he is not beholden to either Soros or Koch, or any lobbying party. He is not beholden to either party, or anyone in them.Don't you think that means that if we the people want to get better candidates we need to find a way to get this kind of money out of politics?
Or is that who we are? After all, it's capitalism. Whoever has the most money wins.Can't argue with that. It's pretty obvious he thinks he isn't even beholden to the law, the Constitution, or the people he is supposed to be serving.
It works that way on both sides. That's why we need campaign finance reform, unless you believe buying candidates is a form of free speech.
To my best guess, there are some 30 candidates wanting to run in 2020 including a few on the Republican side to challenge Trump.
To me, so far, I think Jon Stewart is right. No one will be able to beat Trump.
To take on Trump, you need an unusual candidate, one with star power, name recognition, a thick skin, and a big ego...comes to think of it, you need another Trump.I don't see any viable Democratic presidential candidates for 2020. The Democratic Party has gone the way of the Leftist-Socialist-Communist Party, Ken. The Democratic Party has DEVOLVED into the nanny state, let the government pay all your way party. It isn't the party of winners but of losers who are content to stay that way-UNFORTUNATELY! I feel that there are many Democrats who are either going to vote Republican or become actual Republicans.
You know us about as well as our claim that the Republican Party will soon be speaking Russian.
On the contrary, I know your party well having been an observer for over 40 years. Your party has moved so far from JFK, he would not be welcomed in the modern Democratic party. That is saying a lot.
By the way, I voted for Carter, and Clinton 1st term.
My money is on Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. I mean Harris would bring a huge base from California. Biden could harness Dem's that are disillusioned by the influx of far left socialist. It will be interesting to watch them all scammer in different directions to try to be the chosen nominee.
How much can change in 9 months. Lets hope it is neither of them.
I like this mock-up video of Warren Vs. Yang ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RIUwUMrito ) the creator clearly favors Yang based on the choices of clips used, but I like that it represents what the Democratic primaries should be about, and the candidates that should be at the top of the list for consideration.
Warren, Yang, Gabbard... Patriotic voices of change.
Biden and Harris I see as voices of corruption and politics as usual.
I guess the Dems, which seem to be well represented here at HP, can’t think of a single one Ken.
At this point, I do not think the Dems need to find a candidate who can deliver, they’ll just need to find someone willing to be the face of the Democratic Party and the Party will take it from there, they’ll deliver!
Maybe you will get some feedback now.My four-paragraph response does not constitute feedback? That's a new one.
Actually, the Dems here like myself, have just chosen to block the far-right conspiracy theorists like Ken that refuse to accept the mounting evidence of Trump's crimes committed to get elected. So these posts just don't show up on our feed.
Wow... I'm a far right conspiracy theorist?
Shows how tight those blinders have gotten on far-left progressives when they are labeling me with that.
As I told Credence in this thread, you have fully bought into "if you aren't with us, then you are against us" mantra, if you don't buy into the 'progressive' propaganda, then you are the enemy. The current 'Dems' of today don't respect any opinion, or any person, not onboard with their group-think.
If we had Clinton as President right now, and had continued on track with TPP, the Paris Accord, taxation of those who could not afford ACA insurance, etc. then this would be us (only worse):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovmLNM-HN5E
Maybe we would have been better off with that after all.In case you haven't noticed Ken, there are many 'alt-right wing conspiracy theorists' on HubPages and they will jeopardize this sites very existence because this type of delusional, non-fact based craziness is no longer tolerated by the masses:
The 'if you aren't with us, you're against us' mantra is being spewed daily from the White House. Talk about having blinders on to be able to ignore that message. This is not a president for the people, but a president for his base only. So, pardon us Dems if we are tired of the regurgitation of White House propaganda and lying we see here at Hubpages.
