Since we are starting to see Presidential bid announcements and rumors I thought we could talk candidates.

Currently my shortlist would be:

Bernie Sanders - the most popular politician in America today. Solidly behind medicare for all and living wages, fighting against Economic inequality and money in politics.

Beto O'Rourke - Reminds me of Bobby Kennedy in a way. Has a very good "We are in it together" view on politics. I'm not 100% sure of all his stances, but he's the kind of guy that wins hearts and votes just by his sincerity/love of country.

Kamala Harris - A strong, brilliant progressive woman. Very solid candidate that is not afraid to fight, has very progressive stances.

Gavin Newsom - A pretty good Dem/lib, a little more center left than my other choices but nonetheless honest or brilliant. His business background, time as mayor and Lt. Governor (now Governor) in California give him the experience to be a good center-left candidate. He's very likeable and would be popular with independents.

Honorable mentions that I wouldn't mind but don't think they could win:

Michael Avenatti - I just like how he goes after every angle he can to make life hell on the opposition.

Andrew Gillum - I think he IS what Obama promised to be. But there is very little chance he would be elected in the current political atmosphere.

Richard Ojeda - This gritty, gutsy, tell it how it is WV Veteran is a real American Liberal in every sense of the words. I think he compares to Harry Truman in his honest unabashed political brand. Sadly, I'm not sure he could pull it off on the big stage, nor am I convinced he could handle the Job if elected. His heart is in the right place, but his political experience is at best limited.


I would also like to see somebody oppose Trump in a primary, but if I made that list I would be called out on it for hating Trump.

noticed how Pocahontas and Spartacus wasn't on this list.

Not a fan of Corey Booker, and Liz Warren is Hillary light at this point.

I think Bernie can and will win if the dems don't screw him over again. Trump definitely stifled the Hilary movement but Bernie, not even close. I'd prefer someone younger but Bernie has the right political points.

I don't like Beto, his background and everything about him seems opportunist.

Gavin Newsome is exactly what the dems are looking for, good record, been in the game a long time, young, good looking, catholic (if you're trying to swing some votes).

Don't personally like Aventti or Gillum but Ojeda is a good choice as well.


I can't see Trump beating Bernie or Newsome. I think he could beat Aventti and Gillum, probably Beto too. Thie only problem with Bernie is that the dems just need to be "conservative" with their selection because beating Trump is a layup. Bernie just feels like he can go off the rails and make a "deplorable" comment at any moment.



I like Ro Khanna and Tulsi Gabbard.

I like them too. Not on my shortlist but definitely next tier, better than honorable mentions to be honest.

You surprised me with that, I would think they are both too progressive for you.

Both anti super PAC, my voting for Trump was much more about the money and corruption Hilary was bringing than a vote against progressive policies.

I think Beto O'Rourke has what it takes to get elected. I mean for him to do that well in Texas speaks volumes. What I don't know about is his substance and policies. Right now I think a positive message and someone Republicans haven't had years to publicly assassinate can win.

Let's face it, although the GOP couldn't get a conviction on Hillary, they had several years to assassinate her character and create suspicion around her. She was the worst candidate the Democrats could have possibly have run. Yet they did it anyway. That was a dumb azz move.

Beto is certainly the type of direction they should travel. They can't say he lacks experience after electing Trump.

One by one that list of yours will fade away as Biden and Bernie will be fighting at the end.

That is when Hillary will step in late to steal the show.

Hillary will move a little more left and the emotional thought of a do over and our first woman president will have the Democrats squealing and crying once more.

Biden will eventually relent, throwing his support behind Hillary and that will be the Democrat ticket going for the Presidency and Vice Presidency.

Well they could end up with a field of candidates in the teens. Then the vote could be so divided among qualified candidates that some dunderhead ends up winning the nomination. It's not like that's never happened before.

How about Keith Ellison? He got voted in even after all the sexual harassment claims. I guess lefties don't worry about that anymore.

Bring em on. Bunch of free stuff for everybody freaks..

you keep voting for people who give free stuff to the corporations and defense contractors.

so whats the problem voting for people who will give stuff to the middle class?

This from the guy with the who supports the grab em by the ____ President.

Got any proof? Remember you were the guy that wanted to string Kav up by the.....Thumbs. Now the women have admitted they lied and you have moved on to Trump skipped a ceramony and Malania wore cloths libs didn't approve of.

Just remember OCD, Dems will lie ,cheat and steel to get their own way.

fake news. conservatives decided they rather have steel made in china over america.

You sound like a 1950s gossiping housewife.

First of the Middle Class is a myth there are the rich and the poor the Middle Class is becoming extinct that is what happened before the fall of the Roman empire and it is happening here ... and also IMO the Dems have nobody that can defeat Trump ...

Take a leap of faith Pastor. After Trump, voting Dem is the answer to WWJD?

Vote Morals but there aren't many to be found out there

And you sound like a 2016'ish "I can't believe my boy didn't win, and consequently, I will bash our president all day every day because I'm a sore loser."

Actually, you don't sound like it, you ARE it.

What is moral about Trump? GMAB.

Trump might be a scumbag but he has done more for America in 2 years that O did in 8.

Name one Politician that hasn't lied you can't name one that hasn't talked bad about others no one can ... thats what I'm talking about everything they do is for power and money and could care less about you and me thats why I hate even talking politics, its like being a ref half the people hate you and half love you ...

Then why chime in at all?

Just felt like it, it won't happen much

This is the thread with the Ohio smack? Where's YTown? I gotta let him know what I think of Boardman

I would have voted for Bernie over Trump in the last election. I think Bernie has some great ideas that I strongly agree with. The problem with Bernie is that his economic agenda is flat out horrible. I would probably still vote for him to be honest. I was never that big on Trump except on his economics which have turned out to be awesome.

I just wish I could have Trump for economics and Bernie for domestic because the two would balance each other out in an amazing way.

I'm a strong believer that if you give everyone a good strong base that they will grow and get more ambitious to succeed than if you give just enough to barely survive.

In this country there should be no one that goes to bed hungry, without medical care, a roof over their head, or the ability to get all the education they need to be viable workers in a modern worldwide economy.

For those that think welfare is a waste I would argue it's a hell of a lot cheaper to have someone on welfare than it is to keep them in prison. It's a simple truth that in many states you're better off in prison than being poor. In prison, you get to eat, get medicine and treatment, a roof over your head, and in most of them you are safer than living in the slums or projects.

It's far more efficient to just have all our people cared for and treated with decency. I think Bernie feels the same way I do which is why I would vote for him in a heartbeat. It's a shame that liberal hate politics by Hillary derailed someone who would have led democrats into being a far better party with dignity and compassion and the true roots of their party.

General Mattis


Mad Dog 2020!

Although I think he would have won last election if he had the nod, I think its time the left got some new younger faces.

He couldn't win a senate seat against a HATED opponent.

I don't think the rust belt is going to elect a CA progressive to make decisions for them.

Another guy that couldn't win an election.



In all honesty, this is a problem I see for the left. They are too spread about with whom THEY want and act like children when "their" guy doesn't get the win. We saw it with Bernie last year.

I specifically remember the you guys screaming about the Ginger Kennedy after the State of Union and he was the new face of the party - I don't see him on your list. Funny how fast the left forgets.

Gmdawg for president 2020.

I like Sanders energy... But dang,,, He's getting long in the tooth and besides, he would be very divisive and that isn't needed.

Harris is a smart lady but needs a bit more seasoning...

O'Rourke is a very talented and smart guy and smooth as silk.. I'd need to know more, but he'd be a good one to watch.

Gillium isn't ready, america isn't ready...someday maybe

NO TO Avenatti....No to Ojeda... my neighbor went to school with him and the stories of corruption are amazing. that won't be successful..

I don't know Newson.

Stop making false equivalencies Pastor. You're better than that. Name one former president who was married three times and cheated on all three. Who has bragged about sexual assault.Who has had to pay off a porn star and a playboy bunny for their silence. Even when he cheats he does it scummy. Who has mocked a disabled person. Who has called women pigs and other distasteful names. I could go on and on with the terrible moral fiber of this man but please don't pretend he's the same as the rest.

You can't lay claim to being concerned about morals, christian values and family values while supporting swine. And if you're being honest, you know it.

And Republicans elected a dead brothel owner in Nevada and three convicted felons. Your point? lmao

Side note: best thing about electing a dead candidate - your party gets to appoint his replacement.

Also, it is better than using dead voters.

Yeah, if people only had some real evidence of using dead voters.

Here's some real irony. The dead brothel owner was also an evangelical Christian-backed Republican. You gotta see the irony in that one! lmao

Shows you just how low and disgusting the Democrats have become when the church lady would rather vote for a brothel owner.

Ah, the party of the christian and family values votes for a dead, self proclaimed pimp. lmao

And you claim the Dems. are low and disgusting?

Reagan is rolling over in his grave right now seeing what the Republican party has become.

Lincoln crawled out of his grave and switched parties in 2016.

Maybe Bernie Sanders will choose this socialist to be his running mate.


WATCH: New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fails at basic math and economics

Pat Gray

Nov 7, 2018 5:18 pm



On Wednesday’s episode of “Pat Gray Unleashed,” Pat Gray and Keith Malinak discussed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s pre-midterm interview with CNN reporter Jorge Ramos. Ramos pressed Ocaiso-Cortez on her policies and how they will be funded.

Medicare for all
“Medicare for all. Is it too expensive,” Ramos inquired.
Special: Your biggest investment deserves a great agent
Without hesitation, Ocasio-Cortez said, “No.”

“People often say, like, ‘How are you going to pay for it?’ and I find the question so puzzling because, how do you pay for something that is more affordable? How do you pay for cheaper rent? You just pay for it,” she said.

Under her plan, medical services would not actually be free of charge but rather free at the time of service, which “means that people will not delay going to the dentist because they can’t pay at the time of service.”

Tuition-free university for all
Ramos pressed Ocasio-Cortez on how we would be able to afford her plan for a tuition-free public university for all.

Ocasio-Cortez asserted that we would pay for trade school level or collegiate level education for all the same way that we already pay for tuition-free K-12 for all.

“In the same way that we made a decision as a country to say we need to educate people to a 12th-grade level, we need to make the decision to educate people to a trade school or collegiate level.” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“So we can afford that?” Ramos asked.
“Absolutely,” she replied.

Pat lamented that she must be of the mindset that the federal government can just print more money as needed because she made no mention of where the federal government would acquire the funds to pay for her socialist programs.

Watch the video at the top of the page.


https://www.theblaze.com/video/watch-new...h-and-economics

"The Blaze"... we obviously have different definitions of blazing.

I thought Ellison was the guy that beat the crap out of his wife... maybe im mistaken.

Fish, she doesn't need to know numbers and math as she will be spending other peoples money!

Good thing y'all cheat on your taxes so you don't have any skin in the game.

Sheese and people voted for this idiot.

Ocasio-Cortez joins climate change protesters outside Pelosi’s office during first day on Capitol Hill

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-...on-capitol-hill

Yes, you did.

