Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Lianne Marten]

Wow, Warren has been banging a young military dude?

Hi5 girl

 

[Essence Lumin]

In 2015 there were quite a few long time posters on SLU saying people were biased against Hillary because she was a woman. For some reason those people are silent about Elizabeth Warren. I haven't read enough about Elizabeth Warren to know but find it strange because Hillary was very right wing compared to Bernie back then.

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Why Miss Warren, I do declare!

 

[Beebo Brink]

In 2015 there were quite a few long time posters on SLU saying people were biased against Hillary because she was a woman. For some reason those people are silent about Elizabeth Warren. I haven't read enough about Elizabeth Warren to know but find it strange because Hillary was very right wing compared to Bernie back then.

Umm, what is the question?

 

[Brenda Archer]

In 2015 there were quite a few long time posters on SLU saying people were biased against Hillary because she was a woman. For some reason those people are silent about Elizabeth Warren. I haven't read enough about Elizabeth Warren to know but find it strange because Hillary was very right wing compared to Bernie back then.

It’s still going on. There’s always been a metric fuckton of misogyny aimed at female leaders.

The difference now is in part because Clinton did get the majority vote, showing it could be done.

But also, I get the sense the public has tired of the Republican misogyny. There’s much less patience with social conservatism and more recognition of how it shades into attitudes more people realize are racist, misogynistic and fascist.

The whole atmosphere is different and the press has been chastised. If the Dems run any adult against Trump, the old gaslighting will be much weaker because it’s been exposed. It won’t be gone.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

In 2015 there were quite a few long time posters on SLU saying people were biased against Hillary because she was a woman. For some reason those people are silent about Elizabeth Warren. I haven't read enough about Elizabeth Warren to know but find it strange because Hillary was very right wing compared to Bernie back then.

I agree with Brenda up there, plus, the Democrats have given us a whole spectrum of identity to choose from. You can have a woman or man any way you want this time. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I think if Hillary Clinton had sat out 2016 and taken 4 years away to reflect on more than ambition, this would be her time to finish what she started over 25 years ago.

 

[Cristalle]

I agree with Brenda up there, plus, the Democrats have given us a whole spectrum of identity to choose from. You can have a woman or man any way you want this time. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I think if Hillary Clinton had sat out 2016 and taken 4 years away to reflect on more than ambition, this would be her time to finish what she started over 25 years ago.

Sorry. I did not want her at all, and it has nothing to do with her sex. The dynastic tendency in American politics sucks. The presidency is not like his and hers towels. It reeks of entitlement and corruption. She would have been better than Trump, but I never thought it was "her turn." No one is entitled to that.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

Sorry. I did not want her at all, and it has nothing to do with her sex. The dynastic tendency in American politics sucks. The presidency is not like his and hers towels. It reeks of entitlement and corruption. She would have been better than Trump, but I never thought it was "her turn." No one is entitled to that.

So, what's your reasoning for attacking Warren so often, more so than any other candidate right now? Or is it strictly because she's the main other progressive and she has a fair bit of support that went to Bernie 4 years ago? Because you can't really claim Dynastic Tendency here.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Cristalle]

So, what's your reasoning for attacking Warren so often, more so than any other candidate right now? Or is it strictly because she's the main other progressive and she has a fair bit of support that went to Bernie 4 years ago? Because you can't really claim Dynastic Tendency here.

Because I don't trust her, based on her own actions. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I feel like she would end up being another Obama, and that's not a good thing.

If this was 2016 and she ran, I'd have been enthusiastic about it. Not this time, because of policy and what I think are signals that she will not be committed to putting those policies into effect. She's wishy washy on Medicare for All, which tells me that she will not even try to get it since she's content to support "any good idea" which is mealy mouthed speak for doing nothing or just shoring up the ACA. She's a standard Democrat on foreign policy, which means that we will not break free from the bipartisan endorsement of endless war. She doesn't lead on those issues, which means that she will, like Obama, be susceptible to the defense industry (who also bankrolls the Democrats) and their continual wars. She wags her finger at Trump and yet voted to increase the military budget more than the Pentagon asked for? Bad instincts. She voted to put Ben Carson in as HUD Secretary, and some other questionable votes for that cabinet too.

I don't think she has the courage of her convictions. The supposed Native American didn't speak out about the abuse of the protesters or anything else about Standing Rock until Obama did. She was privately in the tank for Hillary Clinton and instead of just being honest and endorsing her, she hid it until after the race was over.

And let's not start on the electability question, when Trump starts hammering her repeatedly for being fake with the Native American identity with the Pocahontas slur. She needs to be properly vetted. If you think that the Republicans are going to go easy on her, you have another think coming. She needs to be able to withstand honest scrutiny of her record, and do her mea culpas. And she needs to take a firm stand on Medicare for All instead of being dishonest about it, saying one thing on TV and then saying other things privately.

These things have nothing to do with her being a woman. They are not double standards I'd hold for men, like carping about her voice or her clothing. She's not the worst candidate out there, not by a mile. However, we have a better candidate.

 

[Beebo Brink]

I feel like [Warren] would end up being another Obama...