If we're comparing France to the US, considering it's a Democratic policy to tax the rich at higher rates, perhaps it would have been a large group of millionaires out in the streets rioting. In case you haven't noticed, now that Trump's policies are taking hold, the stock market is having its worst year since the 2008 crash, farmers needed a 12 billion dollar bailout thanks to tariffs, unemployment numbers that had been going down since Obama was president have finally gone as low as they are going to, to prove that point - job gains are down on average 13% per month since Obama left office.
So, in actual reality, the stability and constant growth in the markets you see under a Democratic president are now gone thanks to the stable genius."This is not a president for the people, but a president for his base only. "
Sounds like you're trying to say that because Trump does not embrace the failed policies and agendas of the left he isn't for "the people". You insist he follow your wants and desires rather than his own or that of anyone else; in that manner only can he be "for the people".
Yes?Not trying to say that at all, actually. And how does stability in the markets and constant growth equate to failed policies exactly? How does tripling the stock market equate exactly? How does a net decline in the undocumented immigrant population by one million, including the deportation of criminals as a priority equate to failed policies.
The only failure here is to do some independent research to know that the propaganda you're being fed is lies and that the problems of this country are borne of both parties, not just the party Trump is not a part of.
Your reply exacerbates why many of us lend no credence to what you guys are saying. It's all just a blame game for your party. When you can take some ownership of the problems, considering you had control of all three branches of government for two years, that'd be great. Hate crimes up. Gas prices up. Deficit up. Damage the environment way up. Health care costs up. Own it."Not trying to say that at all, actually."
Then what are you saying when you complain he is only for his base rather than "the people"?
It's interesting what you choose to address from Valeant's post. Trump has never been the people's President; the majority of voters didn't want him, and even more disapprove of him after watching his incompetence for two years.
His policies are taking effect, and as Valeant pointed out, the improving Obama economy is now a declining Trump economy.
I'm not too worried, though, as I expect him to be gone after the 2020 election, if not sooner. "Individual 1" is a short-timer.My comment was along the lines of massive partisanship; "If you aren't doing what I think should be done you aren't for the people at all. Only when one embraces the left (or the right, depending on who is speaking) are you for 'the people'."
It is a sentiment I would be likely to agree with except for a couple things.
First, if all they have to bring out to replace Trump is Clinton or Biden or any of the other lifelong corrupt D.C. hacks, then no... clearly if the DNC thinks people will want that type of politician they fail to understand what people saw in the likes of Bernie and Trump, and will lose again, even to Trump.
Secondly, if these fools (Pelosi, Waters, etc.) do spend the next two years dragging America through more investigations, impeachment proceedings, and just being as idiotic and obstructionist as they can be, then Trump is a lock to be re-elected.
And I really think, as ignorant as you feel Trump is, Pelosi, Waters and the rest of those imbeciles will prove up to the challenge of being even more idiotic than Trump, making him look good in comparison.Ken, I kind of think you're a kook on a lot of things and imagine you in a tin foil hat, but I generally agree with the above statement. People are clamoring for people who will tell the truth and buck the system and if the Dems just offer up somebody safe, born of party politics, they are likely to lose.
Unless Trump is in jail, which seems increasingly likely.I would say that anyone who thinks I am a "kook" or wearing a "tinfoil hat" merely doesn't have the perception, experiences, and/or capability to see the bigger picture(s).
I understand that those who cannot grasp the larger implications of the occurrences around us, or who have a very limited scope of experience and wisdom, would have difficulty with some of the larger more in depth analysis and discussions I engage in.
And as arrogant and condescending as that may appear, it is not intended to be. There are people far more intelligent and with greater knowledge of these matters than I, I do not mean to suggest otherwise. But equally there are those that are that much less informed and well traveled.
Today's issues revolve around whether or not we are going to continue with nation states. Whether America will actually be ruled by the Constitution, by the Bill of Rights, or whether it is going to be superseded by International Law (the UN, WB, IMF), unelected and unresponsive aristocratic elites.
