Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

[Katheryne Helendale]

Hillary Clinton suggests Russians are 'grooming' Tulsi Gabbard for third-party run

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Thursday the Russians are currently "grooming" a Democrat running in the presidential primary to run as a third-party candidate and champion their interests.

www.cnn.com

The sad thing is, Hillary still would have been infinitely better than Trump as the President. She and Trump do both have one thing in common, though: They both epitomize everything that is wrong with their respective parties.

 

[Soen Eber]

I don't see any supporting evidence in HRC's remarks. It does make sense and I was never going to vote for her anyways, but I prefer a higher bar before believing anything.

 

[danielravennest]

Bla bla bla...

Sorry, ma'am, you've gotten to be too annoying, so you are going on ignore. My first for VVO.

 

[danielravennest]

Please look up the actual definition of anarchism instead of using the popular one, which nobody subscribes to.

If the means of production is moved to local co-ops owned by their employees and controlled by their stakeholders using consensus, that’s anarchist.

Uh, No. My credit union and my power company are both cooperatives, and they are anything but anarchist. They are democratic. The member/owners elect board members, who in turn oversee the hired staff. Members of farm cooperatives would likely bristle at the suggestion they are anarchist. Rather, they exist to share costs on certain items, like grain silos (the big ones, next to railroad tracks, not the small ones used on the farm itself).

Anarchy rejects the monopoly on the use of force by government. That's the defining characteristic.

 

[Cristalle]

Where is the salty tears emoji?

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I have and am becoming more and more uncomfortable with how often the posts in this thread follow alt-right talking points pretty damn closely.

I look briefly in here, see the same thing and back right out. You'd think by the posts in here that the Democrats (well, except for Saint Bernie) are worse than the Republicans. There are certain members bent on bothsideism, post after post after post, page after page after page.

There is a definite agenda that goes beyond merely sharing information about candidates.

 

[Romana]

Whether Hillary should have said what she said, or not, I think Tulsi's response, justified or not, was worse. She didn't do herself or her campaign any favors with that response. There are a lot of ways she could have responded that would have been more statesmanlike (stateswoman? statesperson?). "Queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption" etc. was just a bit much, especially when we consider the squatter in the WH now. JMHO

 

[Essence Lumin]

Anarchy rejects the monopoly on the use of force by government. That's the defining characteristic.

That's a bit of an odd way of putting it. Your sentence implies that all anarchists believe there is a need to use force which is not always the case. For instance, from Anarcho-pacifism - Wikipedia

Tolstoy argued that anarchism must be nonviolent since it is, by definition, opposition to coercion and force, and that since the state is inherently violent, meaningful pacifism must likewise be anarchistic. Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis was also instrumental in establishing the pacifist trend within the anarchist movement.

 

[Cristalle]

I don't see any supporting evidence in HRC's remarks. It does make sense and I was never going to vote for her anyways, but I prefer a higher bar before believing anything.

I wasn't either, but it's a prime example of trying to shut down opposing views by making everything about the Russians. Really, as if frog memes on the right and promoting anti-racism on the left is subversion of our democracy. But it really boils down to this: like it or not, the Democratic Party is just as big a warmonger as the Republican Party. They're not serious about peace. If they were, they wouldn't be trying to smear someone for trying to use diplomacy, and gathering actual evidence before rendering judgments.

 

[Brenda Archer]

Uh, No. My credit union and my power company are both cooperatives, and they are anything but anarchist. They are democratic. The member/owners elect board members, who in turn oversee the hired staff. Members of farm cooperatives would likely bristle at the suggestion they are anarchist. Rather, they exist to share costs on certain items, like grain silos (the big ones, next to railroad tracks, not the small ones used on the farm itself).

Anarchy rejects the monopoly on the use of force by government. That's the defining characteristic.

I should have been more clear. What makes this example anarchist is the use of anarchist consensus rather than a democratic voting process.

Doing it democratically is easier and is often enough, but I can think of extremely local situations where consensus would be the only thing that works.

