Democratic Party Presidential Candidates for 2020

[Salome]

Lol, fuck'n jimmy dore.

Right?

 

[Cristalle]

This thread shows perfectly why mister 45 Baboon has a great chance to get a second term.
To many 'Dems' fighting each other instead of whom they should be fighting.
That is one of the main reasons why Orange Baby 45 got the first term. He'll make it a second time, because ZOMG my personal candidate should have been running.

He got $2B of free media coverage, and was a more charismatic figure as he was already well known via TV. He also ran to Hillary's left on some issues, including healthcare (though he lied). More Democrats, proportionally speaking, voted for McCain than Obama out of spite.

The most qualified candidate on paper was deeply flawed and, honestly, out of touch with the electorate. She made mistakes in campaigning, not spending enough time shoring up her own base. There are lots of reasons why she lost, but Democratic disunity is only a minor part. GOP voter suppression had far more impact than the 12ish percent of primary voters that did not vote for her.

IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN SO CLOSE TO BEGIN WITH. Expecting Greens to vote for her and close the margins is foolish.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Right?

Is this all about style over substance?
I'm confused.

It feels like we have this fantasy that we're going to sashay out on the 2020 Presidential catwalk and kill it in some couture deception.

How many times are we going to have to die on this hill?

Polls and witchcraft aside, we already know that Americans prefer their lies frumpty-dumpty Trumpstyle.

Not this again, please:

 

[Salome]

Style over substance. Saints fucking wept.

You posted a clip that proves Tulsi was being deliberately misleading while the walking joke of a show host FFWDs over important bits to convince his mindless listeners to disbelieve their own eyes and ears. It makes sense now why you’re such a fruit loop willing to swallow anything. You’re getting your news from a 9/11 truther and Seth Rich conspiracy hawker — a dude whose grift includes nonsense like how mass shootings and murders are false flags. Even the fauxgressives at TYT kicked that dude to the curb.

You’re lucky this site belongs to a mellow dude like Cris because I’d ban you for posting that trash and trying to spread your propaganda on any site I owned.

 

[Essence Lumin]

You’re lucky this site belongs to a mellow dude like Cris because I’d ban you for posting that trash and trying to spread your propaganda on any site I owned.

You get so hostile. Why can't you stick to the political points instead of devolving into personal attacks?

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Style over substance. Saints fucking wept.

You posted a clip that proves Tulsi was being deliberately misleading while the walking joke of a show host FFWDs over important bits to convince his mindless listeners to disbelieve their own eyes and ears. It makes sense now why you’re such a fruit loop willing to swallow anything. You’re getting your news from a 9/11 truther and Seth Rich conspiracy hawker — a dude whose grift includes nonsense like how mass shootings and murders are false flags. Even the fauxgressives at TYT kicked that dude to the curb.

You’re lucky this site belongs to a mellow dude like Cris because I’d ban you for posting that trash and trying to spread your propaganda on any site I owned.

Thanks for helping me understand the game. The name calling and smears work like a charm. I really respect that it doesn't matter to you if the corporation that hosts a Democratic debate ends up churning out a big fat lie to the public. It's not the lie that's the problem, it's the horrible people speaking the truth.

Sweet.

 

[Lady Darnk Juniorette]

Times like these I miss Joshua.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

You get so hostile. Why can't you stick to the political points instead of devolving into personal attacks?

Oh, fuck this. This is not the first time you get your undies in a bunch when one on "your side" (that was your words, you stated that you are on their side) gets their ass handed to them. Yet, when they spew venom, and they do, not a peep from you. So, take this hypocritical concern you have over conduct and either apply it evenly, or not at all.

That link by Aeon? Why don't you do a bit of research on Jimmy Dore? Hmmm? Seriously, go ahead, I'll wait. Jimmy Dore is a scumbag.

So, yeah...this is exactly the kind of thing that people have been objecting to in this thread. The posting of garbage. Utter garbage.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Thanks for helping me understand the game. The name calling and smears work like a charm. I really respect that it doesn't matter to you if the corporation that hosts a Democratic debate ends up churning out a big fat lie to the public. It's not the lie that's the problem, it's the horrible people speaking the truth.