So, your issue is with, not her own words, but with who quoted her, on camera, saying it?

Yes, typical of you. "Her quotes, on camera, don't matter. It only matters who reported it."

Stalking me now?

No.

You made a statement. I responded to that specific statement.

As is par for the course with you, you go a different route in an effort to change the subject.

Now, had msnbc reported, on camera, her OWN words......what would you have to say?

I think it's a fair question. This interview happened months ago, we talked about it months ago, and The Blaze is running it as a new story. That's certainly odd.

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/blahous-costs-medicare-mercatus-working-paper-v1_1.pdf

AOC has hitched her plan onto Bernie's, which according to the Koch brothers, would save the US people 2 trillion dollars in 10 years by nationalizing our healthcare, instead of relying on our private sector, where the US gov't already picks up a significant part of the medical bill.

I just made a comment about blazing, off topic comment. let things go bro. Stop stalking.

Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels’ attorney, arrested for domestic violence

Posted 5:18 pm, November 14, 2018, by AP Wire Service



LOS ANGELES — A law enforcement official said Wednesday, Nov. 14 Michael Avenatti was in police custody in Los Angeles following a domestic violence allegation.
According to TMZ, Avenatti was arrested Wednesday after his estranged wife filed a felony domestic violence report. TMZ was told she had serious injuries to her face.

Sources told TMZ the alleged incident occurred Tuesday, but there was a confrontation Wednesday between the two at an exclusive apartment building in the Century City area of Los Angeles. TMZ was told during Wednesday’s confrontation, the woman ran out of the apartment building and was on the sidewalk on her cellphone with sunglasses covering her eyes, screaming on the phone, “I can’t believe you did this to me.”
TMZ says security brought her inside the building and Avenatti showed up five minutes later and ran into the building, chasing after her. He screamed repeatedly — ‘she hit me first.

https://fox6now.com/2018/11/14/michael-a...estic-violence/

But Fish, OCD has him listed as a Democrat choice for President!
-----------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE: Honorable mentions that I wouldn't mind but don't think they could win:

Michael Avenatti - I just like how he goes after every angle he can to make life hell on the opposition.
------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmmmmmmm

Nope, if this is true I'm done with him.

Kamala Harris and a 21st century example of McCarthyism


By John Solomon


11/16/18



When I was an undergraduate student at Marquette University, I got an invaluable assignment: Write a thesis about someone who employed illogical arguments but still caused public impact.

History was littered with global despots who fit the bill, but I chose someone closer to home: former Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin Republican’s whose infamous pursuit of communists gave us “McCarthyism,” one of the evil terms of American politics.


I read his speeches, listened to audiotapes, read his Senate reports, studied his Senate censure, and talked with political leaders who witnessed his tactics firsthand.

One of those was professor George Reedy, a gracious educator and extraordinary witness to history who saw McCarthy’s campaign up close, as a reporter and then as a press aide to Lyndon B. Johnson.

Reedy told me that what marveled him most was McCarthy’s ability to ask questions or make statements insinuating something evil about a person he was questioning without formally lodging an allegation. In fact, he said, McCarthy might add a qualification to his question, suggesting that wasn’t making an accusation — before implying that very accusation.

McCarthy’s questions whipped up hysteria that marked those he questioned as “guilty as charged” without a shred of evidence.

Those lessons had long faded into the recesses of my memory, until Thursday. That’s when a question-and-answer exchange involving Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) resurrected them.

In her questioning, during a confirmation hearing for Ronald Vitiello, President Trump’s nominee to lead Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Harris asked whether he shares immigrants’ “perception” that ICE spreads fear and mistrust just like the KKK.

The question was carefully constructed. A listener almost certainly believed Sen. Harris was accusing ICE of being like the KKK, while she offered the same qualification that Reedy said was McCarthy’s trademark in questioning.

“I’m very specific about what I’m asking you,” she said. “Are you aware that there’s a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants and specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America?”

Keep that verbal construction in your mind for a second, and let’s go back to McCarthy.


His crusade against communists made him famous, but his lesser-known targets were homosexuals he wanted to root out from government — a campaign historians dubbed as McCarthy’s “lavender scare.” He argued that homosexuals were as dangerous to national security as communists.

The art of McCarthy’s nuanced insinuation was on full display during a 1952 speech addressing Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s decision to fire 54 gay workers at the State Department.

“(Acheson) said the State Department is now staffed with good, loyal, clean-living Americans. Well, I don’t quite know what his conception of clean-living Americans happens to be, but, since he made that statement, 54 individuals who had this unusual State Department affliction — homosexuals — were allowed to resign. Fifty-four of those good, clean-living Americans,” McCarthy declared.

A few seconds later, McCarthy stopped short of calling for gays to be eradicated from State, and instead quoted Sens. Kenneth Wherry (R-Neb.) and J. Lister Hill (D-Ala.): “The question is, why worry about getting those individuals out of the State Department?” McCarthy asked. “I think the answer was given by a committee headed by Sen. Wherry, one of our very able senators who died a few weeks ago, and Sen. Hill — a Democrat and a Republican — and they explained very well why those individuals must not be handling top-secret material.”

When Harris sought to make a backhanded comparison between ICE and the KKK, she cited a “perception.” When McCarthy tried to tie gays to communists, he cited a “conception.”

When Harris sought to attribute her concern, she cited a third party: immigrants. When McCarthy attributed his concern, he cited a third party: two fellow senators.

The rhetorical tactics are as similar as they are offensive. Guilt by association or insinuation had no place in the Senate in the 1950s, as lawmakers ultimately realized when they censured McCarthy. It has no place in the Senate in 2018, as I hope Harris’s colleagues soon will realize.

The men and women of ICE don’t operate under white sheets like the KKK members of old. They don badges and bulletproof vests — and assume the risks that come with law enforcement.

They don’t operate from a mandate of hate like the KKK; they operate under the color of laws dutifully passed by Congress in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.

And they don’t deserve a U.S. senator’s demonization, any more than the gay Americans of the 1950s did from McCarthy.

I’m sure both senators, separated by 70 years of history and a difference in party affiliation, had good intentions. Keeping America safe from threats or welcoming to immigrants are noble causes.

It’s the dishonesty of their tactics that deserve our rebuke.


https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/...-of-mccarthyism

Michael Avenatti Was Arrested on Domestic Violence Charges, And Then Things Got Weird

BETHANIA PALMA
PUBLISHED 16 NOVEMBER 2018

California attorney and Trump antagonist Michael Avenatti was arrested on 14 November 2018 in what police described as a felony domestic violence case.

But since the story broke, it’s come to resemble an ugly political mudfight as much as a crime story. Avenatti claims he was set up by a political opponent — an opponent who appeared to openly take credit for his arrest.

Avenatti has made a name for himself representing high-profile clients, such adult film actress Stormy Daniels, in legal challenges against President Donald Trump. His arrest was originally reported by the celebrity gossip site TMZ, who claimed the victim was his estranged wife. The Los Angeles Police Department confirmed that detectives took Avenatti into custody just after 1 p.m. in Century City, a Westside neighborhood of Los Angeles. But the same day the story broke, both of Avenatti’s ex-wives refuted claims that either of them was the victim, and both declared he was never abusive towards them.

TMZ later updated their story to report the victim was a “different woman,” while Avenatti has categorically denied the accusation. The lawyer asserted that a television network even contacted him to ask if the victim was in fact a man.

We sent an email and placed a phone call to Avenatti’s office seeking comment, both of which went unanswered. But in a brief statement to reporters upon his release from jail, Avenatti said: “I have never struck a woman, I never will strike a woman … I am looking forward to a full investigation at which point I am confident that I will be fully exonerated.”

We reached out to the LAPD for further comment but received no response. However, a department spokesman told the Associated Press that the victim has visible injuries.”

The already-convoluted story took a weird turn when ardent Trump supporter and conspiracy theorist Jacob Wohl, known for committing securities fraud at age 19 and spinning yarns about eavesdropping on covert hordes of conservatives at hipster coffee shops in Los Angeles, inserted himself into the situation.

Wohl most recently gained notoriety when he held a spectacularly unsuccessful press conference in which he and fellow conspiracy theorist Jack Burkman accused U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Mueller of having sexually assaulted a woman. To accomplish this caper, Wohl reportedly set up a company called Surefire Intelligence, which by many accounts was a front used to offer women money in exchange for making false sexual assault allegations against Mueller.

Mueller’s office has referred the scheme to the FBI for investigation.

The day Avenatti was taken into custody, the Twitter account belonging to Surefire Intelligence tweeted what appeared to be a boast taking credit for the arrest:



The tweet prompted an angry reaction from Cenk Uygur, host of the progressive YouTube news channel The Young Turks, who said: “So, same guy who takes credit for the Avenatti arrest is known now as a person who pays women to lie about political opponents.”

Calls to a phone number listed on Surefire’s web site went unanswered. We sent an email to the address listed on the company’s website asking for an explanation for the tweet and received a response from an unidentified representative stating that it was “sarcastic” in nature. When we followed up asking if the person responding to our question was Wohl, we received no reply.

The street address listed for Surefire on the company’s website in fact belongs to a different and unrelated business.

After Avenatti was released from jail, he traded barbs with Wohl on Twitter, with Avenatti tweeting, “First Mueller and now me. When we are fully exonerated I am coming for you Jacob Wohl aka Surefire.” Wohl responded by complaining that Avenatti was threatening him:





According to booking records, Avenatti is expected to make a court appearance on 5 December 2018. A representative from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office told us the case hasn’t yet been handed over to prosecutors for review.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/11/16/m...ings-got-weird/

Michael Avenatti’s Ex-Wives Came to His Defense After Domestic Violence Arrest

Renae Reints
FortuneNovember 15, 2018

Michael Avenatti’s two ex-wives have publicly defended him following the Los Angeles lawyer’s arrest Wednesday afternoon for alleged domestic violence.

“Michael has ALWAYS been a kind loving father to our two daughters and husband to me,” tweeted his first wife, Christine Avenatti Carlin. “He has NEVER been abusive to me or anyone else. He is a good man.”

Carlin was married to Avenatti for 13 years. His second wife, Lisa Storie-Avenatti, was initially reported by TMZ to be the woman injured in the alleged incident Wednesday. In a phone interview with a CNN reporter, she denied the report, adding that she wasn’t at Avenatti’s apartment that afternoon.

“I haven’t see Michael in months. It’s a complete fabrication,” Storie-Avenatti told CNN. “Bruises on my face? It is insanity. He wouldn’t hit anybody. Especially a woman. He’s got two daughters.”

Avenatti and Storie-Avenatti have a young son together. The two divorced last year.

Avenatti—an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump who’s considering a presidential run in 2020—became well known when he began representing Stormy Daniels, the porn star who was paid in 2016 to keep silent about an alleged affair with Trump.

In a statement to NBC News, Daniels (whose real name is Stephanie Clifford) said she will reserve judgment on the “serious and obviously very troubling allegations” against Avenatti until the investigation is complete, adding that if they “prove true” she will find a different lawyer.