What is in store for America we can see transpiring in the EU, where unelected officials control the EU, and could care less about the wants or needs of the various 'national' populations. We can see hundreds of thousands rioting against this type of rule in France, been going on for weeks now, not that our own media gives it much attention.
This is the bottom line of the difference between 'conservatism' and 'progressive' movements today... whether those who are choosing sides understand it or not... we are in a battle between globalists and nationalists, between open borders and controlled borders, between keeping what you earn or the government controlling everything and anything in your life.
These general but encompassing differences, may be masked by smaller more specific issues be they LGBTQ or Abortion, ultimately they are not the major issues, they are just wedge issues used to push people into supporting what will ultimately be either their enslavement to an unstoppable, uncontrollable International force lorded over by the infinitely wealthy and powerful... or the continued existence of America as a Sovereign state.Ken,
A lot of what you say resonates, but when you talk about the "deep state", which is a kook issue, it makes you sound silly.
"Deep state" is a phrase used by the alt-right to describe what is really just bureaucracy, but it's a phrase intended to make bureaucracy sound like a conspiracy, which it's not. It's just slow, frustrating, and frequently ineffective. I work in an industry where we're seeing bureaucracy grow unabated and it's disconcerting, but there's no conspiracy. The thing is, bureaucrats are just generally not your best and brightest and their actions tend to reflect that.
You are clearly intelligent, Ken. But intelligent people can believe in conspiracy theories too.
I don't see where "deep state" was brought up in this thread.
I imagine so, and intelligent people can blow off hard provable reality as a conspiracy theorist theory just as well.I seem to recall you discussing the "deep state" in the past. So I tend to move on from people who use that terminology, since it's just another conspiracy theory from the same people who brought us "pizzagate".
That said, I don't want you to get the wrong idea. A lot of what you say resonates loudly with me despite us mostly being on the opposite side of the aisle.Is that the Wedding March I hear in the background? ;-)
But, seriously ... Excluding the obvious "tin-foil hat" conspiracies like alien body snatchers, how can we really determine something is a conspiracy, and not something we are just totally unaware of?
Are you sure there wasn't a shooter on the grassy knoll?
And regarding bureaucracy, can you imagine our government working without those civil servants? Can you imagine the bumbling consequences of having to re-invent the wheel, or having to relearn the basics of procedural processes with every new administration?
So, I know this "deep state" thing is being portrayed by one side as a conspiracy, and by the other as a fact, but ... is such a partisan bias in our government's bureaucracy really such a far-fetched idea?
.
GA
Yes, one has to wonder what exactly is the 'deep state'?
I am sure it means a variety of things, depending on who you ask, and how they are able to convey their definition.
Let me give you an example of 'deep state' 'conspiracy theory':
Oct 10, 2018 · GM appoints an ex-CIA deputy director to its board.
General Motors appointed Jami Miscik, a former CIA deputy director of intelligence, to its board.
John Brennan and Jami Miscik, former intelligence officials under George Tenet, led Barack Obama's review of intelligence agencies and made recommendations throughout the 8 year administration.
Jami Miscik is vice chairman and chief executive officer of Kissinger Associates Inc.
Now if you understand the politics and policies of the Kissinger Associates Inc., of John Brennan, and Miscik's other ties. You can discern what type of beliefs and politics Miscik himself likely holds.
And look at what GM goes and decides to do shortly after Miscik arrives.
They choose to shut down the bulk of their manufacturing plants here in North America, despite being bailed out by American taxpayers a decade back, despite the new tax breaks initiated in Trump's tax reform. One could almost say this is a deliberate, a politically motivated decision, to put some 15,000 people out of work directly, and an additional 8,000 support jobs. ...putting the very people out of work that supported Trump, that believed he would bring back jobs.
GM has chosen to invest its future in China, in Mexico, over America, essentially in spite of Trump's efforts to hammer out new trade agreements with these countries.