Sweet.

Speaking the truth? Oh My Fucking Ass. You are delusional.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

Speaking the truth? Oh My Fucking Ass. You are delusional.

This, which is now corrected after being called out, in black and white never happened?

 

[Cristalle]

Oh, fuck this. This is not the first time you get your undies in a bunch when one on "your side" (that was your words, you stated that you are on their side) gets their ass handed to them. Yet, when they spew venom, and they do, not a peep from you. So, take this hypocritical concern you have over conduct and either apply it evenly, or not at all.

That link by Aeon? Why don't you do a bit of research on Jimmy Dore? Hmmm? Seriously, go ahead, I'll wait. Jimmy Dore is a scumbag.

So, yeah...this is exactly the kind of thing that people have been objecting to in this thread. The posting of garbage. Utter garbage.

This Thread has been relatively tame until certain people came in and started making things really personal. Yes, we're not going to agree on some things, and you all may think that we are deluded in the same way we may think that you are deluded, but nobody was really throwing any bombs at anyone with few exceptions. I think it's objectively fair to say that the tone has ratcheted down to be much more crude with personal invectives.

As for the subject matter at hand, Jimmy Dore is just one guy with his own opinions. I listen to him and there are things that he says that I agree with, and there are things that I'm not going to agree with. This particular video, I don't agree with fully.

He was right to point out that the thing that Tulsi advocates for, diplomatic engagement with adversaries, is something that Obama said he would do. I very much remember Obama saying that he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with no preconditions, and I thought it was smart politics because sometimes that is what it takes to break a diplomatic logjam. It does not make sense to pretend that we do not have to engage with people just because we don't like them. Sometimes decision-making power rests in the hands of people that we do not like. We would never have gotten the JCPOA if we refused to sit down with people that we did not like.

The only reason why I was not a fan of Trump going to talk with Kim Jong Un was because I knew that it would only be a photo op, and that it would be a dumpster fire otherwise. If Trump had any real diplomatic moorings, it might have actually been more productive and maybe, just maybe it might have been a deal similar to the JCPOA.

That said, there's a broader discussion to be had about the war on drugs and our conduct in it, but these debates are terrible formats in which to have them. This was a weak standpoint for her to attack him, because military training exercises like we do with South Korea are normal affairs that we often have with our closest allies and trading partners. Whatever point she had about the War on Drugs was lost.

 

[Essence Lumin]

So, take this hypocritical concern you have over conduct and either apply it evenly, or not at all.

If I see that level of personal attack from other people perhaps I will. I don't recall seeing it. No matter who it is from, it does not contribute to the conversation.

 

[Arilynn]

You get so hostile. Why can't you stick to the political points instead of devolving into personal attacks?

Meh. The YT cc sucks and I value Sal’s perspective, even if I don’t always agree with her, so I appreciated her comment. I also thought she was stating a point in the sentence you quoted and not simply personally attacking. /shrug

 

[Han Held]

This Thread has been relatively tame until certain people came in and started making things really personal. Yes, we're not going to agree on some things, and you all may think that we are deluded in the same way we may think that you are deluded, but nobody was really throwing any bombs at anyone with few exceptions. I think it's objectively fair to say that the tone has ratcheted down to be much more crude with personal invectives.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

This Thread has been relatively tame until certain people came in and started making things really personal. Yes, we're not going to agree on some things, and you all may think that we are deluded in the same way we may think that you are deluded, but nobody was really throwing any bombs at anyone with few exceptions. I think it's objectively fair to say that the tone has ratcheted down to be much more crude with personal invectives.

Baloney. This thread has been in a league of its own for a long time. Don't try to pin this on Sal because she calls out the absolute fuckery happening in it.

As for the subject matter at hand, Jimmy Dore is just one guy with his own opinions. I listen to him and there are things that he says that I agree with, and there are things that I'm not going to agree with. This particular video, I don't agree with fully.