Avenatti was released Wednesday after posting $50,000 bail. He adamantly denied the charges, tweeting later that night, “I DID NOT commit domestic violence nor have I ever committed domestic violence. I did not strike any woman nor have I ever… I am a decent man & I look forward to being exonerated.”



https://finance.yahoo.com/news/michael-avenatti-ex-wives-came-194324753.html

Looks like this is the work of the right wing smear tactics. Avenatti could be guilty, but it doesn't look like he's guilty of hitting his ex-wife... and no other woman has come forward. Hmmm...

Meanwhile right wing media sites have crucified him over this and his ex-law firm.

I'm not defending him, but I'm not writing him off just yet. I want to see where the truth is. If this was a political hit, then I want to see how handles it.

TYT covers this whole thing pretty well here:

At least this guy should be easy to beat now that he has been exposed!

Trump Thinks Planes Are LITERALLY Invisible

"He screamed repeatedly", "She hit me first".

Bethania Palma | Snopes.com Journalist | Muck Rack
Bethania Palma on Muck Rack ... Mother of Lizard People ..

The 'Mother of Lizard People' failed to explain 'She hit me first' in her Snopes article.

Red or blue, education and science should be at the forefront.

There is little time to bicker amongst ourselves, as a superpower we should take responsibility.

Actress files for restraining order against Avenatti
By Michael Burke -

11/19/18


The actress Mareli Miniutti is seeking a restraining order against Michael Avenatti, the attorney who was arrested last week on suspicion of felony domestic violence.

Miniutti filed a petition in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking the restraining order.

The legal action was first reported by The Blast. The outlet reported Miniutti also made the domestic violence report against Avenatti. Her involvement was previously unknown.

Actress Mareli Miniutti, the woman accusing attorney Michael Avenatti of domestic violence, has filed for a restraining order against him in Los Angeles Superior Court, records show: https://t.co/hfwtLp4uaB pic.twitter.com/NtXFMAU73v
— Tom Cleary (@tomwcleary) November 20, 2018

In a tweet Monday night, Avenatti denied the domestic violence charges against him and said he looked forward to his name being cleared.

"I look forward to a full clearing of my name and disclosure of all of the facts. I have NEVER abused a woman or committed domestic violence against anyone. Any claim to the contrary is completely bogus and fabricated. I am a target. And I will be exonerated," he tweeted.

I look forward to a full clearing of my name and disclosure of all of the facts. I have NEVER abused a woman or committed domestic violence against anyone. Any claim to the contrary is completely bogus and fabricated. I am a target. And I will be exonerated.
— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) November 20, 2018


Avenatti, the lawyer for adult film actress Stormy Daniels, has said he is considering running for the presidency in 2020.

Avenatti also suggested Monday that pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Jacob Wohl was behind the accusations against him. Wohl was involved in the smear plot against special counsel Robert Mueller, in which women were reportedly offered money to fabricate sexual misconduct allegations against him.

"Jacob Wohl is a complete dirtbag. Dishonest. Unethical. Criminal. He had no right to come after Mueller or me. He will learn a very hard lesson through the judicial system. Very," Avenatti tweeted.

Jacob Wohl is a complete dirtbag. Dishonest. Unethical. Criminal. He had no right to come after Mueller or me. He will learn a very hard lesson through the judicial system. Very. https://t.co/HWsahUsbkx
— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) November 19, 2018


https://thehill.com/homenews/news/417547...ichael-avenatti

If there is no collaborating evidence then it’s a lie. Of course we all know proof is only required for the left.

No no no, you don't get to call names, accuse people of being pedophiles supporters, women abusers etc and then get to play it off when its a guy you like.

You support a guy that has been arrested for beating a women. You own that.

So Ford was lying about Kavanaugh? I am sure you didn't not use that line of thinking then......

The Intercept tweeted this article 3 times today.












Retweeted by The Intercept.

she would get smoked even if she was of age.

no, please.

This may have been better in the existing thread, my bad.

We agree on something!

Yeah, Trump would have his followers calling her names in just a few weeks. I'm sure he would come up with more school yard bully BS and his minions would march along right behind him.

That little girl is a moron.I saw some newscaster ask her how she was going to pay for free college. Her answer was " well you just pay for it ".

What the hell are you blabbing about now?

I can't believe people voted for this little twit. There you go folks, that the new Dem/ Lib party.

So you take a highly edited video of her misspeaking a handful of times and call her a twit. But somehow Trump is a genius? Dude, people like you are the reason this country suffers. We need to move forward and stop hanging onto old ass politics that don't work. Forest for the trees with cons.

The country would be fine if the Democrats would go to their safe place and leave the country to the grown ups.

Why do you keep posting your extremely biased socialist videos as if its "News" or "proof" of something?

Pretty sure no one is looking to "The Young Turks" as the bastion of news source.

We are all just rolling our eyes.

That's how I feel about the trash V keeps posting. Sharing a counter pov.

Um, well V seems to post mainstream news sources.

Meanwhile you post left extremist videos.

That girl is an idiot.

I guess its a cause for celebration if a socialist idiot gets elected to office?

Because being repped by dummies is ok?

You bag on Trump for being a dummy, and he is.
But this chick is probably dumber.

Says the guy that voted for the fat twit in the WH that filed 4 chapter 11’s, won’t produce his tax returns, and acts like a 5 year old.

All true Spiral but you forgot to mention he is putting America back on her feet. Lower taxes, less Illegals , un fair trade practices on & on. .....Oh and BTW lowered Black unemployment to the lowest in 50 years.....But haters gonna hate.......Say it with me Spiral...Trump in 2020......MAGA

This Cortez is a complete nut case, doesn't know the laws, civics, or any of her responsibilities. Give free money to everyone!!! yay!!! Her policies are showed to cost roughly $40 trillion dollars, what a loon and a moron. The scariest thought is who the hell voted for her? I want to know now. They should not be allowed to vote ever again.

sounds exactly like Trump, who you support so much. cool it with the fake criticism.

See, that didn't take long! lmao

It seems when your side elects a moron like Trump it's not a problem. When it comes to the other side? Then you make an issue out of it.

She fits just about every far left virtue, so I am not surprised at all.

1. Woman
2. Of color
3. Communist/socialist
4. Calls people she doesn’t know racist, sexist and bigoted without any proof.



And she is young? She is the poster child for far leftists.

I didn't mean to derail this thread, honestly. I'd rather talk about actual candidates.


I really wish Trey Gowdy would consider a run but he has repeatedly skirted the subject.

Not to mention she is an anti sematic pro palistinian IMO

The difference is Cortez is a far out there socialist who wants to give everything free to everyone. When people ask her how is she going to pay for any of it, she doesn't have an answer, this girl is a joke.

The Democrats will self destruct as per usual. They'll either run a candidate nobody can stand like Hillary, because well, she was next in line. I mean it was her turn, right? Basic loser thinking.

See, if they run a guy like Biden who can get some of the independent vote it takes to win a national election, the millennials will throw a temper tantrum and refuse to support him because he's not "liberal and progressive enough".

If the Dems run a pure progressive they will lose the independent votes it will take to win.

She's smarter than you give her credit for. She's not 100% polished and she misspeaks, but she's a long way from stupid.

Yes the Millennials have to love this lady. The economy is doing so well that a lot of millennials are now able to move out of Moms basement ( well not PDF of course ) but they still only identify with people like Bernie and Cortez. They admit they want to raise taxes and take away our tax cuts . Naturally people that don't pay taxes are all for this. Not all but many.

Except a Progressive will push healthcare 4 all, while a centrist will sell out to big insurance/pharma again. Healthcare is a major win for dems.

No, healthcare is a major topic on the democrats platform. Healthcare will be in play no matter who runs for the Dems.

Let me tell you the kind of things I'm talking about......

College tuition.

Moderate Dem.

We should cut college loan interest rates down to the prime mortgage rate for students. College isn't free but making college tuition big business is hurting everyone but banks.

Progressive Democrat.

Free college for everyone!

I could go on but there's a difference in some sound logic and reform verses just going off the deep end by endorsing a candidate the masses can't relate to.

I know, I know. You guys are going to do what you're going to do. Just don't say I didn't warn you.

Progressives believe that you start at the most left position then negotiate instead of going in with a centrist plan and letting the GOP push that to the right claiming the win. Most don't ever think college will be free, but very low cost or even free community college used to be a norm. They just want that back.

And surprisingly I never considered progressive views until the right swung so far right. I'd be happy with a return to the TRUE middle.

Well that sounds all fine and dandy but the problem is you aren't going to win any purple states that you need to win elections going around the nation spouting about free college.

Unless it's your position that a candidate says, "Well, I talk about free college but I don't really mean it."

For some reason I don't think that's going to go over very well either. So you're saying a progressive will roll over on college tuition the way you claim a moderate would do on healthcare? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.

'Tuition Free' has never meant free college. Even if I think college should be free because we would all benefit from having a smarter population, I've never expected it to be totally free. But i see your point.

Seems like the difference is a more granular explanation of the platform. Doesn't matter who wins the primary, the DNC committee sets the platform.

Don't you live in a deeply red state that offers free tuition towards state college?

This is probably better for a day where I have less things to do and more time, but...

It's become obvious in recent years that the current university model is extremely wasteful and inefficient. Some people will still go through that 4+ year drudge but taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill. Not when there's a perfectly reasonable alternative...

Do it online. Hardware is cheap. High speed internet is widespread. Lectures can be viewed on a laptop, work can be assigned and completed, maybe show up for testing a few times a year or whatever is needed to prevent blatant copying/cheating.

There's your free/cheap/tuition free college. All that's left is to work out the details-- that should be easy and I'm sure both sides will get along great.

College doesn't have to be expensive. 90% of it is a teacher and text books. The problem is the sheer amount of unneeded classes they force you to take to complete your degree. Most 4 year degrees could be finished in 2 years if you cut out the unneeded classes that have zero to do with your field of study.

Then you just eliminate the degree paths that have no useful ability to get you a job. I mean if they want to offer that at a private college that is fine. Let the student pay for that crap if they want to. However, for those at public university where we want college to be free being more efficient and streamlined towards a working degree is far better in my humble opinion.

In other words let degrees that are useful be free and let frivolous degrees be paid for by those who have the time to be frivolous.

Two years at a community college if you meet certain criteria. Certain limitations and requirements exist. You don't get a free ride for four years at some "spa like resort college".

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's campaign shoes to join museum exhibition

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/alexan...ouWKveQIzckEWtA

Guess you doubters should walk a mile in her shoes.

While I appreciate a museum dedicated to great woman of history, this chick is hardly one of those. She is an idiot who scammed herself into office because NY is....well... the east coast version of Cali. A bunch of deluded people who vote on superficial things like gender, color, etc and not on values or substance.

I think you've been getting your news from Vambo for a little too long lol

That seems like a reasonable solution and goes along well with what Razor wrote above this.

Yep, lol. I think she's a little too ditzy but I love that the GOPers crap their pants over everything about her. Scared of a very nice young woman. She's got her heart in the right place is all, err the left place.