Was it economics that drove these decisions, or was it politics?
Funny how Ford, that didn't need a bailout a decade ago, is now working with Volkswagon to come to an agreement so that they can use factories owned by Ford here in America, and keep Americans employed.
I could dig deeper, show more strands in the web, but for those who don't believe that there are such agendas and agents manipulating what goes on in the world would just call it a 'conspiracy theory' as would those who DO understand such agendas, such politics and power plays are constantly involved in events such as these and don't want to lend credibility to anyone who exposes it, they want to shut them down, silence them. Using labels like 'conspiracy theorist', racist, and sexist, are ways to do so.I can understand tying Miscik in to your theory since there are ties to GM, but where did Brennan fit in to that thread. It's this name drop of a government official critical to Trump that makes us wonder how much validity your theory really has.
smh, I can't make it any more plain, if you cannot see the connection between Miscik and Brennan even though it is right there, typed out... and should you not comprehend its meaning, it is easy enough for you to search online for more information, to deepen your knowledge... there is no 'name dropping', more like 'connecting the dots'.
That theory, is meant as an example to which you infer 'conspiracy theory' or 'deep state theory' I am stating facts, and then alluding, or directing, the reader to consider the meaning.
I am not particularly interested in its validity, I am merely using it as an example of what I believe fits the definition of said theory types.So Miscik, who is one of twelve board members, is able to steer GM towards an anti-trump political policy in less than one year on the board? Miscik who hasn't worked for the CIA for thirteen years. This is your theory?
- You may choose the answer below that you like best:
A) I guess so, when Miscik talks, people listen.
B) You seem to neglect that he is vice chairman and chief executive officer of Kissinger Associates Inc. a international geopolitical consulting firm, founded and run by Henry Kissinger in 1982.
Prominent staff:
L. Paul Bremer, former managing director and former Iraq Director of Reconstruction
Lawrence Eagleburger, former U.S. Secretary of State
Richard W. Fisher, President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Timothy F. Geithner, U.S. Secretary of Treasury
Brent Scowcroft, former vice-chairman and former U.S. National Security Advisor
John O. Brennan, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, world affairs consultant
These are the types of fellows that have a certain agenda in mind, reminds me of the quote:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” — David Rockefeller
C) I was just taking a couple of facts, about Miscik, applying it to his recent insertion into GM, and the decisions GM then made which seem rather sudden, and elaborated a theory from that, purely for the purposes of providing an example of what a 'conspiracy theory' would look like.To illustrate how misinformed you are, under letter B, Miscik is actually a SHE, not a he.
Oh my, I missed an s, I am so ignorant... heck I even said himself!
These past few comments are a prime reason why debating issues online is often a waste of time, and those that take it seriously are not better off for it.
I guess you missed the part where it was all in levity and I took none of it seriously, even though it is a serious matter, perhaps even a legit one.You claim to be informed about a topic, impugning someone that you haven't even done the simplest of research on. It kind of undermines your case, just saying.
I was making an example. Out of a couple bits of information I spent maybe 60 seconds gathering up, on a current event, which I decided to make use for the example.
"Let me give you an example of 'deep state' 'conspiracy theory':"
If I had wasted 60 minutes on it instead, I could have turned it into a full article with enough supporting evidence as to make it appear rock solid and undeniable... but that was not the intent.
I believe I made my case and my point exceedingly well, as my real intention of the discussion was not Miscik or GM's actions, but to create a quick example of a 'conspiracy theory', of which you have devoted time researching and debating. Therefore, I conclude that my 'quick example' did fit the bill.
Its not something I am particularly focused on, nor was it the topic of this thread.
At what point will the Protocols of the Elders of Zion enter into this conversation?
Now is as good a time as any, I am raptly awaiting your insight into the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I must say I am rather ignorant of them, a search I just did has it classified under "controversial knowledge", along with books about UFOs, demonic possession, and all manner of conspiracy theories.