He is a scumbag who makes money off things like promoting that Seth Rich may have been murdered by individuals with ties to the DNC, that the Las Vegas shooting may have been a false flag and numerous other conspiracy theories that actually have consequences both for the public arena and in harming the families of those incidents. Someone like that has no business being promoted here. Period.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

If I see that level of personal attack from other people perhaps I will. I don't recall seeing it. No matter who it is from, it does not contribute to the conversation.

You haven't yet. Selective vision.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

This Thread has been relatively tame until certain people came in and started making things really personal. Yes, we're not going to agree on some things, and you all may think that we are deluded in the same way we may think that you are deluded, but nobody was really throwing any bombs at anyone with few exceptions. I think it's objectively fair to say that the tone has ratcheted down to be much more crude with personal invectives.

As for the subject matter at hand, Jimmy Dore is just one guy with his own opinions. I listen to him and there are things that he says that I agree with, and there are things that I'm not going to agree with. This particular video, I don't agree with fully.

He was right to point out that the thing that Tulsi advocates for, diplomatic engagement with adversaries, is something that Obama said he would do. I very much remember Obama saying that he would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with no preconditions, and I thought it was smart politics because sometimes that is what it takes to break a diplomatic logjam. It does not make sense to pretend that we do not have to engage with people just because we don't like them. Sometimes decision-making power rests in the hands of people that we do not like. We would never have gotten the JCPOA if we refused to sit down with people that we did not like.

The only reason why I was not a fan of Trump going to talk with Kim Jong Un was because I knew that it would only be a photo op, and that it would be a dumpster fire otherwise. If Trump had any real diplomatic moorings, it might have actually been more productive and maybe, just maybe it might have been a deal similar to the JCPOA.

That said, there's a broader discussion to be had about the war on drugs and our conduct in it, but these debates are terrible formats in which to have them. This was a weak standpoint for her to attack him, because military training exercises like we do with South Korea are normal affairs that we often have with our closest allies and trading partners. Whatever point she had about the War on Drugs was lost.

So Cristalle doesn't agree with this video? She argues the points. It gives me another perspective to think about. I don't take that personally.
Yes, I look for information off the beaten track and it can be wrong or controversial. I know it can be frustrating and I do appreciate this place for not being like a comments section that just gives a "high five" to the topic of the day.

Of course, this primary concerns me when I see a trend to just want to erase people and perspectives because someone or something has the power to do that. Isn't that just like taking a drug? Ultimately, people will have their say and everyone is going to have to live with the consequences. This forum has taught me one thing... I can't live with another four years of Trump, so I will vote for whatever Democrat is thrown at me. Considering where I was when I came here, that's something. Mostly, I can't live with the reaction of the Democrats to four more years of Trump.

After the Primary, Democrats are going to be outnumbered by other perspectives. This desire to erase and gaslight isn't going to work on people who don't particularly like this brand, anyway. We need the numbers. I do hope that it's someone like Cristalle making the case for why things should change.

 

[Salome]

You get so hostile. Why can't you stick to the political points instead of devolving into personal attacks?

You little muppets have been engaging in personal attacks since before I entered the thread. You just like to pretend your method of passive-aggressive personal attack doesn’t count so you can keep playing the victim of big mean Sal. Miss me with this nonsense.

If I see that level of personal attack from other people perhaps I will. I don't recall seeing it. No matter who it is from, it does not contribute to the conversation.

Calling out bullshit when y’all are pushing conspiracies and posting videos from the Alex Jones of the left and repeating his disinformation contributes plenty to the conversation, just in ways you don’t like. So you can ”call me out” until the cows come home. All it does it annoy the other people who see you talking out of both sides of your mouth. I already know you’ll play angels and mutter about how awful I am, Been there, done that. Go nuts.

I really respect that it doesn't matter to you if the corporation that hosts a Democratic debate ends up churning out a big fat lie to the public. It's not the lie that's the problem, it's the horrible people speaking the truth.

He wasn’t speaking the truth. He was misrepresenting what happened to a gullible audience that are primed to believe anything bad they hear about Democrats and the Democratic Party. Like the little gaggle of you in this thread. It’s the same grift as Alex Jones and Glenn Beck types pull on the right with the same conspiracy-focus and tactics. The fact that you watch him at all tells people everything they need to know about you.