Fair enough. I kinda forgot the details of the plan. I've always said that I think that any free college program to work, we'll need to rework our entire public education system. We should only go to grade 10 tbh. I also think a lot of these universities should dip into their endowments, which are usually multibillion dollar funds rather than increase our tax burden.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez trolls Fox News in Spanish

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-ente...x-news-spanish/

Ocasio-Cortez mocks Fox News: 'They are far superior to and more intelligent than me'

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/41807...ore-intelligent

lol AOC is having fun giving Fox types all they want.

GC. I don't know how anybody votes for a democrat. Seriously they should be a 1% party, seriously.

Looking at a history of Democrat presidential candidates, Isn't there another way to have a different #2 party, I mean the democrats,

Thank God for the republicans, because if they weren't around, imagine if all the democrats were elected every time for the last 60 years, we'd be living under government tyranny.

Watching a show on Gary Hart, reminds me, the Democrats have never had a normal person run for president, not a one, from Carter, to Al Gore, to Joe Biden,

Where do they find these complete abnormal human beings in a line?

Micheal Dukakis, and Walter Mondale? someone couldn't find these consistently "odd" individuals to match the previous candidates consistenly oddness if they did a prolonged search.

I think, if you want to be democrat, just move to Venezuela, (where the people starve)

or Any other socialist communist place, where the government takes contrl of peoples lives and they live in various versions of tyranny .

Republicans, left unchecked, would bring prosperity for just about everybody, eventually,

Democrats , left unchecked, would bring tyranny under the oppressive government, for just about everybody eventually,

I honestly don't believe, don't understand why it's not Republicans, and another, More Sensible party as the #2,

with the democrats on the fringe, somewhere getting 1 or 2 percent.

40 percent of the voters in America, (democrat voters) must be out of their minds, or tricked, or believeing some fairy tale they want to believe. or blind (figuratively), or something.

lol this is post is why we get made fun of by people around the world.

absolutely nowhere close to being based in reality.

So you think the left is 40% of America and we only put up abnormal human beings. Should we put up more normal people like Trump? smh

Throwlong, you can't be serious. You must live in a cave bro.

60% + of America is liberal or left leaning. If the electoral college was ended tomorrow, there would never be another Republican President, ever. Stealing elections is the only way one has been elected since Reagan.

And they've gone full blown crazy with their conspiracy theories, hate, and fear. You want to follow that bunch, more power to you. the GOP is a dying breed. Dinosaurs waiting for the end.

You lucky if barely 20% of American is liberal. There are just a lot of current democrats who grew up on what democrats used to be during the old days. I would also say there is about 20% of American that is ultra conservative. That means that 50% of America are just moderates that swing one way or the other based on how well they are lied to by the candidates. Then you have 10% that are just out there to the point they never know what they will do like Cortez for example.

Dominance by either party is self destructive to the nation. It takes a good balance of power between the two to protect our culture and identity as a nation while being flexible enough to change and adapt to a changing world. This idea that one or the other will win out it the worst possible scenario and would destroy our country or lead it to civil war. The second that happens our enemies in the world will pounce so fast it will make your head spin as death will toll in the millions world wide when it happens.

Is that why Hillary got over 3 million more votes than Trump? Is that why Democrats got 9% more votes than Republicans in the 2018 elections? Do you actually look into any of this or just spout crap?

And how many of those votes were even made by US citizens. California had millions of fraudulent votes.

Also she got plenty of votes just for being a woman running and having nothing to do with party lines. Part of the movement that women are owed a president and she is the only one running. It wasn't because she was democrat.

Also the main reason our founders set up things the way they did is that that a few big cities couldn't dictate things for the entire country to begin with. Otherwise without that compromise we would not be a United states but a continent of many separate countries just like Europe. Otherwise why would any small state EVER want to be part of the US when it goes against their own interests?

Do you really want wsckos in California and NY making policy for the whole country? Remember they call TN and Ohio flyover country. Look how these states are being run. People are moving out because they taxed themselves out of business.

I actually agree with you. I understand the difference between some democrats and a total left wing liberal. I don't advocate a total left wing liberal running our country.

But Razor's crazy rant about "California had millions of fraudulent votes.", is just pure BS propaganda. And I was pointing out how totally inaccurate he was with his 20% figure.

I mean, for a self proclaimed Christian he sure makes up a lot of BS.

Who cares what they call TN and Ohio... It is flyover country because they fly over us going from coast to coast... smh

And I'm getting damn sick of you guys calling Liberals wackos just because you don't understand their policies! Read some facts every now and then before you just make up your mind to be a propaganda parrot.

You don't like being 'flyover country' and being treated like a dumb hick, so you vote republican? lmao Do you really think the GOP cares about your life? They care about the donor class, period. You are just one of their rubes that they can feed lies to and depend on you to spread them. Think about that... Trump loves the uneducated, why? When is the last time the GOP did anything meaningful for working people without giving big money way way way more?

I've never actually heard them call Tennessee or Ohio flyover states. From everything I've seen they call states like Montana, Utah and sparsely populated states out west by that moniker.

I am wondering why someone from Hawaii flew all the way to New Hampshire.....during December if they aren't planning a Presidential run?

Easily the best looking and most competent mind on the left. I hope she runs, she will win and she will have my vote.

Bernie, Biden, Bloomberg, and Kerry all considering a run.

Let's hope the same thing doesn't happen to the Dems that happened to the GOP.

They get so many candidates their voters believe are worthy, that the vote gets so divided between them that some whackamole ends up with the nomination.

whats the total age number between those 4?

can we please get some younger blood in the running?

Very old men. Think it's a mistake.

That's exactly whats going to happen. The left cannot make up their mind on who they want to oppose Trump, so long as that person opposes Trump at this point. I mean what happened to the ginger kennedy? he was supposed to be the front runner after the State of the Union address, no?

Biden was the front runner the day Obama left office. Then you have the llloooooonnnnng list of guys OCD has pointed out on this thread. Warran, kamala, booker, avenatti lol. The list goes on.

The thing with the left is to, and I give them credit - its not a shot at them, when they did their feet in on someone, its that someone or no one. Like last election, the Bernie bros were not going to vote for Hillary, and probably cost them the WH. Itll happen again, the DNC will favor the one who brings in the money to the family, and put them in the nod and cheat like they did for Hillary, passing over the one that probably could beat trump, and then they will fail at beating him - again. At least up to this point, that's how I have seen it.

The last election was a little different. But you are right to a degree. I feel there are a lot of voters who simply won't vote for a candidate they feel isn't worthy of the office. That's why I could never have voted for Hillary or Trump. Neither one was fit to be POTUS.

That doesn't seem to be the case with the GOP. They would vote for Uncle Fester as POTUS if he could win the party nomination. ( Adams Family Reference )

So when it comes to winning elections I think you are right. Democrats want who they want and sometimes if that's not what they get, they simply won't vote. Sometimes when it comes to the youth it may be more of a tantrum move.

I just hope this time around they find someone worthy of my vote or I'll be in the same situation I was in 2016. Nobody worthy of my vote.

I think that might be true for both parties when it comes to voters not voting if their candidate doesn't end up in the running. If anyone OTHER than Hillary was candidate last election then I don't think republicans would have been so motivated to vote. It was a strong case of OMG the devil is running for office so lets vote anyone not her. I would most likely still vote for Bernie if he runs.

I thought being a Democrat meant you were already a Whackamole!

redacted post:
a 'sick burn' that actually helps nothing... and perpetuates The Divide.


I'm trying hard to not be 'that poster' any more.
Fighting an addiction is an ongoing, daily thing.

Where’s GM now with his questions about generalizations? Guess those questions only get pointed towards those on the left side of the isle.

Well that's what you get for thinking. Just like Republicans, not all Democrats are alike.

Doesn't need it's own thread but Van Jones, made the flashy headline of "White lash" after the election, but he is about as bipartisan as CNN gets. He has said a lot of things since the election that make sense to me. This clip being one of them.



Probably a bit late for this though.

I havent ever seen Van Jones before - but these two items hit the mark.

If anything he might be racist.

Tends to come off that way.

The RS Politics 2020 Democratic Primary Leaderboard

Ranking a crowded field as nearly 30 contenders jockey to confront Trump

Elizabeth Warren officially took the plunge into 2020 waters. Julián Castro jumped in after. The Democrats’ campaign for president is officially underway. This second installment of our Rolling Stone primary leaderboard finds Warren the big mover, surging six places to number two — on the strength of a seamless rollout and a wide lead in a new straw poll of Democratic activists. Dropping in our rankings this round: Joe Biden who declared he has “no empathy” for the struggle of the kids these days, and Bernie Sanders who responded unsteadily to revelations of pay discrimination and sexual harassment on his 2016 presidential campaign. We wanted to dock Beto O’Rourke more for growing a goatee and livestreaming his trip to the dentist, but the Texas Democrat’s decision to leave behind the dysfunction of Washington — just as it’s become gridlocked by an endless shutdown — is looking like a minor stroke of genius. The field has also begun to winnow: Billionaire Tom Steyer has removed himself from the 2020 crowd, and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is actively exploring a Senate bid, so we’ve moved her from number 5 into our “wild cards.”

1) Kamala Harris
Harris is set to announce her 2020 candidacy, reportedly over the Martin Luther King Day weekend in Oakland, California. The 54-year-old senator, who battled big banks and for-profit colleges as California’s attorney general, stands astride the tectonic plates of the Democratic Party. She’s an establishment politician who has adopted a platform responsive to the passion of the grassroots, advocating for Medicare-for-All, free college and criminal justice reform. Black women are the heart of the Democratic Party, and seeing themselves reflected in the Howard University-educated Harris (born to Jamaican and Tamil Indian parents) could give her an advantage in a field chock full of white men. A straw poll asked women of color active in politics to rank their top three presidential contenders — Harris appeared on 71 percent of ballots. Harris also ranked third in a new, 35,000-vote straw poll of the Daily Kos community, a rough proxy for the Democratic activist base. Harris has a prodigious West Coast donor network and has reportedly been hitting up would-be backers on Wall Street. (Her connections to big money, as well as her past as a prosecutor, could cause headaches.) With California moving its primary up to Super Tuesday, on March 3rd, she could bank a delegate lead that proves difficult to overcome.
Previous Ranking: 1

2) Elizabeth Warren
Warren was the first top-tier candidate out of the gates, launching a presidential exploratory committee on the last day of 2018, and she surges in our rankings. Her campaign forays in Iowa and New Hampshire have been eagerly attended, and she’s debuted a passable talking point on her DNA debacle: “I am not a person of color. I am not a citizen of a tribe,” she said. “Tribal citizenship is very different from ancestry.” The Massachusetts senator, 69, brings trademark policy chops to the race, with an ambitious progressive agenda on everything from foreign policy and pharmaceuticals to student debt and political corruption. Unlike democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, who idolizes Eugene Debs, Warren is a capitalist at heart — but has made a career of trying to make it less cruel for working people. Warren ranked first in the DailyKos straw poll at 22 percent, with a seven point margin over Beto O’Rourke.
Previous Ranking: 8