So do tell!
"First, if all they have to bring out to replace Trump is Clinton or Biden or any of the other lifelong corrupt D.C. hacks, then no... clearly if the DNC thinks people will want that type of politician they fail to understand what people saw in the likes of Bernie and Trump, and will lose again, even to Trump. "
Well, let's not forget that, ultimately, the voters choose the candidate who rises to the top. (Trump, anyone?) And if there is one good result from the Trump presidency, it's that it energized the opposition. If younger voters and women turn out in greater numbers like they did in the midterms, then the chances of ending up with Biden are pretty slim.
"Secondly, if these fools (Pelosi, Waters, etc.) do spend the next two years dragging America through more investigations, impeachment proceedings, and just being as idiotic and obstructionist as they can be, then Trump is a lock to be re-elected."
I hate to break it to you, but most voters wanted a check on Trump, and that was a big factor in the success of Dems in the midterms. I can almost guarantee there will be no impeachment proceedings unless the Republicans are on board. As for investigations, the people spoke and elections have consequences. We expect our legislators to hold this corrupt administration accountable.
"And I really think, as ignorant as you feel Trump is, Pelosi, Waters and the rest of those imbeciles will prove up to the challenge of being even more idiotic than Trump, making him look good in comparison."
We'll see, won't we? One of the three will be gone by 2020 and I don't think it will be Pelosi or Waters. Pelosi is smart and skilled in the machinations of politics, just like wily old Mitch McConnell. I'm not saying I like it that wily political savvy is a necessary quality for a party leader but, right now, all many of us Americans want is to rid ourselves of this embarrassing, corrupt, incompetent administration.
See, this (above) right here is what I call propaganda, it falls under the 'tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth'.
You may actually be brainwashed into believing that to be true, but it is demonstratively false, the ACA (obamacare) tax alone proves this. The ACA did nothing if not make it easier for insurance and big pharma corporations get richer at middle and lower income persons expense.
And how exactly is taxing those who could not afford to pay for health insurance for NOT having health insurance actually a tax on the rich?
Hmmm... the rich can afford their own private insurance, so they don't need to deal with the ACA at all, they don't need to worry about preconditions, and they don't need to worry about paying a tax for not having insurance.
Boy those Democrats sure showed the Republicans how to stick it to the rich with that ACA... mmm hmmm... man the Insurance and Medical Industries never made so much money, they are richer than ever... but those poor working stiffs got shafted with Insurance that covered nothing AND a new Tax!!!
There is a provable correlation between Trump taking office and the economy going into overdrive. But I know no amount of facts will dissuade you from your propaganda fed delusions. For everyone else, it is clear that nothing, not the stock market, not hiring, was energized until Obama was out and it was clear Clinton wasn't following in his footsteps.
Wages have gone up, unemployment is down. What will impact that now are the trade wars, the Democratic House, the international efforts to stem Trump's efforts and progress, etc.
But if you think this booming economy is bad... you have no clue what is going on in the rest of the world. Not only are they rioting in France and Germany, but China's stock market has fallen to HALF where it was a year ago, compared to any other nation, we are exceptionally well off economically.
Only those with blinders on do not realize our economy is doing better than it has in decades, and far better than any other nation in the world right now.
For some reason, it did not show up in my feed until now PP, my apologies.
Yeah, he was THE major supporter of O'Rourke and Gillum.
I watch what is going on now in France, and I wonder if that is exactly where America would have been (or worse) if Clinton had won, with the ACA taxes, additional taxes placed on fuel for the Paris Accord agreement, the regulations left in place from Obama that were forcing companies to flee the country, the TPP, etc. etc.
https://www.wsj.com/video/frances-yello … 8377C.html
Instead of having record low unemployment, wage increases, and lower than ever gas prices (paid just $2.03 for gas the other day) we would be heading fast into another recession, brought on by criminally negligent and corrupt politicians with the worst of them in the White House.
