Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

Anya Ristow

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
183
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
Nov 2007
SLU Posts
2999
"They believe that she will do enough to placate the masses, but not so much that their class status and power status are threatened."
In a nutshell, this is why the establishment has accepted Warren. She's the best outcome they can hope for. The alternative is Bernie. They don't want her to win, but they'll take her over Bernie.
Like this:

Warren has a plan for Wall Street — and Wall Street isn’t panicking

ETA sorry, I see this was already posted.
 
Last edited:

Bartholomew Gallacher

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
1,248
SL Rez
2002
The important bit missing in the headline is "over decades" - how many of those billionaires would just renounce their citizenship instead?

The next error is also that this was build under the assumption, that they already got their wealth in 1982 and this tax would be in action since. So Marc Zuckerberg was already a billionaire back then, while he was born in 1984? This would be new to me.

And Jeff Bezos net wealth not at 160 billion, but "only" 86 something - excuse me, that's still filthy rich.

At the end of the day this proposed tax would never make its was through the law making process without getting watered down - politicians always go into such a process with maximum demands, so that they can later compromise to what they really want to have. Nobody expects this to get in action like that, plain and simple.
 

Aeon Jiminy

Active member
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
120
One hand scratches the other. Elizabeth was in the tank in 2013, while Hillary was lying about dithering on the decision to run.

Christalle got some gentle hand-smacking for posting this. Let's not read her spam and conclude that everything is fine. I won't post TYT's Emma Vigeland's question to Warren about her vote to "thumb's up" Trumps war budget. Warren's song is haunting, but only in the lyrics. If you just listen to the music it's pretty silky smooth.

Warren is great interpreter, like Linda Ronstadt. Whether she's singing the songs of Republicans, Native Americans, Liberals, Finance Reformers, or the folksy Progressive compositions of Bernie Sanders, she brings her own unique stylings to the mix. She even provided some unforgettable back-up harmonies to Hillary Clinton's "I'm With Her" 2016 Tour, which showed us that Warren could put on a sequin mini skirt and shimmy with best of the establishment. Who didn't love her sassy strutting and gritty growling on " Medicare for All is Unicorns and Fairy Dust" or "It Will Never Happen"? Those two stole the show.

As soon as Warren completes her small venue Primary Tour, she's announced she will leave the banjos and fiddles behind as she teams up with big money producers for the " Look, I do not believe in unilateral disarmament" orchestral production. While many of us won't be able to afford a ticket to this event, I'm sure it will still be quite a show. It can't all be about us. That's how you win elections, right?
 

Eunoli

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
296
Do the words "Bureau of Consumer Protection" mean anything to you, Aeon? Because it wouldn't even exist if not for Elizabeth Warren. She's been walking this walk since long before it was popular. Big banks, big business and big agg /all/ have reason to hate her. Sure. Its easy to find instances of any politician hob-nobbing with other politicians. Its easy to find times when they have spoken even to those they might think of as the "enemy".

Its not so easy to invent and then later run an entire Federal Agency devoted to ending the abuse of consumers by big money. There is a reason that she's considered dangerous by those with big money. I'll go with her actions and not other people's slurs.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - Wikipedia

I am still for Michael Bennett. But, I have no end of admiration for Elizabeth Warren and what she's already accomplished.
 

Arilynn

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Messages
121
I’m starting to get a horribly familiar panicky feeling about the election. Who will the Dems pick that can beat that obscenity currently befouling the White House? Not Biden, I think. For a career politician, I think he’s a decent guy, but...please, don’t nominate him, Dems. Sanders? No way. Warren or Harris? Maybe. But 30+% of our country have been shown to be truly deplorable, willfully ignorant, and possessing the analytical abilities of a hamster.

I avoid news coverage of all of this as much as possible, but I like Yang. Mayor Pete seems like he’ll be great once he graduates. I used to really like Warren, and she, Harris, and Pete should be sharp debaters. But Trump’s general approval ratings have me worried. I have to run, but I read a great (NYer?) article that basically says we’re doomed.
 
  • 1Agree
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer and Eunoli

Anya Ristow

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
183
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
Nov 2007
SLU Posts
2999
I still think Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election if she'd chosen Elizabeth Warren as her VP. Their two appearance together were electric. Warren has a much warmer touch and history that would have energized the exact voting blocs that Clinton lost. I wasn't all that keen on Clinton, but soooo much better than Trump.....
Picking Kaine was a kick in the teeth for progressives. "We don't need you, and in fact fuck off." Anyone decidedly left of Clinton would have been better, and Warren would have been pretty awesome. It would have been enough.

Coincidentally, of course, Tim Kaine stepped down from the position of DNC chair, to be replaced by DWS, Clinton friend and campaign chair. Snopes says this wasn't a deal...because Obama had a lot to do with it and not Clinton. Ahuh. You'll also recall that Obama convinced Tom Perez to run when it was looking like progressives and establishment would otherwise both have been happy with Keith Ellison.
 