3) Sherrod Brown
The senior senator from Ohio announced he’ll be traveling to the early-voting states on a “Dignity of Work Tour,” and he’s vowed to make a decision on a 2020 run “within a couple months.” A proven Democratic winner in reddening Ohio, Brown is skilled at debunking the lies Trump tells to “Trump Country” and able to connect with working class voters who are white and of color. In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Brown touted a proposal to boost the incomes of 47 million lower-wage Americans with a $1.4 trillion expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a wage subsidy. Like Sanders, he’s a champion of labor and a prescient critic of the dangers of unfettered free trade. The 66-year-old’s voice may be raspy and his wardrobe rumpled, but Brown is a persuasive campaigner — his messaging aided by Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and wife Connie Schultz.
Previous Ranking: 6

4) Beto O’Rourke
He stole progressive hearts and built a nationwide fundraising network attempting to oust GOP megavillain Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Beto raised $60 million for the fight and pushed Texas ever closer to swing-state territory, but the erstwhile Foss bassist has faltered a bit since losing his longshot Senate bid. He’s been memed mercilessly for everything from a new goatee to broadcasting a teeth cleaning on Instagram. (The latter was part of a series on Insta Stories about life on the border, but nobody can make a trip to the dentist cute.) Can a high-profile one-on-one interview rekindle Beto-mentum? The 46-year-old is sitting down with Oprah on February 5th.
Previous Ranking: 3

5) Joe Biden
The former vice president’s big challenge as a 76-year-old is connecting with a new generation of activists and voters. Doing himself no favors, Biden dismissed struggles of millennials — that is to say, voting-age Americans under 40 — in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. Playing up the Civil Rights struggles, the Vietnam War and the Kent State massacre of his young adulthood, Biden said: “The younger generation now tells me how tough things are. Give me a break. No, no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break.” (Biden is partly responsible for the woes of the kids these days, helping pass a 2005 bill under George W. Bush that makes it nearly impossible to discharge student debt through bankruptcy). Still, Biden offers an appealing narrative: a reset from the Trump catastrophe. And he benefits from a potent combo of experience, name ID and a populist touch that resonates in the industrial Midwest. If Democrats don’t fall in love with a new hope, they may fall in line behind Biden.
Previous Ranking: 2

6) Bernie Sanders
When allegations of sexual harassment and unequal pay from his 2016 campaign surfaced in recent weeks, Sanders stumbled, suggesting he’d been too “busy” campaigning to know about or police the misbehavior. (Sanders has also apologized and promised to “do better” moving forward.) Sanders takes a hit in our rankings, but the 2016 campaign still gives him advantages, including a prodigious nationwide grassroots network that backed him with $228 million. This machine began gearing up in mid January, with more than 400 house parties across the 50 states calling on Bernie to join the 2020 fray. Sanders will no longer have the left lane to himself, instead jockeying in a field of progressives who have embraced his proposals. But the democratic socialist has shown he can be pretty nimble for a 77-year-old, yoking himself to the youthful insurgency embodied by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Previous Ranking: 4

7) Kirsten Gillibrand
Gillibrand announced her presidential bid on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in mid-January, vowing to “fight for other people’s kids as hard as I would fight for my own.” The New York senator is a champion of progressive causes and perhaps the most vocal leader of the #MeToo movement in elected office, calling out former president Bill Clinton and pushing for Al Franken to resign from the Senate. In many ways, Gillibrand, 52, is the East Coast’s answer to Kamala Harris, with some of the same challenges. She can tap New York money but lacks a coast-to-coast profile. (Gillibrand has already caught flak for outreach to Wall Street donors.) Hailing from upstate, Gillibrand could play well in New Hampshire. But her evolution from an anti-amnesty Blue Dog moderate to a true-blue progressive calling to abolish ICE will require explanation.
Previous Ranking: 9

8) Amy Klobuchar
Don’t let her aw-shucks demeanor deceive you. Klobuchar’s got game. And the Minnesota senator’s unruffled persona may be exactly what Democrats crave after four years of crazy. The 58-year-old showcased preternatural calm sparring with Kavanaugh in his confirmation hearings, and her legislative record is substantive; she’s passed laws to ban lead in toys and to reduce the backlog of rape kits. Klobuchar would benefit from a near-home-field advantage in neighboring Iowa, which holds the first-in-the-nation caucus and where she’s now polling at 10 percent — fourth behind Biden, Sanders and Beto. And her bipartisan bonafides give her credibility when, for instance, she calls out a Trump nominee like William Barr for refusing to meet with Democrats. Two tweets and less than 24 hours later, Klobuchar was hosting Barr for coffee in her office, reminding voters just how reassuring it can be to have a serious-minded adult in charge. Klobuchar says her family is “on board” with her running and will make a final decision “in the very near future.”
Previous Ranking: 7

9) Julián Castro
The former Housing and Urban Development secretary — a short-lister for Hillary’s VP — announced his candidacy in San Antonio on January 12th, becoming the second top-tier candidate to enter the 2020 race. The Texan could be the top Latinx candidate in the field — and, at 44, one of the youngest. His personal story is equal parts improbable and inspirational, reminiscent of Barack Obama’s, and resonant at a time when immigration and borders dominate the national conversation. But Castro could be out of his depth: The only elections he’s ever won were in his hometown of San Antonio, for city council and then mayor.
Previous Ranking: 10

10) Cory Booker
The former supermayor of Newark, 49, has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate and has distinguished himself by centering federal marijuana decriminalization and criminal justice reform in his agenda. But Booker has also backed the powerful in a pinch. He has problematic connections to Wall Street (and is reportedly already talking to top financiers in advance of a 2020 run). He was the first Democratic 2020 contender backed by a SuperPAC. Booker’s X-Factor? Hustle. He’s not going to be outworked as a candidate, and that snow-shoveling experience could come in handy in Iowa.
Previous Ranking: 11

11) John Hickenlooper
Colorado’s former governor is very likely to run, testing whether a centrist has any juice with today’s Democratic base. Hickenlooper left office this month having created 400,000 jobs over his two terms, with unemployment dropping below 3 percent last year. But he’s also pro-fracking, and the longtime brewer was initially unenthusiastic about Colorado’s trailblazing marijuana legalization. The 66-year-old is both agreeably goofy and a straight shooter. A former strategist told Politico: “I think he has a lane [as] a pragmatic, pro-trade, business-oriented Democrat who has a very progressive social record, and a more centrist view of economic issues.”
Previous Ranking: 12

12) Pete Buttigieg
The subject of a tell-tale pre-campaign profile in the Washington Post Magazine, the 36-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, seems like a longshot — until you hear what he has to say. Buttigieg — pronounced BOOT-edge-edge — was a Rhodes scholar before he was elected the mayor of his rustbelt city while still in his twenties. He has been namechecked by Obama as a gifted politician, and led an economic revival during his seven years in office, during which he also found time to serve a seven-month tour with the Navy in Afghanistan. Buttigieg is also openly gay and live-streamed his own wedding on YouTube. If any mayor has a of a hope of winning the nomination — and no mayor ever has — it may be Mayor Pete.
Previous Ranking: 15

13) Jay Inslee
Can a contender win by championing climate change? Inslee, the governor of Washington state, seems intent on finding out. He told Rolling Stone in November that it’s “absolutely imperative” the Democrats have a climate-focused candidate in 2020, and the 67-year-old didn’t rule out that that candidate would be him. Inslee has presided over a roaring economy that’s let him invest in education and slash college tuition. He’s come out in 2019 advocating for a “public option” in the state’s health care system and for expanding college financial aid. Inslee has been seen testing the 2020 waters in Nevada and is scheduled to travel to New Hampshire.
Previous Ranking: 20

14) Steve Bullock
The Montana governor with a Deadwood-worthy name could be the dark horse of 2020. Bullock has the cred of winning statewide office in a state Trump carried by 20 points. The 52-year-old has focused on ending the influence of unlimited political contributions and dark money. “If we wanna address all the other big issues,” he said in a stump speech in Iowa, “you’re not gonna be able to do it unless you also address the way money is affecting our system.”
Previous Ranking: 19

15) Eric Garcetti
The L.A. mayor with Hispanic, Jewish and Italian-American heritage also wants to be the first candidate to make the leap from City Hall to the White House. He speaks powerfully about tackling climate change and expanding affordable housing. And Garcetti, 47, has been visiting battleground states, saying things like “Iowa and Los Angeles have a ton in common.” But he’s got a big, thorny problem close to home: A teacher’s strike — L.A.’s first since 1989.
Previous ranking: 16

16) Michael Bloomberg
The New York billionaire and former Republican-turned-independent mayor, 76, certainly has the money to mount a credible run — and made news this month insisting he’d finance his own presidential campaign. But Bloomberg’s Third-Way centrism seems an odd fit for the current passions of the Democratic base. Wild card: Bloomberg has invested deeply in fighting the NRA, including by backing pro-gun-regulation politicians from Oregon to Florida, creating a network of surrogates who can tout his progressive virtues.
Previous Ranking: 21

17) John Kerry
Kerry drops in this ranking because he’s awfully quiet for a true contender. After an exceptional stint as secretary of state, including negotiating the Paris climate agreement and the Iran nuclear deal, Kerry is clearly among the most qualified prospective Democrats. But the scars of 2004, when he lost the presidency to George W. Bush, are deep. The now-75-year-old told a crowd at Harvard in November that he’s mulling a run: “Yeah, I’m going to think about it.”
Previous Ranking: 14

18) Eric Holder
A formidable inside player who is close to the Obamas, Holder is leading a Democratic project to fight for fair redistricting, and has said he’ll make a call on a presidential run early in 2019. Like Kerry, his recent silence is making us doubt the depth of his presidential ambition. The 67-year-old courted controversy during the 2018 campaign when he put a street-fighter’s spin on Michelle Obama’s famous line, “When they go low, we go high.” “No,” Holder insisted. “When they go low, we kick ’em.”
Previous Ranking: 17

19) Jeff Merkley
The progressive senator from Oregon, 62, flew under the national radar until Trump’s family-separation policy went into effect. A video of Merkley showing up at a Texas detention facility to demand answers, Michael Moore-style, went viral, and soon he was a fixture on cable TV and burning up Twitter. He’s actively considering a bid and says his family has given him the green light. But in early January he seemed to throw cold water on his own prospects, playing up the cost of mounting a credible run.
Previous Ranking: 18

20) Terry McAuliffe
The voluble former governor and Democratic moneyman has said he’ll decide on a presidential run by March, and recently put the odds at 50/50. A consummate establishment politician, the Macker is famous for his friendship with the Clintons, his prodigious fundraising abilities and four productive years as Virginia’s chief executive. Swimming against the progressive tides, McAuliffe, 61, has railed against what he calls “dishonest populism” among Democrats and insists: “Free college is not the answer.” Put that on a bumper sticker!
Previous Ranking: 22