We dodged that bullet, but who knows how long this upswing can last now that the Democrats have gained control of the House.
- Onusonusposted 6 years ago
0I heard Creepy Joe is about all they can muster at the moment.
Its incredible how someone like that can show his perversions right in public and get away with it.
Well it is the same party that made Hillary their front runner during the last election cycle.
But lets not forget that the Republicans are the party of old white men.
I find it beyond amazing that President Trump talks about grabbing pu**y, walks in on teenagers as they undress during pageants, has evidently had sex with at least one porn star and one Playboy playmate while married, and paid both of those women to keep quiet (and I won't even mention getting urinated on in Russia), but he's the hero and Joe Biden is the one with the problem? What precisely has Joe Biden ever been accused of and or prosecuted for?
Has anyone mentioned Jay Inslee? He was a pioneer in thinking like the "Green New Deal" proposed by Ocasio-Cortez. Also, Washington State seems in decent shape. I just visited last year, and the area I grew up is booming.
Also, I hate to say this because it's identity politics at its core, but I think Dems must have a white man to win as President the next go around. I just think a decent portion of Americans see any liberal who is not a white man as a representation of an ideology as opposed to someone to vote for or truly help the country. Yes, it's racism and misogyny, but it's also the extremism coming from the left that seems to advocate nothing but a minority or woman will do.
Of course, O'rourk is running well in Democratic polling also. I'm not as big on him as some are, just from watching a couple short speeches, but I still don't know too much about him.The Democratic Party will lose its more Centrist, Moderate, & even traditional Liberal base. They will also lose the middle class. The middle class is bearing the brunt of the taxes & expenses. Many of the middle class are being priced out of ACA. They have to pay the taxes to maintain many social programs geared for the poor. The ACA was instituted for the poor & impoverished. It wasn't intended for the middle class. The Democrats couldn't care one iota about the middle class. In fact, they want to tax the middle class into oblivion despite their lame protestations that they are for the middle class. Liars.....liars. The Democratic Party LOVES the poor, powerless, & downtrodden because those are when they get their power from. The Democratic Party has NO USE for the middle class unless it is to TAX them for their inane, insipid social programs.
Is that why they are the only party that consistently wants higher taxes for higher earners and less taxes for the middle class and poor? Take your brainwashed hate somewhere else please.
C,mon, Valeant. The Democratic Party only cares for the lower class. They want lower income & other downtrodden people because that is where they get THEIR POWER. The Democratic Party could care less about the middle class. It is the middle class who bear the brunt of Democratic policies through taxes for their stupid social programs. The Democratic Party is the party for the poor & those who can't/refuse to help themselves!
Heard your lies the first time. Saying them again doesn't make them any more true. But I do love when some far right wing conspiracy-believing individual tries to narrate the beliefs of others.
I am far from right-wing, sir. I am just discerningly analytical. By the way, I am a Democrat. I have seen what the Democratic Party has done over the years & it ISN'T PRETTY AT ALL.
So true, The Republicans were all for Civil Rights laws despite the Dems fighting it all the way!
Trust me, you are no longer a Democrat. You about as right wing as they get these days. Deal with it. But if you're going to misunderstand the party, don't expect us to sit back while you spew your falsehoods.
I wish she'd stop claiming to be a Democrat as it embarrasses those of us who actually are.
Democrats aren't monolithic. There are all types of Democrats as there are ALL TYPES of Republicans. Let's get REAL here & go beyond stereotypes. I don't fit into stereotypes. I am a Democrat but a discerning. I am an independent thinker- I don't blindly follow any party line. Remember, this is the United States!
So how did you determine you were a democrat then? What criteria did you use?