But, sure, let’s debate the reality in front of our eyes and pretend that people like you lot will agree that facts matter and not your blind thirst for tin foil.

When Tulsi was trying to play “my uniform is bigger than yours” she specifically uses the words “inexperience” and “careless” to describe how Pete was willing to send “our troops into Mexico to fight the cartels.” She did so knowing (as Pete knew) that a significant segment of the idiot left had been accusing him of saying he was going to invade Mexico. You and your conspiracy nutters can pretend that only words matter and context has no place, but it doesn’t sell to the rest of us. Pete knew exactly what she was doing and so did the audience in real time. Which is why Tulsi’s net favorability (already in the negative double digits) fell even lower in the post polling — before the so-called NBC “smearing” could happen.

The stuff your conspiracy video FFWDs over is Pete being asked if there were “any circumstances“ in which he’d send troops into Mexico. He attempts to move the question onto more practical things because it’s a silly question. When pressed he gives the answer that any person running for President should give — only in cooperation with an ally sovereign nation, and only if American lives are in danger. Also, that we might be willing to help with security if asked. But more importantly — and again where your conspiracy nutter FFWDs — is where Pete makes it clear that the way to fight the cartels isn’t with troops, but by ending the war on drugs to take away the supply side of their power. I do not like Pete, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with his answer here and everyone with a functioning brain cell knows it.

What he should have done is ask Tulsi if she’d have rejected a request of military aid from one of our neighboring allies or if she would fail to act if American lives were in danger. Instead he just called her on her bullshit. To which Tulsi tries to play the “I never said that” game, tosses in that Pete would act “just like Trump” and calls him a coward for not meeting with murderers like she did.

I‘ll get to the Trump fuckery in a sec, but let’s be clear about this nonsense from Tulsi about how only she has the courage to meet with the most horrible despots and murderers. She’s lying and being misleading. Anyone with a functioning brain knows she’s lying about that, too, but, again, she’s playing to the gullible “mommy and daddy are bad” left because she’s a chaos agent whose only real goal is to cause destruction in the Democratic Party. There is diplomacy and protocol that goes into meeting hostile foreign nations for a reason. A key part of that protocol is making sure we don’t send the wrong message to the world and provide the enemy with propaganda assets to use against us and their own people. There’s also a strategic reason most responsible leaders say they will not meet with bad actors — so that when we do agree to meet with them just that act is a diplomatic concession. When you start out saying “of course I’ll meet with murderers and criminals” you’re starting from a weaker position than those who say they will not. Again, these are things people who pay attention to actual diplomacy understand. When useful idiots like Jill and Tulsi tromp around playing pals with murderers, it often harms the people fighting those murderers. It isn’t brave. It isn’t diplomatic. It’s destructive and irresponsible. Ask Jane Fonda how much regret she‘s had in her life over being allowed to be used as a useful idiot.

Lastly, she made a dig about Pete being “just like Trump” in regards to Mexico. Again, the context of this is bullshit.

For one thing, Trump was soliciting waging war with Mexico — not considering a serious offer of military aid from an ally. The framing of what Trump was doing was both warmongering and racist. Tulsi knew that as much as she knew that Pete’s responses in the interview were the opposite. She’s pulling her usual chaos agent tactic of Dems being no different from Trump. Again, because her actual goals with the segment are to normalize Trump and tear down Dems.

But there’s a reason this example was even more egregious. Trump was mocking Mexico when he made those tweets. And he was using dead Americans to do it. A group of Americans from Utah had been murdered by the cartels and Trump used that opportunity to get back at Mexico for offering to help with Puerto Rico after Trump’s disgraceful response.

There are like a dozen different ways the context of all that is going on in this exchange reveals Tulsi as a fraud. But you watch Jimmy Dore tell you it’s about NBC and the Dems being in cahoots to *conspiracy yadda yadda* so thats what you post on message boards to other people.

Because you are a useful idiot of propaganda. Congrats.

This Thread has been relatively tame until certain people came in and started making things really personal.

