Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

[Aeon Jiminy]

Very big weekend. The Queen of Failure and Rot returns from exile to throw some poison on our future, because I guess we're just not working hard enough to clean up her past. Do we really need to fight another one of her dragons?

And then there's this: There's more to life than being foot soldiers in the petty wars of the elite.

 

[Free]

There's more to life than being foot soldiers in the petty wars of the elite.

You got some passive-aggressiveness on your shirt.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

You got some passive-aggressiveness on your shirt.

Sorry, I just see two futures being presented. I'm on board for door #2 with AOC and Sanders. I don't see a place for Clinton in that future. She needs to go away and never come back. If she really wants to make this election about her, she's going to drag everything down the toilet again. I hope I'm not being passive about my point of view.

I think if people want to drink her poison, then do it wide-eyed. Own it. Own the victory and own the defeat. Don't come blaming everyone else if it all blows up in your face again. There's no one influencing anyone right now. It's a decision and a path. Follow her. Don't follow her. Choose it. Own it.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Very big weekend. The Queen of Failure and Rot returns from exile to throw some poison on our future...

This is an example of what I mean when I say that if you read this thread you would think that the Democrats (except for Bernie) just as evil, if not more, than the Republicans. HRC was the Democratic nominee for President last time precisely because more people voted for her than Sanders.

Never once on this board have you used similar words reserved for Trump, or any Republican for that matter. Not once. Not in the thread about locking children up, not about any of his other crimes, not in the thread about impeachment. You reserve your judgment for Democrats that aren't Bernie and go easy on the one candidate that represents thae alt-right.

Cristiano thinks we're all on the same side. I disagree. I do not believe that you and one other are indeed on our side.

 

[Free]

Sorry, I just see two futures being presented.

If you only see two doors, that's because it's all you can stand looking for.

 

[Essence Lumin]

This is an example of what I mean when I say that if you read this thread you would think that the Democrats (except for Bernie) just as evil, if not more, than the Republicans. HRC was the Democratic nominee for President last time precisely because more people voted for her than Sanders.

The DNC actively worked against Sanders which is likely an element of why HRC won the primary. This was also reflected in her getting almost all of the superdelegate votes which has nothing to do with people voting for her. Back in SLU days there were a bunch of people constantly ranting that Sanders shouldn't be in the race because he wasn't a real democrat.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

The DNC actively worked against Sanders which is likely an element of why HRC won the primary. This was also reflected in her getting almost all of the superdelegate votes which has nothing to do with people voting for her.

How Hillary Clinton Won the Democratic Nomination Over Bernie Sanders

What the DNC did, or did not do, nor the superdelegates, has anything to do with the fact that she received more votes by the public. Period. She received 15.5 million votes to Sanders 11.9 million, in the right states and with the large help of African-Americans.

The voting public favored her in the primary. That is why she was the nominee. I voted for Sanders in the primary. My state voted for Sanders. I never cried any salty tears when she became the nominee.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

This is an example of what I mean when I say that if you read this thread you would think that the Democrats (except for Bernie) just as evil, if not more, than the Republicans. HRC was the Democratic nominee for President last time precisely because more people voted for her than Sanders.

Never once on this board have you used similar words reserved for Trump, or any Republican for that matter. Not once. Not in the thread about locking children up, not about any of his other crimes, not in the thread about impeachment. You reserve your judgment for Democrats that aren't Bernie and go easy on the one candidate that represents thae alt-right.

Cristiano thinks we're all on the same side. I disagree. I do not believe that you and one other are indeed on our side.

The gatekeeper of the Democratic Party?

I don't really see this as "sides". I'm not at war with Republicans. I gave that up in 2015 when I saw where the fight really is.

I'm not at war with the Democrats. I just want what they've told me I can have, and I want it without bait and switch, judgement, vote-shaming, and cheating.

You think I'm suspect. Can you imagine how suspect you seem to me? Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are Democratic candidates, along with Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson. I've shown positive support for 4 current candidates and you are still insinuating that I don't belong. I'm not on your side.

Is 4 not enough or too much? Be specific.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Sorry, I just see two futures being presented. I'm on board for door #2 with AOC and Sanders. I don't see a place for Clinton in that future. She needs to go away and never come back. If she really wants to make this election about her, she's going to drag everything down the toilet again. I hope I'm not being passive about my point of view.

*checks the list of presidential candidates*

I don't see Hillary running, so I don't see how she factors.

I'm not HRC's biggest fan, but if AOC is allowed to endorse a candidate, then Hillary's entitled to speak her opinions of the candidates, and she may be spot-on about Gabbard. Hillary was Secretary of State, so she might know a thing or three about what's going on. But I don't see her influencing the race in any meaningful way.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Sorry, I just see two futures being presented.