How could YOU be a Democrat with this vitriol of yours and your endless criticism of the party and its values? If there is nothing good about the Democrats, then why do you remain one? Why not embrace the Republicans with open arms, you advocate for their every political posture, anyway? Your right wing stand on virtually everything supercede any moderation you claim regarding cultural issues. All this stuff about analysis and discernment as a Democrat is all a bunch of huey.
So who and what are YOU, really, Grace?Geez people, I am a Democrat who has an UNMITIGATED RIGHT to critique the utter leftist stupidity of certain policies of the party. As an American, there is FREEDOM of thought & speech. Again, people, Democrats aren't monoliths. You all aren't God. NO ONE is going to dictate to me as to how to believe & think as a Democrat. If I see something wrong w/the party, I WILL CRITICIZE IT! CASE CLOSED! And you all call Conservatives narrow? People who live in glass houses SHOULDN'T throw stones...….hmmmmm………...Such children. Again, to reiterate there are DIFFERENT TYPES of Democrats- traditional, liberal, moderate, & centrist as there are Republicans- liberal, traditional, & conservatives. I am a Liberal Democrat but I am not a...….LEFTIST nor SOCIALIST which is what the current Democratic Party is DEVOLVING them. I don't appreciate being bullied by people who believe that Democrats should be monolithic. You have a right to your beliefs & I have a right to mine!
+100000000 I respect your independence and standing up for yourself. Hope more Democrats will do the same and take back your party.
Hell yes, Jack. Hell yes, I refuse to be a typical Democratic sheeple who parrot policies I know are stupid & futile. I was raise to be independent & think for myself.
Saying that the Democratic party is the party of losers isn't criticizing any policy, it's declaring your disdain for something you once enjoyed being a part of. It's not bullying to call you out for that disdain and suggest you look elsewhere for a political affiliation if you are going to stereotype all its members as believing in certain factions policy desires. If you're going to be that insulting to the membership, don't be shocked if you get some push back.
There are some good core principles of the Democratic Party. I want the Democratic Party to return to its core principles of opportunity for all who are willing to earn it. I respect the Democratic Party for its acknowledgement of diversity. I further respect its pro-choice stand. However, I don't abide by its current socialism via its social & heath programs i.e. welfare & the ACA. I don't believe in government sponsored health care & everyone knows how I feel about welfare. I feel that people should pay for their own health care. People should also earn their way. I feel that welfare should be reduced 85%-95%. The government is here to enforce laws, not to be anyone's parent.
Of course you have a right to your beliefs and party affiliation. We are just wondering why you choose to be a Democrat if you find them so repulsive?
My husband changed party affiliation from Republican to Democrat after witnessing the spineless capitulation of Republican legislators to Trump's lying and corruption.
What do you stand for along with the Democrat party?
Valiant, you are going off the deep end my friend. Did you take your meds?
What could lead you to believe this?
Did you get a message from Mars?Maybe Valeant got the NEW Russian Compliant Republican "GOP Logo" from Bozo Trump who is a certified communist Vladimir Putin appeaser:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-Xw0_2eMJgJack, first off, learn to spell. My handle is Valeant. For someone who claims to be an educated man, you should be able to read.
Second, if you cannot understand how that logo came to fruition based on the Russians assisting that party's candidate to become elected to the highest office in the land, you should stop claiming to be an educated man.
Third, I don't find any humor in intimating someone has mental health issues. In fact, I find it highly offensive. You're going to want to avoid engaging me on here because I'm going to rip you a new one every time you do. Every. Single. Time.Valeant, I apologize for getting your name wrong. That is as far as I will go.
Your other coments are childish. What are you going to do?
You are here as I, as free will, willing to discuss political topics. We can disagree or not. It is the civilized way. You can take offense to anything I say. I don’t really care one way or the other. If you can’t take the heat...
As far as my education, I don’t make any claims. My degrees are for all to see. My accomplishments are also in the public records. I hold several patents and written numerous technical publications.
You and I have little in common.Jack,
Here are some words of wisdom from Thomas Sowell
+1000000000000, that SUCCINCTLY sums it up.