Last edited:

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
505
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
It helps if you give some context to your vid spams. Just posting vids with no opinion, comment, etc doesn't really lend to me wanting to watch.
I don't get a summary fed to me when I see them come up in my feed. I watch/listen, or I don't. When it's 20-30 minutes long, I'm not taking notes to regurgitate, especially if it's a significant discussion with many details that are very interesting. If you don't want to watch, that's fine, it's your prerogative. But if you decide not to watch, don't comment. Simple.
 

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
749
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
I posted about a decidedly non-scientific poll done at the State Fair and who won it. It's interesting to see the immediate response and following page after page of anti-Warren posts or rather videos which I will not be watching.

The same thing seems to happen when someone posts about another candidate, well other than Bernie. It gets followed by video after video of anti-whomever that candidate happens to be and almost exclusively by the same three posters. It's getting old.

Could we not do this "burn the witch" routine again that was so beloved by so many in 2016? Fuck sake.
 

NyteWytch

What's good, Miley?
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
124
Location
Hell
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
SLU Posts
1138
I don't get a summary fed to me when I see them come up in my feed. I watch/listen, or I don't. When it's 20-30 minutes long, I'm not taking notes to regurgitate, especially if it's a significant discussion with many details that are very interesting. If you don't want to watch, that's fine, it's your prerogative. But if you decide not to watch, don't comment. Simple.
You are the one commanding others to watch the video. FFS nobody is asking for notes, an essay or a fucking manifesto. A simple "Loved their take!", "Made me think of hamsters!", "Woah never voting for them!"....helps to give people context if it's interesting. Peeps are busy and not wanting to waste valuable life on video spam.
 

Cristalle

Lady of the House
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
505
Location
Flori-duh
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
July 8, 2008
SLU Posts
2903
You are the one commanding others to watch the video. FFS nobody is asking for notes, an essay or a fucking manifesto. A simple "Loved their take!", "Made me think of hamsters!", "Woah never voting for them!"....helps to give people context if it's interesting. Peeps are busy and not wanting to waste valuable life on video spam.
I'm not "commanding" anything. And even in this specific instance, I gave a small comment ahead of it. People commented without watching, and there was a lot more that I wasn't going to regurgitate because there's just too much.
 
  • 1ROFL
Reactions: Spirits Rising

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
749
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
It's not about her being a woman, so this "burn the witch" thing? That's nonsense.
It's about anyone being other than "beloved Bernie". No matter who it is, a positive post about another candidate gets a video dump, page after page, of dubious sources; usually the same sources that so gleefully engaged in "burn the witch" in 2016.
 

Aeon Jiminy

Active member
Joined
Oct 9, 2018
Messages
120
I’m starting to get a horribly familiar panicky feeling about the election. Who will the Dems pick that can beat that obscenity currently befouling the White House? Not Biden, I think. For a career politician, I think he’s a decent guy, but...please, don’t nominate him, Dems. Sanders? No way. Warren or Harris? Maybe. But 30+% of our country have been shown to be truly deplorable, willfully ignorant, and possessing the analytical abilities of a hamster.

I avoid news coverage of all of this as much as possible, but I like Yang. Mayor Pete seems like he’ll be great once he graduates. I used to really like Warren, and she, Harris, and Pete should be sharp debaters. But Trump’s general approval ratings have me worried. I have to run, but I read a great (NYer?) article that basically says we’re doomed.
Probably for different reasons, but I agree with you. We are at serious risk of getting the default Trump second term.

Fractured. You say that 30+% is truly deplorable, that's a bad place to start. Will the real deplorables please stand up? Depending on which vantage point you take, everyone is surrounded by deplorables. To the elite class, we're unruly bottom-feeders who want free stuff from the world they own. To those who were born with nothing, the deplorables are those born with something and believe they earned it. The fact that you feel comfortable calling millions of people you don't know "deplorable" might qualify you as deplorable.

I have friends and family who aren't higher educated. They live in rural areas. They've suffered huge human losses. They cry real tears. They've worked with two hands for little compensation, but still have something in their hearts and hands to give back to another person. We don't get to choose for them. Writing them off and acting snobbly hasn't been working out too well.

Democrats are supposed to be for the working class who are taking refuge with Trump. You can't call people "deplorables" and expect them to follow you for their own good, unless you live on a plantation and purchased them as field hands, Scarlett.
 

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
749
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
Democrats are supposed to be for the working class who are taking refuge with Trump. You can't call people "deplorables" and expect them to follow you for their own good, unless you live on a plantation and purchased them as field hands, Scarlett.
WTF. Back in your hole.
 

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
749
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
You must be on the DNC Outreach Committee?
You've got balls. I'll give you that.

You actually made a slavery comparison and needlessly called a long-time, well-respected poster "Scarlett". This, from someone who, admitted that they were not in a safe state, decided that throwing their vote to Jill Stein, was a reasonable alternative to Donald Trump.

To do such a thing, one clearly has enough status that they didn't and don't fear what Donald Trump would do and has done. You even intend to throw it to him again if you don't have your every unicorn wish granted. Take a look in the mirror, sunshine. You radiate entitlement.