21) Tim Ryan
Ryan represents post-industrial Youngstown, Ohio, in the House of Representatives and wants the Democratic Party to compete for the disaffected white middle- and working-class voters who turned to Trump in 2016. Ryan, 45, ran against Nancy Pelosi in 2016 for Democratic leader, and was at the helm of the recent ill-considered putsch attempt against Pelosi in the speaker’s race. For a glimpse of Ryan on better footing, watch him denounce Trump’s efforts to make U.S. taxpayers fund the border wall.
Previous Ranking: 23

22) Howard Schultz
The former Starbucks CEO, 65, exited the coffee business last year and appears to be ramping up for a political run, including by hiring star Never Trumper Steve Schmidt, who ran John McCain’s 2008 campaign. Under Schultz, Starbucks was kinder to its workforce than most multinationals. But the company’s awkward forays into social issues — including trying to get Americans to discuss race with their baristas — leave us with questions about Schultz’ political intuition.
Previous Ranking: 24

23) Eric Swalwell
The California congressman is a comer. At 38, he’s already a member of House leadership and the Intelligence Committee. Swalwell does not cloak his ambition. He is almost certain to mount a presidential bid, and has been working the angles in key early-voting states. During the swearing in of the new Democratic House majority he vigorously bounced a baby for the C-SPAN cameras. A former prosecutor, Swalwell is sharp, but has an odd Twitter persona. It’s hard to imagine him coming out atop the scrum of California contenders.
Previous Ranking: 26

24) John Delaney
No one has poured more energy into the 2020 race than former Maryland Congressman John Delaney, who announced his candidacy back in July 2017. The self-described “pragmatic idealist,” 55, has already visited every county in Iowa, and opened campaign offices in both Cedar Rapids and Des Moines. A longshot without much national name recognition, Delaney is hoping voters find his bipartisan message refreshing.
Previous Ranking: 28

25) Richard Ojeda
The brash, tatted-up Army veteran may have lost his House race in West Virginia’s deep-red 3rd District, but he’s just aiming higher for 2020. Populist and pro-worker, Ojeda, 48, announced in January that he will resign as a state senator to focus on his presidential run. He also dissed #relatable moments like Warren drinking a beer on Instagram or Beto’s trip to the dentist. “Everybody that’s going to throw their hat into the ring to run for office is going to try their best to say they’re one of you,” Ojeda said in a Twitter video. “But are they really? How can somebody with a golden health care plan relate to somebody out there who struggles to pay their health care bills? I don’t think that they can.”
Previous Ranking: 27

26) Andrew Yang
Yang is a lawyer and the founder of Venture for America, which seeks to revitalize struggling urban centers by training and fostering young entrepreneurs in places like Detroit and New Orleans. Yang, 44, is one of the few officially declared candidates, running on a platform of a universal basic income, to forestall the worst effects of the predicted unemployment crisis from automation and AI: “Every U.S. citizen over the age of 18 would receive $1,000 a month, regardless of income or employment status, free and clear. No jumping through hoops.”
Previous Ranking: not listed

27) Tulsi Gabbard
An Iraq war vet and Hawaiian congresswoman, Gabbard is the first Hindu to serve in the House of Representatives. And the 37-year-old says she’s running. But as a candidate for commander-in-chief, holds noxious views on Syria, having paid a freelance visit to bloody dictator Bashar al-Assad and dismissed his opposition — across the board — as terrorists. Her announcement has also thrust her past, virulently anti-LGBTQ activism into the spotlight.
Previous Ranking: 25

WILD CARDS:

Stacey Abrams After her history-making run for governor in Georgia, Abrams is mulling her next move in politics. In early January, she laid out a pragmatic three-point process, saying: “I intend to make a decision about the job I’m going to run for next by the end of March.” All indicators now point to a Senate run, but in the presidential mix, she’d be a frontrunner in South Carolina’s fourth-in-the-nation primary, a springboard to national momentum.
Previous ranking: 5

Hillary Clinton The 2016 nominee has given little indication she’s plotting a rematch with Trump in 2020, but her entry to the race would reshuffle this deck and throw the political world off its axis.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/2020-democrat-candidates-771735/


My top three from a bland list would be Kamala, Bernie, and Sherrod. I'm not so sure Bernie will even run at this point.

I hope the left can find somebody that inspires people. After Trump, we are going to need real leadership to fix this country at home and abroad.

As of this very moment, if John Kasich would run as an Independent, I would vote for him. I would have voted for him in 2016 as well.

Kasich was bad for Ohio I would hate to see what he would do to America ... JMHO

Yeah, he was an actual conservative with moral values. I can see how confusing that would be at this time. Didn't he balance Ohio's budget while expanding medicaid so the people in Ohio would have health insurance?

No politician is perfect and that includes Kasich. But he would be a HUGE step up from where we are now. Not a leftie and not some demagogue. There's never been a better time than now for that type of a president.

He supported abortion you call that morals ???

I hate politics but I will say I could never vote for anyone who thinks its ok to kill babies ...

Trump did too yet you still support him. Says a lot about your morals.

Who said I support him? He is my president good or bad and I will always support whoever is is in the office of president, and if there was a better choice but there wasn't and there isn't ...

You still think anyone who doesn't push their religious beliefs in their politics supports something. You seem to lack the understanding that allowing each person to make their own choice doesn't indicate you support their choice.

I don't support Trump, I support Trump, choice excuse.

So he's saying, "Baby killers will never get my support until after they're elected".

You guys ... Listen please, I support the office of the President of the United States not necessarily the man, it is the highest office in the world, but it is usually controlled by a crooked congress ... done !!!

One more thing this is why I don't talk politics because it turns the people into politicians

So it's not that a president is crappy, it's just the congress?

Most people think Congress has been crappy (no matter who is in charge). Whoever is president, about 1/2 will think he/she is crappy.

I am wondering what positive helpful thing Congress has passed lately?

Trump is horrid.

But Congress hasnt done much either

Our Government is a fail. Across the board.

Not everyone thinks Tump is horrid.

Congress hasn't passed much lately, and probably won't in the near future.

The major tax reform effective in 2018 has been successful.

This is quite debateable.

Successful for who exactly?

Most individuals and businesses will be paying less taxes. Some substantially less. That is successful.

I'm glad you enjoy your extra 100 bucks.

Ask the corporations how much they enjoy their extra billions.

The inflation caused by the tax break ended up cost most Americans more money than they will ever see in tax savings. Corps and fat cats all made out, everybody else lost, period.

hundred bucks?

You are are sounding like "Crumbs" Pelosi.

If you call raising taxes on those folks who are sick and/or disabled and have a lot of medical bills effective then

I managed a few grand off this year, mainly because I no longer had a phase out of the child tax credit. But considering we paid for this tax cut via rising deficit, our money just became worth less to pay for it

i would announce my 2020 run, but i'll be 33 in november of that year. unless yall fight for a waiver.

Run for the House.

CNN is pushing Kamala Harris really hard already. She appears to be their candidate. A black Hilary Clinton, boy I just cannot wait to be called a racist AND a bigoted sexist deplorable for disagreeing with her policies.

Forget the racist / sexist stuff and let's stick to facts and have a discussion.

What are here policies? What is it that you disagree with them on?

Ill give a fair analysis of what I have read about her.

Its nice to actually hear a democrat willing to actually give something to WORKING people. However, I don't need 3,000 handout, I can earn my own. But this is something that is interesting to me, and I would hear more of it.

The problem is, she has called for 30 trillion dollar medicare for all plan, while REDUCING tax revenue to the government - I am all for this in theory, I just don't know how that works out mathematically



She wants to revamp the bail system in American, which I would like to hear more about as well. If your not a risk or a violent criminal, why have a 50K min bail?? Why make tax payers foot that bill?

I know she is for abortion, but I do not know to what extent - so I will not comment on that as of now.

She is for legalization of MJ, I am ok with that as well.


Here are things that disqualify her from my vote or consideration (in no particular order):


She is strictly against the Death Penalty. I support the death penalty 100%, and believe we need to actually speed that process up. It shouldn't take 20 years to put a Dylan Roof, McVay, or a Charles Ng to death. A bullet is cheap and quick.

She fully supports sanctuary cities and has called to get rid of ICE.

She wants strict gun control and is against Columbia V. Heller

She wants to end private insurance completely, everyone goes on Medicare. She supports the "tough on crime" and pushed for stiffer sentences. Wants to restrict 2A. She is also one of the people who collaborated with PP to jail a journalist.

The problem is aside from looking into her history, she really has done nothing but offer meaningless platitudes so far, which is the Hilary Clinton playbook. She offers no real policies other than platitudes.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are 100% correct, although I’m not sure how serious she *really* is regarding Medicare For All”. Bernie (thankfully) has pushed them to this position, but whether they’re serious remains to be seen.

Don’t forget, Obama pretty much ran on single-payer (and Trump did, too, though that doesn’t really count because he doesn’t understand what health insurance or single payer actually is).

I have no doubt she is going to go full Hilary and not discuss policy publicly, call Americans names, them versus us, offer one platitude after another hoping people think that "is" policy, hardcore dems will eat it up and leave the rest of of like "so what's the policy here?" etc.


I hope I am wrong.

Its funny, you always hear people say "I wish we had a third party", yet both R and D will never support a decent 3rd party candidate no matter what (not saying this dude is, I know nothing about him).

Heck, the far left wouldn't even vote for Hilary in 16.

No way they are going to vote for a third party.

Both sides have been sold on the bill of goods that if a 3rd party candidate will ensure the other party to win. Its BS. If everyone that said they would vote 3rd party did, guess what, they would win in a landslide.

I agree with you that she will be devoid of meaningful policy, but it’s kind of hard to do the “Hillary was into divisive us vs. them mentality” when she was running against a ball of anger who has the kind of a child.

Hillary ran the most inept campaign in modern American history, but the mold was set on it being “us vs. them” the minute the other side ran with the barely sentient freak who served no purpose and possessed no skill outside of generating and venting spite.

I will tell you this much, I personally know a dozen people who voted for Gary Johnson. Many others wrote in Bernie.

I won't hesitate to vote 3rd party and the idea that a 3rd party shouldn't be in the debates is an abomination.

As a member of the "far left" I gotta say that this is nonsense. The far left is getting crucified by centrists for costing Killary the election by voting for Jill Stein. Dude, you would not imagine how many times I've been called a bernie bro and a misogynist just because I didn't vote for Hillary. Doesn't matter that I've always voted Green party, even against Obama. I'm evil for voting third party. Now a lot of the far left won't vote because participatory politics is stupid, but the ones who do vote, do vote third party.


What 3rd party do you want? What could it look like? Republicans and Democrats are the same exact thing running on the same exact platform with a few twists. So does it look like someone who is fiscally conservative, socially liberal, supports abortions and the 2nd amendment? Where's the difference in the parties besides the frugal amounts they bicker over for tax breaks and welfare programs, 2nd amendment rights and abortion? What could a viable third party look like from a policy standpoint?

We just need two real separate parties at this point. Guys like Howard Schultz should join the Republican party. The Democratic party must shift to the left if America has any chance to survive climate change. They should focus on what brings them together than what divides them?