Sure, we can discuss political topics. I have no problem with that. When you think your education in the technical field makes you a specialist in politics or psychology, you just look the fool. I don't go around accusing people of needing meds or having some fabricated right-wing disorder because I have not studied medicine. I have, however, studied politics and most know I tend to back up arguments with facts.
But when you get to the point where people close to you have taken their own lives due to mental health issues, you won't find it to be a joking matter. An educated man, one with people skills and not technical skill, might realize this.I have been carrying the most restraint on this forum and others. Despite of attacks and insults hurled my way by others.
I try to argue my points with logic, common sense and facts. That is what conservative try to do in general. We do not rule on emotions.
When you make some outrageous remarks, how should I answer it?
The meds comment just came out and it was in jest.
I will not apologize for something I had no intention of hurting you or your family members.
If you are so sensitive, perhaps you shouldn’t be engaging in these debates.There wasn't anything outrageous about that photo. It is rooted in well-proven facts that the Russians ran an influence campaign to assist the GOP candidate, and since being favored that GOP candidate has acted in a way that favors said country (changing GOP platform to favor Russia in Ukraine, rescinding sanctions on Russian oligarchs, refusing to implement Congress-approved sanctions on said country) and numerous aides are going to jail about lying about their contacts with said country during the campaign. If you just wanted to take a shot at me, own it. But my suggestion was, to avoid us both getting banned, was to avoid each other.
As for the mental health issue, I'm sensitive to it because I interact with it daily in my career field and it's not something you joke about because of the real-world consequences. There could be a variety of reasons to why you are insensitive to that fact, but I won't speculate as psychoanalyzing each other is not in either of our educational backgrounds.Fine, we can leave it at that, I will be more sensitive to that in the future.
- This may be closer to the truth than we realize!
True, no one knows exactly what you are, Onus. But if it quacks like a duck....
Or in your case. ducks like a quack....
Sure, because the only party that disagrees with Democrats are Republicans. Might want to check it out but last time I checked there were a few other parties out there.
Related Discussions
- 76
What Happened To The Democratic Party We Once Knew
by Sharlee 4 weeks ago
What happened to the Democratic Party we once knew? It seems that over the years, the party has shifted, and not in a way that resonates with the people who once felt truly represented by it. In the past, the Democratic Party prided itself on standing up for working-class Americans, fighting for...
- 40
The DARK SIDE of the Democratic Party-Do THEY CARE About America?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 weeks ago
It is not as much as an ideological war but a socioeconomic/educational war as well. The Democratic Party now represents the upper middle to upper class, highly educated populace. The Democratic Party has a covert disdain for the solidly middle class although the party claim that...
- 90
Trump Has Won, ACCEPT IT
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 weeks ago
Trump has become the 47th President. Now, the hatred has escalated to full force. There are those who has an unfounded, phobic fear that Trump will turn America into a dictatorship. There are some who even believe, baited by MSNBC, CNN, & other left leaning media outlets, that Trump...
- 129
The Hill. Opinion: The 'Scared Majority'.
by Tim Mitchell 2 months ago
The ‘scared majority’ could deliver a landslide victory for Trump by Douglas MacKinnon, opinion contributor published at The...
- 172
Has Donald Trump Killed the So-Called Republican Party?
by Scott Belford 9 months ago
In my opinion, yes - the Republican Party no-longer exists today even though Trump followers incorrectly refer to themselves as Republicans.Let me open this discussion with a short tutorial of the Republican Party (now keep in mind, the Party title has no bearing on the Party philosophy and any...
- 148
Is Biden the real danger to Democracy?
by Readmikenow 8 months ago
To suppress Americans who disagree with biden he is currently fighting in the Supreme Court to continue having the power to violate Americans' 1st Amendment rights & censor them online. Supreme Court frowns at limiting biden administration’s contact with tech companiesThe high court...