Oh, honey, pull the other one. It’s got bells.

...and you all may think that we are deluded in the same way we may think that you are deluded

I mean...only one side is posting conspiracy monger videos and trying to normalize them.

I think it's objectively fair to say that the tone has ratcheted down to be much more crude with personal invectives.

“I am much more civil when I’m being a prat and you’re so crude!” No one cares how you hold your teacup when you’re being a prat. This nonsense doesn’t really fool people. I understand that this is how you play the insufferable bitch and then get people to apologize to you when you get called on it. I don’t play that particular game. I’m just an insufferable bitch without the gaslighting about it.

As for the subject matter at hand, Jimmy Dore is just one guy with his own opinions. I listen to him and there are things that he says that I agree with, and there are things that I'm not going to agree with.

When I said before your nonsense made it clear who you were getting your information from, this is exactly what I was referring to. That you call Dore “just one guy with his own opinions” tells us all we need to know about how you inform yourself and why you go to those sources to have your need for certain narratives met. Your attempts to liken Tulsi’s chaos agent form of “diplomacy” to Obama and responsible diplomacy is an example of why you are beyond reasoning with.Tulsi trots around in secret to meet with psychos. Obama met with months of exhausting protocol and research. But, hey, it’s all the same when you get your info from Alex Jones level dudebros.

This was a weak standpoint for her to attack him...

It wasn’t weak, it was intentionally deceptive. She’s not dumb enough to be ignorant of all the context the rest of us were aware of. She was being deliberately deceitful because she’s a chaos agent and she was playing to the nutter left. Her moments are crafted for dudes like Dore the same way the Republicans in the hearings use their time to give Fox News clips distractions from the actual substance of events.

This is why I don’t distinguish between y’all being true believers or disinegenuous. The end result is the same.

 

[Aeon Jiminy]

You little muppets have been engaging in personal attacks since before I entered the thread. You just like to pretend your method of passive-aggressive personal attack doesn’t count so you can keep playing the victim of big mean Sal. Miss me with this nonsense.


Calling out bullshit when y’all are pushing conspiracies and posting videos from the Alex Jones of the left and repeating his disinformation contributes plenty to the conversation, just in ways you don’t like. So you can ”call me out” until the cows come home. All it does it annoy the other people who see you talking out of both sides of your mouth. I already know you’ll play angels and mutter about how awful I am, Been there, done that. Go nuts.


He wasn’t speaking the truth. He was misrepresenting what happened to a gullible audience that are primed to believe anything bad they hear about Democrats and the Democratic Party. Like the little gaggle of you in this thread. It’s the same grift as Alex Jones and Glenn Beck types pull on the right with the same conspiracy-focus and tactics. The fact that you watch him at all tells people everything they need to know about you.

But, sure, let’s debate the reality in front of our eyes and pretend that people like you lot will agree that facts matter and not your blind thirst for tin foil.

When Tulsi was trying to play “my uniform is bigger than yours” she specifically uses the words “inexperience” and “careless” to describe how Pete was willing to send “our troops into Mexico to fight the cartels.” She did so knowing (as Pete knew) that a significant segment of the idiot left had been accusing him of saying he was going to invade Mexico. You and your conspiracy nutters can pretend that only words matter and context has no place, but it doesn’t sell to the rest of us. Pete knew exactly what she was doing and so did the audience in real time. Which is why Tulsi’s net favorability (already in the negative double digits) fell even lower in the post polling — before the so-called NBC “smearing” could happen.

The stuff your conspiracy video FFWDs over is Pete being asked if there were “any circumstances“ in which he’d send troops into Mexico. He attempts to move the question onto more practical things because it’s a silly question. When pressed he gives the answer that any person running for President should give — only in cooperation with an ally sovereign nation, and only if American lives are in danger. Also, that we might be willing to help with security if asked. But more importantly — and again where your conspiracy nutter FFWDs — is where Pete makes it clear that the way to fight the cartels isn’t with troops, but by ending the war on drugs to take away the supply side of their power. I do not like Pete, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with his answer here and everyone with a functioning brain cell knows it.