Here's the future I see: Warren is going to get the nomination, and you're going to throw your vote away again and hand it to Trump because Bernie didn't get the nod. Am I wrong?

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Here's the future I see: Warren is going to get the nomination, and you're going to throw your vote away again and hand it to Trump because Bernie didn't get the nod. Am I wrong?

There's so many things that can happen between now and then. I'm looking at now and inclined to run in the opposite direction of anything with HRC on it.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Misc:

 

[Romana]

*checks the list of presidential candidates*

I don't see Hillary running, so I don't see how she factors.

I'm not HRC's biggest fan, but if AOC is allowed to endorse a candidate, then Hillary's entitled to speak her opinions of the candidates, and she may be spot-on about Gabbard. Hillary was Secretary of State, so she might know a thing or three about what's going on. But I don't see her influencing the race in any meaningful way.

Hillary didn't originate the idea. I've been seeing speculation about it on social media practically since Tulsi declared. People wondered why Russian news agency RT consistently retweeted her. A significant amount of trollbots shilling for her were also noticed. Of course, this doesn't mean she knew about any of it; she probably didn't. Putin's I people aren't as bumbling as donnie's. They'll push and prod carefully in hopes it produces a spoiler candidate, or gets people to stay home, like last time.

 

[Anya Ristow]

Here's CNN's take on Clinton vs Gabbard.


It contains the backstory, too. And ends with this implausible moonwalking...

After Hillary Clinton's comments drew considerable criticism from both Democrats and Republiicans, Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill backed away from the former secretary of state's allegation. Merrill tweeted, "She doesn't say the Russians are grooming anyone. It was a question about Republicans."

Here's Jake Tapper talking to Pete Butigieg about it.


and more

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

As the dust settles on this Clinton/Gabbard episode and sanity emerges, Hillary may have given the Party a huge gift. Her "endorsement" will be a liability in the general election.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

The gatekeeper of the Democratic Party?

I don't really see this as "sides". I'm not at war with Republicans. I gave that up in 2015 when I saw where the fight really is.

I'm not at war with the Democrats. I just want what they've told me I can have, and I want it without bait and switch, judgement, vote-shaming, and cheating.

You think I'm suspect. Can you imagine how suspect you seem to me? Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are Democratic candidates, along with Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson. I've shown positive support for 4 current candidates and you are still insinuating that I don't belong. I'm not on your side.

Is 4 not enough or too much? Be specific.

From day one in your emergence on this board, you have consistently berated all Democrats with the exception of Sanders, of course and favored those who either do not have a flying chance in hell, are flaky, or actually are alt-rightish. I don't even believe that you really support those others except Bernie. It's just a convenient tool to sow dissension. You've admitted that you threw your vote to Stein last time in an unsafe state. You've admitted that you will do it again, should you not get what you want. You will never support whomever gets the nomination unless it is Bernie. You actively undermine all others who actually might receive the nomination.

I don't believe for one second that you want the same as the majority of us do, which is to be free of Trump rule and all of the terrible things he and his party has done to this country and its people. You see, you aren't all that discontent with Trump rule. You certainly have never once given the same fervor nor level of anger/hatred toward them as you reserve for Democrats. Not once. Not every time he violates the constitution, not when he commits treason and not when he locks up children stealing them from their families.

You do this because you never got over Bernie losing the nomination. You are content to throw a wrench into the works because you didn't get what you want. Doing it last time wasn't enough. You wish to do it this time, as well. You are not the only one. There is one more displaying the same behavior.

You are both here to sow chaos and cause dissension within the party and within this board. You are an agent of chaos.

 

[Cristalle]

From day one in your emergence on this board, you have consistently berated all Democrats with the exception of Sanders, of course and favored those who either do not have a flying chance in hell, are flaky, or actually are alt-rightish. I don't even believe that you really support those others except Bernie. It's just a convenient tool to sow dissension. You've admitted that you threw your vote to Stein last time in an unsafe state. You've admitted that you will do it again, should you not get what you want. You will never support whomever gets the nomination unless it is Bernie. You actively undermine all others who actually might receive the nomination.

I don't believe for one second that you want the same as the majority of us do, which is to be free of Trump rule and all of the terrible things he and his party has done to this country and its people. You see, you aren't all that discontent with Trump rule. You certainly have never once given the same fervor nor level of anger/hatred toward them as you reserve for Democrats. Not once. Not every time he violates the constitution, not when he commits treason and not when he locks up children stealing them from their families.

You do this because you never got over Bernie losing the nomination. You are content to throw a wrench into the works because you didn't get what you want. Doing it last time wasn't enough. You wish to do it this time, as well. You are not the only one. There is one more displaying the same behavior.

You are both here to sow chaos and cause dissension within the party and within this board. You are an agent of chaos.