 

[Romana]

There's a hell of a lot more to those frog memes than just frogs. As one of the kind of people the keksters would like to see gone, I find the minimizing of their poisonous ideas quite disturbing.

 

[Brenda Archer]

I want to live in that USA.

In the meantime, if you're genuinely curious, I recommend researching "manufacturing consent for war", the Smith-Mundt act, and its repeal. You might also check the credentials of recent major media hires, the panel experts they have as frequent guests, and also the "CIA Democrats." Then maybe the founders and boards of the cyber security firms the DNC has used in recent years.

If you think our politicians are in control of this thing, then we aren't even on the same page.

I’m not an idiot.

I keep trying to explain why I don’t give a damn about the TV circus and I don’t think most people should either.

I didn’t say anything about who’s in control, I don’t expect anything to ever be so simple. But do you know who’s in control?
Really?

Ok, this time I’m really putting this thread on ignore.

 

[Anya Ristow]

I’m not an idiot.

Sorry. I know you come from a well-considered position and aren't a TV watching idiot.

But do you know who’s in control?
Really?

I suspect it's [bronx-accent]millionaires and billionaires[/bronx-accent], but no...not really.

 

[Cristiano]

I know everyone has very strong opinions - god knows I have them. I'm getting a lot of negative feedback about this thread lately. I don't want to see it descend into a clusterfuck, as the 2020 election is the most important of our lifetime. I think we all want the same thing, even if we disagree on who best represents that, but please keep in mind we are on the same side and sniping at each other is not going to help.

 

[Isabeau]

More details for each candidate at the link...

Democrats are dealing with their largest primary pool in at least 40 years, and how they fare in raking in cash could separate the candidates in the pack. Here are the financial figures that the candidates, including President Trump, have reported to the Federal Election Commission, so far. The president's totals include money that other committees, such as the Republican National Committee and the Trump Victory Committee, have transferred to him.

[...]

Democrats have widely rejected, for example, support from corporate political action committees. While these committees have allowed businesses and trade groups in the past to funnel huge amounts of cash to eager candidates, Democrats have become increasingly worried about the appearance of businesses having undue influence over the political process.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Oh Isabeau . Run away, in this thread there be only tears. Save yourself. Listen to some Lisa LeBlanc or some Hip. Watch a rerun of The Beachcombers. Something. Anything.

 

[Cristalle]

Whether Hillary should have said what she said, or not, I think Tulsi's response, justified or not, was worse. She didn't do herself or her campaign any favors with that response. There are a lot of ways she could have responded that would have been more statesmanlike (stateswoman? statesperson?). "Queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption" etc. was just a bit much, especially when we consider the squatter in the WH now. JMHO

My point is not to minimize any of the hateful content, as I am not someone they want to keep around either. My point is that Russia is being used to limit the bounds of acceptable discourse. As if people can't be upset with the Democratic Party for legitimate reasons, therefore any kind of dissent makes you a Russian bot or some kind of plant. She's telling the truth about what has happened in Syria. Citations by independent journalists, researchers, etc. abound, and yet it's being dismissed as alt-right or right-wing talking points. I'm being lectured about what I can and cannot say, when I don't post anything untrue - as opposed to the lies about Syria and about Gabbard herself. I'm the one who has to bend over backward to cite stuff.

A commissioned officer in our Armed Forces and a sitting Congressional Representative is being accused of being groomed by Russians, which ought to be outrageous on its face especially since it's completely baseless, but people have been conditioned into finding that acceptable. But because it's a popular person's political adversary, that's okay. I don't think that's okay at all.

 

[Spirits Rising]

Grasping at straws, pretending to know poster's motives and all but outright lying about responses made ... Yep, original assessment stands.

 

[Cristalle]

Grasping at straws, pretending to know poster's motives and all but outright lying about responses made ... Yep, original assessment stands.

Yeah, okay, Pot.

 

[Spirits Rising]

A mirror, look into it long and hard before trying that - or any other - bullshit with me.

Enjoy the clusterfuck of your own making.