What he should have done is ask Tulsi if she’d have rejected a request of military aid from one of our neighboring allies or if she would fail to act if American lives were in danger. Instead he just called her on her bullshit. To which Tulsi tries to play the “I never said that” game, tosses in that Pete would act “just like Trump” and calls him a coward for not meeting with murderers like she did.

I‘ll get to the Trump fuckery in a sec, but let’s be clear about this nonsense from Tulsi about how only she has the courage to meet with the most horrible despots and murderers. She’s lying and being misleading. Anyone with a functioning brain knows she’s lying about that, too, but, again, she’s playing to the gullible “mommy and daddy are bad” left because she’s a chaos agent whose only real goal is to cause destruction in the Democratic Party. There is diplomacy and protocol that goes into meeting hostile foreign nations for a reason. A key part of that protocol is making sure we don’t send the wrong message to the world and provide the enemy with propaganda assets to use against us and their own people. When useful idiots like Jill and Tulsi tromp around making pals with murderers, it often harms the people fighting those murderers. It isn’t brave. It isn’t diplomatic. It’s destructive and irresponsible. Ask Jane Fonda how much regret she‘s had in her life over being allowed to be used as a useful idiot.

Lastly, she made a dig about Pete being “just like Trump” in regards to Mexico. Again, the context of this is bullshit.

For one thing, Trump was soliciting waging war with Mexico — not considering a serious offer of military aid from an ally. The framing of what Trump was doing was both warmongering and racist. Tulsi knew that as much as she knew that Pete’s responses in the interview were the opposite. She’s pulling her usual chaos agent tactic of Dems being no different from Trump. Again, because her actual goals with the segment are to normalize Trump and tear down Dems.

But there’s a reason this example was even more egregious. Trump was mocking Mexico when he made those tweets. And he was using dead Americans to do it. A group of Americans from Utah had been murdered by the cartels and Trump used that opportunity to get back at Mexico for offering to help with Puerto Rico after Trump’s disgraceful response.

There are like a dozen different ways the context of all that is going on in this exchange reveals Tulsi as a fraud. But you watch Jimmy Dore tell you it’s about NBC and the Dems being in cahoots to *conspiracy yadda yadda* so thats what you post on message boards to other people.

Because you are a useful idiot of propaganda. Congrats.


Oh, honey, pull the other one. It’s got bells.


I mean...only one side is posting conspiracy monger videos and trying to normalize them.


“I am much more civil when I’m being a prat and you’re so crude!” No one cares how you hold your teacup when you’re being a prat. This nonsense doesn’t really fool people. I understand that this is how you play the insufferable bitch and then get people to apologize to you when you get called on it. I don’t play that particular game. I’m just an insufferable bitch without the gaslighting about it.


When I said before your nonsense made it clear who you were getting your information from, this is exactly what I was referring to. That you call Dore “just one guy with his own opinions” tells us all we need to know about how you inform yourself and why you go to those sources to have your need for certain narratives met. Your attempts to liken Tulsi’s chaos agent form of “diplomacy” to Obama and responsible diplomacy is an example of why you are beyond reasoning with.Tulsi trots around in secret to meet with psychos. Obama met with months of exhausting protocol and research. But, hey, it’s all the same when you get your info from Alex Jones level dudebros.


It wasn’t weak, it was intentionally deceptive. She’s not dumb enough to be ignorant of all the context the rest of us were aware of. She was being deliberately deceitful because she’s a chaos agent and she was playing to the nutter left. Her moments are crafted for dudes like Dore the same way the Republicans in the hearings use their time to give Fox News clips distractions from the actual substance of events.

This is why I don’t distinguish between y’all being true believers or disinegenuous. The end result is the same.

I'm not clear which candidate or candidates you support.

Would you share that? I won't respond or begin a conversation on that.

It would help me understand. Thanks in advance.

 

[Salome]

I'm not clear which candidate or candidates you support.

Booker, Castro, and Harris. I’d be happy with any combination on the ticket but my personal preference would be Harris/Castro. Those are the only three names in competition for my primary vote. Although I’m not sure why it should matter.