If you mean me, Jolene, I've already said a number of times that I will vote for whoever the nominee is, so you can stop the veiled references. The agenda is for truth, even if it's ugly, for us to vote and make our choices with our eyes wide open. If I have to hold my nose and vote for Biden, or someone like him, I will do it just like I did last time. But as usual, you're not listening. It doesn't matter. Strident advocacy for a candidate is only allowed for certain people.

I didn't realize that this was an echo chamber, that people aren't allowed to be independent and think independently. This kind of thinking is why the Russia thing is such a convenient smear. Disagree? Oh, you must be a Russian bot or plant! Clinton slandered a currently serving commissioned officer, accusing her of treason, with no evidence whatsoever and the party loyalists lap it up. Ridiculous and shameful. Like I looked at that list Cristiano posted from Reddit. There was this one item, about how Tulsi put forth a bill that Sheldon Adelson proposed. I clicked the underlying link, and it was an anti-online gambling bill. Why is it controversial for Tulsi Gabbard? Just because Adelson put it forward? When you actually read the article it mentions that the people sponsoring it in the House and Senate come from states where gambling is completely banned, which Hawaii is, the whole mention becomes a huge nothingburger. But the mention of it without any further reading just triggers people's tribalist instinct. Because we treat politics like team sports.

This is why people don't understand how Trump could win. Aside from the Republican voter suppression, why would those who remained vote more for Trump? How could people who voted for Obama twice vote for Trump? The Russians are a convenient excuse for that, and the neo-McCarthyism is a great way to limit the scope of choices and the bounds of the debate. Tulsi must be propped up by Russia because RT covered her! Of course they cover her, they cover the news in general. You don't even realize how inane it sounds.

Thanks for clearing up that independent thinking isn't allowed.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

If you mean me, Jolene, I've already said a number of times that I will vote for whoever the nominee is, so you can stop the veiled references. The agenda is for truth, even if it's ugly, for us to vote and make our choices with our eyes wide open. If I have to hold my nose and vote for Biden, or someone like him, I will do it just like I did last time. But as usual, you're not listening. It doesn't matter. Strident advocacy for a candidate is only allowed for certain people.

I didn't realize that this was an echo chamber, that people aren't allowed to be independent and think independently. This kind of thinking is why the Russia thing is such a convenient smear. Disagree? Oh, you must be a Russian bot or plant! Clinton slandered a currently serving commissioned officer, accusing her of treason, with no evidence whatsoever and the party loyalists lap it up. Ridiculous and shameful. Like I looked at that list Cristiano posted from Reddit. There was this one item, about how Tulsi put forth a bill that Sheldon Adelson proposed. I clicked the underlying link, and it was an anti-online gambling bill. Why is it controversial for Tulsi Gabbard? Just because Adelson put it forward? When you actually read the article it mentions that the people sponsoring it in the House and Senate come from states where gambling is completely banned, which Hawaii is, the whole mention becomes a huge nothingburger. But the mention of it without any further reading just triggers people's tribalist instinct. Because we treat politics like team sports.

This is why people don't understand how Trump could win. Aside from the Republican voter suppression, why would those who remained vote more for Trump? How could people who voted for Obama twice vote for Trump? The Russians are a convenient excuse for that, and the neo-McCarthyism is a great way to limit the scope of choices and the bounds of the debate. Tulsi must be propped up by Russia because RT covered her! Of course they cover her, they cover the news in general. You don't even realize how inane it sounds.

Thanks for clearing up that independent thinking isn't allowed.

No, I did not mean you Cristalle. I do believe that you want the same thing as the majority of us do, which is to be rid of Trump.

Independent thinking, of course, is allowed. But there is a huge difference between that and what I see happening here. I stick, strongly, to my belief that there are two agents of chaos here whose only purpose is to cause dissension and chaos both in the party and particularly on this board, in the method that I described in my last post.

 

[Essence Lumin]

Independent thinking, of course, is allowed. But there is a huge difference between that and what I see happening here. I stick, strongly, to my belief that there are two agents of chaos here whose only purpose is to cause dissension and chaos both in the party and particularly on this board, in the method that I described in my last post.

I don't know what the point of saying that is then. I figured you meant Cristalle too since you didn't like her politics.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I don't know what the point of saying that is then. I figured you meant Cristalle too since you didn't like her politics.

Why would I say that about Cristalle? She has a long history here, which does not include the behavior I am describing. Nor do I mean you, if that needed saying. I may not always agree with Cristalle, but I do believe that she is sincere, always. I believe her completely when she says she is exploring all options. She didn't arrive out of nowhere (or return out of nowhere) with the single-minded goal (to the exclusion of all else) of causing dissension and sowing chaos nor championing bothsideism.