 

[Romana]

Being a Jacob Wohl enterprise, it's starting to unravel already:

All of Jacob Wohl’s Spectacularly Failed Smear Attempts

A guide to the impressively bad schemes of the MAGA-loving fitness enthusiast.

www.thecut.com

Also, hashtag Cougar2020 is now trending on Twitter.

 

[Lianne Marten]

You mean that Warren didn't have sex with a dude in his 20s who has a XXX tattoo?

But I was promised that she was a Cougar!

 

[Brenda Archer]

I agree with Brenda up there, plus, the Democrats have given us a whole spectrum of identity to choose from. You can have a woman or man any way you want this time. I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I think if Hillary Clinton had sat out 2016 and taken 4 years away to reflect on more than ambition, this would be her time to finish what she started over 25 years ago.

I don’t get this painting of Clinton as someone with too much “ambition.”

In fact that’s an example of a complaint aimed at female leaders but not at male ones.

Clinton was by far and away the most experienced candidate for the Presidency. She was too far to the right for a lot of us, but that doesn’t mean she had “too much ambition.” If no woman had run that year, the public debates about women in politics would have simply been postponed.

There is no way out of this conflict. Clinton absorbed some of the impact of it, making a candidate like Warren possible.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

I don’t get this painting of Clinton as someone with too much “ambition.”

In fact that’s an example of a complaint aimed at female leaders but not at male ones.

This. So much this. Another one is that women who take charge are seen as "bossy". That really pisses me off.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I don’t get this painting of Clinton as someone with too much “ambition.”

In fact that’s an example of a complaint aimed at female leaders but not at male ones.

Clinton was by far and away the most experienced candidate for the Predidency. She was too far to the right for a lot of us, but that doesn’t mean she had “too much ambition.” If no woman had run that year, the public debates about women in politics would have simply been postponed.

There is no way out of this conflict. Clinton absorbed some of the impact of it, making a candidate like Warren possible.

Yeah, I highlighted my issue. I OF COURSE wanted her to beat Trump, but I felt like it was impossible to have a real conversation about her stances on certain issues (especially foreign policy) because so much of what was being said for or against her was personal. Obviously, nobody could fairly accuse Warren of being right wing, so that's not an issue.

I totally agree that many moderate conservatives SHOULD have liked her moderately conservative agenda, but didn't because of sexism.

 

[Cristalle]

This for someone who was the biggest assaulter on whistleblowers, using the Espionage Act against whistleblowers and journalists more than all previous presidents combined?

This for someone who campaigned against dumb wars and took us from 2 to 7, including the genocide in Yemen?

This for someone who failed to prosecute the war criminals and their apparatchiks, letting Brett Kavanaugh slide through?

This for the person who normalized bailouts for corporations yet put Social Security cuts on the table in a "Grand Bargain?" (the reason why Bernie ran, and which Biden is willing to do)

This for the person who created those cage facilities where the undocumented kids are staying?

This for the person who didn't close Guantanamo?

This for the person who went to Flint to drink the "water" leaving the problem unresolved to this day?


Transcript at democracynow.org/2019/8/1/it_wasnt_a_golden_age_cornel (this link will not work, media)

Cornel West: 'Obama was never the revolutionary Mandela was'


There is a reason why we got Trump. He's not the sole reason, but he is part of it. Democrats are not being honest about Obama and his legacy.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

This for someone who was the biggest assaulter on whistleblowers, using the Espionage Act against whistleblowers and journalists more than all previous presidents combined?

This for someone who campaigned against dumb wars and took us from 2 to 7, including the genocide in Yemen?

This for someone who failed to prosecute the war criminals and their apparatchiks, letting Brett Kavanaugh slide through?

This for the person who normalized bailouts for corporations yet put Social Security cuts on the table in a "Grand Bargain?" (the reason why Bernie ran, and which Biden is willing to do)

This for the person who created those cage facilities where the undocumented kids are staying?

This for the person who didn't close Guantanamo?

This for the person who went to Flint to drink the "water" leaving the problem unresolved to this day?


Transcript at democracynow.org/2019/8/1/it_wasnt_a_golden_age_cornel (this link will not work, media)

Cornel West: 'Obama was never the revolutionary Mandela was'


There is a reason why we got Trump. He's not the sole reason, but he is part of it. Democrats are not being honest about Obama and his legacy.

I really think that every President enters office and learns how limited their power really is and how that changing course is like trying to turn around a battle ship with paddles.

Trump came to office wanting to do very bad things, so thank god he is getting blocked by a plethora of law that is in place to stop idiots in power. I still think Obama had ambitions to do great things, but also found how much law was in the way. The difference is that Obama didn't make a huge show of him fighting reality.

In particular, Obama did NOT have the power to just close Guantanamo on a whim. I believe he tried, but got knocked down. And every credible source says that anti immigration enforcement exploded under Trump, because Obama just followed the law, while Trump is doing everything to push even further.

Obama was no revolutionary, but I don't think it's fair to blame him much for not being able to single handedly fix everything. Let's not forget all he did accomplish. So much of why Trump seems nightmarish is because Trump is undoing many of the good things that happened under Obama, like the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Nuclear deal, and LGBT rights.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Just to think, y'all missed out on Streetfighty McGrift.