I voted for Hillary because I had to.

Option B was a sundowning game show host who brags about being a creepy pervert.

If it were Clinton v. Rubio, or Clinton v. Kasich, or hell, even maybe Clinton v. Cruz, I would’ve just cast a write-in.

I never liked Clinton, but when Option B is “senile racist who tweets furiously at the teenagers from the vampire movies”, you’re forced into that pen.

I simply won't vote for someone that I don't feel is worthy of the office of president. I'm proud of that. What astounds me is that the right seems proud to have elected Trump while pointing the finger at those who had the moral fiber not to help elect Hillary.

It makes it sound like a , "My pile of crap was better than your pile of crap" argument. When both of them stunk the same.

Here's a stab:

I want someone that allows people to marry to who they want to marry, smoke whatever weed they want, buy whatever gun they want, and limit abortions to incest, rape, and life threatening cases only, and enforce our immigration laws.

get me someone that supports all that, ill vote 'em up.

Since the SCOTUS actually decides abortion laws and seems to be stacked in that direction, it sounds as if you're as much Democrat as you are Republican at this point.

I can certainly relate to that conundrum.

We're never going to find a party that truly represents either of us.

I "lean right" because if I had to put things in order of importance for me, it would be the right leaning topics, I.E the 2nd amendment, my take on abortion.

I go at the left on this board, simply because its so slanted in the hate towards the right on here with certain posters. In other places that are right leaning and the hate is towards the left, I go at the right.

The “Trump isn’t racist” guy is just trying to be reasonable.

I don't know about that. With great posters that make such valid points as Razor, 40, Vambo, and Riley, it seems the right is well represented with some thoughtful and logical posters.

you may disagree with them, and with the exception of 1 that I know of on your list, the others more troll you guys than call flat out names and demean.

I have disagreed vehemently with Razon about MJ in another thread, I was never called a single name by him.

I have disagreed with 40 and Vambo was never called a name by any of them.

We had differences of opinions and said our peace, and left it at that - agree to disagree.

You and I have gone at it rather frequently, yet I can say you have never tried to disparage or demean me.

But the second I say anything that contradicts the majority on this board that are lefty's opinion - I am a racist, bigot, homophobe, xenophobe, etc. etc. etc.

Those guys never take personal cheap shots at me and I rag on Trump and have leftist policy beliefs regularly. I think that is the difference.

They demean anyone who disagrees with them and regurgitate meaningless terms and phrases like "Bacon flavored Spam".

The company you keep is embarrassing, dude.

It’s hard to argue “people unfairly call me a bigot” when you constantly say “I like this bigot!”

While I've seen them regurgitate phrases, the former has not been something I have experienced.

Let me try and help you with that.

So you want a coastal Republican

I meant personally it has not been directed at me. Despite clear ideological differences only one side of this board had to be put on ignore for constant name calling. They also love the "Racism by proxy"....well you agree with 40 on this topic, so you're aligning yourself with racist, WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOU!

I understand that between them, they do their childish thing which I don't agree with. Only one side has brought it to me and I feel that I mostly conduct myself in a professional way on this board.

He just described John Kasich.

Yep, those are basic policy points of any suburban Republican who have to win over metropolitan voters. Honestly if Republicans weren't so hard lined about abortion they'd win every election.

This has never been my experience with talking to them. Maybe 40 before A2D, but never Vambo or others. Hell, GM has no problem calling me a murderer between trying to act like we're friends.

That said, you, Pitt, Arch a few years ago, Tulsa and DC have always been very respectable even in our disagreements.

And I like John Kasich.

Had the GOP have nominated him in 2016 I would have voted for him.

I’m not his biggest fan, but there’s a legitimate argument there.

I wouldn't say I'm his biggest fan either. But I will say given the choices we had, he would have been hands down better. And I believe he actually has the nations best interest at heart even on matters where I disagree with him.

It’s certainly something to debate, unlike “I support the sundowning clown pervert. I wish people would take me seriously and debate me on the merits of my support for the clown pervert instead of mocking me”

Rush Limbaugh was talking about her on his Tuesday show.


“I’m trying to figure out what’s the difference between Stormy Daniels and Kamala Harris?” asked Rush Limbaugh.

Do you mean THIS John Kasich?

https://www.policeone.com/social-media-f...ling-cop-idiot/



https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/01/c...plane-seat.html

I've been trying to figure out the difference between rush and a toilet for years, mind helping me out?

You know, I really dislike Kamala Harris, but conservatives are really disgusting in their attacks against women. It's what to expect now from a Con, but still always sad to see our Con brethren roll in the mud like pigs. It's disgusting and unbecoming.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot...icaid-expansion

Ohio Gov. Kasich Stumps Again In Support Of Medicaid Expansion
August 21, 20185:19 PM ET
KAREN KASLER


Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, is eager to preserve an expansion of Medicaid that he pushed through, despite opposition from other members of his party.
Ron Schwane/AP
Four years after going out on a limb to get Medicaid expansion enacted in Ohio, outgoing Republican Gov. John Kasich is worried about the future of the program. So he is now defending it — through a study and through the stories of people who have benefited from the coverage expansion.

One of those people is Brenda Jean Searcy, a 55-year-old law student who lives with her 93-year-old father in the Columbus suburb of Westerville. She says she had always been healthy but was felled by Lyme disease and then Graves' disease; the diagnosis of the latter came after she had signed up for Medicaid through the expansion.

"I am very grateful to have Medicaid. It has made my life much better and made me much healthier," Searcy says at a press conference.

Searcy is one of the 653,000 Ohioans who gained coverage through the Medicaid expansion, four years after Kasich defied his fellow Republican legislators in pushing Medicaid expansion through.

He claimed it would bring $13 billion in federal funding to help low-income people in Ohio get health care — especially those struggling with mental illness and addiction. Kasich is nearing the end of his second term and will leave office in January. He wants the Medicaid expansion to continue, and his Medicaid department commissioned an independent study on the effects of the expansion to support it.

Article continues after sponsor message

Ohio Medicaid Director Barbara Sears says the analysis shows Medicaid expansion has cut in half the number of uninsured Ohioans. Ninety-six percent of people in the program with opioid addiction got treatment, and 37 percent of smokers were able to quit. One-third reported improved health, including better access to medical care for high blood pressure and diabetes. ER visits went down 17 percent, and there was a 10 percent increase in the number of people seeing primary care doctors. And most recipients said Medicaid expansion made it easier to find work, earn more money and care for their families.

The state's budget office, part of the executive branch, estimates Medicaid expansion will cost nearly $5.2 billion in 2021, the first year Ohio will pay its full share of the costs as determined by the Affordable Care Act.

Ohio budget director Tim Keen says the state's projected share would amount to $354.1 million. However, with drug rebates, assessments on managed care plans, a 1 percent tax on premiums and other offsets, the state's share drops to $163.1 million. "Medicaid expansion is a significantly better deal for the states and for Ohio than the traditional program, and that's important as one considers our ability to fund this program," Keen says.

After Decline Of Steel And Coal, Ohio Fears Health Care Jobs Are Next
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
After Decline Of Steel And Coal, Ohio Fears Health Care Jobs Are Next
But Republican lawmakers have long had concerns about the program's cost.

And so does the Republican candidate to replace Kasich, Attorney General Mike DeWine. After stating for months that he feels the Medicaid expansion is financially unsustainable, DeWine says he'll keep it but makes changes, such as implementing work requirements and wellness programs. DeWine hasn't made clear how much those changes would save the program – for instance, 96 percent of Medicaid expansion recipients in Ohio would be exempt from work requirements.

Kasich says he has talked to DeWine's team about supporting the program. "I worry a little bit about somebody kind of nickeling and diming it away somehow — a little bit here, a little bit there — but I think they'll be for it," Kasich says.

Karen Kasler is statehouse bureau chief for Ohio Public Radio and Television.

You mean like the same attacks that the left levied against Sarah Palin, Sarah Sanders, Kelly Ann, and Melania?

What type of shoes is Kamala wearing?

Both sides do it, don't just single out the right.

The biggest left wing media members joked about confusing them for porn stars? That's weird, I don't remember that. Would you please find me a link where Anderson Cooper compares Sarah Palin to Lisa Ann. I'll wait.

Your right, its better to slut shame her daughter and make fun of her special needs grandchild....

And puh lease, the left has compared Melania and said far worse.

I think the attacks on Kamala are horrid, I am not condoning those in the least bit.

I think both sides need to stop and grow up with them - but I don't have one sided blinders on that doesn't see both sides doing it.

Because one side spewed trash, does not mean other should too. Maybe if we held politicians to a higher standard, the media to a higher standard, we can finally hold this board to a higher standard as well.

Yes, that John Kasich. If you're looking for the perfect candidate you aren't going to find one.

Heck, you can prove Trump lies every day, has cheated on all three of his wives, even with a porn star and millions still support him. He lies about ISIS being defeated, about N. Korea and Russia on a consistent basis.

The only chance we have at having a perfect president is if Jesus decides to run for the office. Until then I'm just looking for a drastic improvement.

Typical of this guy.
If he'd call Sandra Fluck a 'slut' for wanting prescription birth control medicine to control her menstrual symptoms...

...he'd see no difference between a law school graduate/prosecuting attorney/US Senator....
...and a porn star.



What an intellectual heavyweight.

Yet we see people follow and quote these people.

Your right Buddy and we agree 100 percent on that. When it comes to Kasick.... yes that's what I call him. I am biased 100 percent. He is the a-hole that caused me to lose health insurance right in the middle of my Chemo. He is the candidate who made fun of M.R.D.D. people and caused harm to them. Everybody knows Trump is a no good rotton SOB, but people still hold up Kasich as a good guy when he is no better at all than Trump.

He did expand medicaid in Ohio and I give him credit for that. I was just looking for someone more moderate and he fit the bill.

He did expand medicare which I agreed with. I agreed with him on that. You know me bro I give credit where credit is do IMO. and I bash those that I don't agree with. If I am proven wrong I have no problem admitting it and saying I screwed up. I just know for a fact that Kasick thinks his crap doesn't stink and that he is better than everybody else. You know me and I don't go for that.

I know that. I was just looking at who the choices were and trying to find the lesser of the evils.

Just like our last election when I did the same thing

I just couldn't find one in the last election that was "lesser of the evils" enough.

Nope they all sucked longer, harder, and deeper, than Linda Lovelace.

So you couldn't find any liberal comparing any GOP congressperson to a porn star? I'm not surprised. When people say x is a sexist because they don't like Kamala, just remember, it's not because x disagrees with their policy, it's because they attack her personally.

Yes, I agree that both sides should immediately clean up how they act. I thought it was unbecoming of the left to come after Bristol and her son, even though Sarah's sellingpoint was her traditional family lifestyle. I thought it was equally as abhorrent as the right stalked Obama's daughters calling them "monkeys" and other extremely demeaning things.

What I find most abhorrent was that Bush Jr. attacked John McCain for adopting a black kid in the early 2000's. That was absolutely disgusting.

You're right that both sides need to stop lowering themselves to personal attacks about the family members of politicians. However, that doesn't mean that we should focus personal attacks onto the politicians themselves.

We should look to actually talk about policy instead of personally attacking people we disagree with.

Is the democrat party going to have any candidates who are actual democrats and not out in left field? Serious question. You all got dumb candidates out there who

A. Want to somehow abolish ICE. Really? Huh? Do they have any type of solution for border security? Whoops, I guess not.

B. Want universal healthcare and education for all. Huh? That is not economically viable for anyone.

C. Want a lot of useless gun control.



I think you should all vote for Howard Schultz.

A. ICE has been around since 2002.
B. Well, private healthcare and education are currently not economically viable for most people.
C. LOL

I think you should vote for Howard Shultz. I think Republicans just do a lot more to work with Democrats, hopefully they do so under the same Republican party. Gay people are OK. Global warming is happening! You can't stop it Republicans, the only things keeping you apart seem so much smaller compared to 70% marginal tax rates, healthcare for all and public ownership of resources.

Howard Schultz looks like a likely option at this point. I'm calling it now! He will win the 2020 presidential election!

only if Trump's base and disenfranchised centrist dems support him in force from jump. He will need a lot of momentum before primaries or will lose all his air.

I am interested in reading his positions on issues. I haven't been able to find them anywere yet. Hes been in the media so much its hard to narrow it down via google.

Any info?

So far all I see is, "Hey I'm a businessman billionaire that wants to return to the centrist status quo. I have zero political experience but I can do this because I'm rich and ran a business. If you are sick of the right/left divide, I'm your guy."... And he wants to do this as a third party candidate because neither party's base wants a vanilla centrist right now.

I personally think he's about protecting the rich from taxes and trying to preserve the power structure that brought us to where we are... establishment center.

Yet that's exactly where we need to be, right in the middle. Sounds like I have someone to research.

just because conservatives blindly supported a billionaire who doesn't know what he's doing doesn't mean liberals are gonna do the same thing.

that CEO can kick rocks. and here we go again with people hyping a third(purgatory) party candidate that everyone knows won't win.

So your saying people shouldn't vote who they think the best candidate is. They should only vote party.

Party over country is something I have seen you blast the right for, but you just made that same stance.

i did not make that stance. quite pathetic of you to even imply it. it also shows that despite me repeatedly saying we need a viable third party - PARTY, not individual running as a 3rd candidate- you clearly ignored everything i've posted throughout the threads on it, which also shows why its pointless making serious post on here, if people will just ignore everything said in the past.

the guy won't win, and the guy won't get the majority support from the country. all he will do is run interference for either trump or whoever the Dems run. in the dating world, thats called c* blocking. you know, i know it, and memphis cheerleading ass liking your post knows it.

the SAME thing i'm saying now is the same thing i said when yall was trying to hype of gary johnson, and we all saw what happened with that nut job.

also, cause i'm not freaking done, once again you've ignored my stance on the fact that i'm specifically stated i wont support billionaires running for office. i've made that stance beyond a shadow of a doubt clear, and yet here you go spreading false narratives.

you can kick rocks right along with that CEO.

No, I refuse to go back and read 6 pages of the same rhetoric over and over.

I commented on your last post, because that's the only post I care to have read.

A lot of people said Trump wouldn't win either, that didn't turn out as you hoped.

Everyone I know complains about the left and complains about the right, and are constantly complaining about candidates and lack of quality there are, yet go to the booth year in and year out voting the same crap way they have in the past.

Why wasn't Gary Johnson or Jill Stein allowed to be in the debates with Trump and Hillary? Some archaic rules I would suppose to keep them both out so the majority of the country doesn't see that their are other options.

That's the problem, not that a 3rd party couldn't or wouldn't win, its because the media and status quo is to keep the everyday joe from knowing about them.

hmm, why? Trumps not a billionare you have said multiple times lol

Ones income at a certain point, does it matter? 100 million dollars or a billion, honestly.

FYI, when LeBron runs, and hes a billionare, ill remember you said that too

i stopped reading the rest of your post the moment you mentioned trump.

trump ran under the GOP banner. he was their candidate and not a third party candidate, which is the ENTIRE POINT of my post about that CEO.

good lord you can't even stick to the basics.

There's your sign, I never equated trump to running as a 3rd party. smh.

Shultz is more of a conservative than a liberal. He’d actually have a chance as a GOP candidate. IMO I see him taking a lot of votes away from trump, not so much the dems. Besides trump looks weaker and weaker everyday. So it really doesn’t matter to me if Schulz throws his hat in as an indie. He’ll spend a bunch, and lose a bunch.

America is such a pathetic hellscape that we can no longer operate as a nation without a billionaire telling us what we need to do. That billionaire just so happens to run a coffee company who had a company day off to remind employees not to call police on black people. We're so sad.

j/c

I haven't looked at many of the candidates closely. I watched Kamala Harris in her town hall. As with most politicians most of her answers were vague and included more rhetoric than actually addressing the questions. Typical.

But here's what I will say about her. It seems the main objective of the Dems is to defeat Trump. And that's just common sense. Everyone on here knows how I feel about him and why.

So if that's the actual goal, they'll have to nominate a candidate that can take Trump on one on one. That's where I feel Harris has the upper hand. Being a former prosecutor and D.A. gives her a killer instinct. She's gone toe to toe with high priced defense attorneys and understands how to convince people of her way of thinking. She knows how to handle wanna be tough guys like Trump.

She's the one candidate coming from the Democrats that I feel has the best chance to take Trump on one on one and mop the floor with him. Presidential debates have a lot of sway with voters and I can see her beating his arse at it.

It would give many of those who voted for Trump an alternative and still be able to say they didn't vote for the Democratic candidate.

i agree with that.

but still, she better make sure she has realistic plans if she does indeed beat Trump. people are crying about the medicare for all position she's taken, but thats actually a popular idea amongst a lot of americans, and depending on how this year and next plays out, could be ultimately have majority support. that and single payer is already very popular with us liberals, and slowly gaining more support from conservatives who are ticked that republicans still haven't done squat to address the problem.

but what about all her other positions? time will tell i suppose. she has some ethical concerns that bother me, but who doesn't. she's certainly the favorite over Pocahontas and Spartacus right now, and Trump and his base wouldn't be looking forward to Trump vs Harris on the debate stage, thats for sure.

One thing about it, you know Trump and some of his followers would say a lot of stupid things that would make it pretty easy to spot some of the racists.

i agree, although it will be less about race and a lot more about her dating life, which the right is already starting the smear campaign over.

there's plenty of actual policy issues to criticize her over, i'm just worried the right won't focus on that and focus more on her own dating life.

Kamala is already hedging against Medicare 4 All. She's another snake politician.

all of them are snakes. we're simply trying to pick the best one.

That's rich coming from the right and easily countered. They elected a man who has cheated on all three of his wives including with a porn star and a playboy bunny. Now they want to talk about morals?

Is there a reason why you hate rich people or billionaires so much? Just wondering nearly every single politician is rich. If they have that much money there is a chance that they know how to get things done and are somewhat successful. Are you against people becoming successful?

What's your issue? I'm not following. Why do you bring up race and social status in almost every one of your posts? Just asking.

this can't be a serious post.

everybody on this board agrees that we have way too much big money in politics. so i dunno why its "hate rich people" when it comes to this aspect of politics.

you can't complain about politicians being corporate puppets, then turn around and support the puppet master.

I don't hate rich people or billionaires. But I'm not a fan of the violence used to accumulate that wealth. Pretty much every single politician is bad and the wealth they amass comes directly from their inability to their job properly. I want people to be successful unlike you. You want a few people to be successful and you want that to be predicated on their birth and a little bit of hard work.

The reason why I cannot respect neocons is exactly spelled out in your post. Republicans today don't support capitalism or democracy, they support state corporatism, where corporations extend beyond their financial role into a political overseer. They want this because it provides a fast track to allocate our nation's resources. They're such consumers that they forgot what actual production looks like.

Well everything you stated about republican view points is completely wrong which doesn't surprise me. I could tell you what I think of the current democratic party but you probably already know.

You and Swish seem to have a problem where you make broad sweeping generalizations, be it a person or event. You both need to work on that.

I'm not a Democrat. I've written that about 8 times in the past week. Look, you're chock-full of broad generalizations that have no basis in reality. 10 minutes ago you said the New Yorker wasn't credible. Get a grip on reality and stop letting your own narrative lead you in life.

It's fine to say that, or even think that. But then those pesky facts get in the way.

Tillerson was the CEO of Exxon. The wealth of his cabinet members is staggering. Education Secretary-nominee Betsy DeVos ($5 billion), Commerce Secretary-nominee Wilbur Ross ($2.5 billion) and Small Business Administrator-nominee Linda McMahon ($1.6 billion).

From big banking, you know, the people we had to bailout? Mnuchin, following in his father’s footsteps, cut his deal-making teeth at Goldman. White House strategist Steve Bannon put in his time there, and the designated director of the National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, was long considered to be the next CEO at the investment bank.

Hey, at least you can't call this generalizations.

Point being, Trump has helped to place big money, big business and big banks in charge of a lot of our government and the facts, not accusations, bear that out.

Yep and when this happens you have leaders that are so disconnected that they think you can go to the store and get groceries loaned to you while you work out the financial bumps... WTH?

So then you know what millions of people stand for at an individual level? When I talk about republican viewpoints I'm including everyone in the whole country that could support the party.

Get the heck outta here with the you're no a democrat. What are you then? A socialist, a communist?

Since poles indicate that 86% of Republicans back and support Trump and he is the current leader of the Republican party, that the facts speak for themselves.

1. That's not mathematically possible for polls to give an accurate opinion of political viewpoints of all. Polls commonly limited by sample size, who is asking the questions, and error\bias rate. Which poll are you referencing, who did it, which people were sampled?

2. I fully support the president of the United States as should all of you. If the president fails then your country goes down with him.

3. Apparently you've never heard of someone identifying with a majority party even though they don't agree with them on every single viewpoint. Nearly everyone I know is this way, most likely including yourself. I've met very few people who agree with their own party on everything. This is a flaw in the current two party system because both parties are moving more and more extreme. Personally I'd like an independent or libertarian to win the presidential election.

Yet they voted for him. What more do Republicans have to do until you admit they support Trump? Hoping a president succeeds doesn't mean you support them as a politician and agree with their platform. There's a difference.

Let's go one step further. McConnell wouldn't even bring a bill to vote before the senate unless he knew Trump would sign it for over a month. Where was the outrage from Republicans?

When you sit idley by and say nothing, vote for and stay silent on issues, your support is evident. When the leader of the majority of the senate refuses to bring anything to the floor unless he knows the president will sign it and you sit by and say nothing, you're supporting it.

save it. you didnt show this level of support for obama, so everyone here is well aware that you're full of it right now.

The latter.

This is such nonsense. Typically, especially in cases like with Trump, the country does better once the failing President is out of office. The US didn't fail when Nixon went down, we failed because of Nixon. The same can be applied to Trump.

This person absolutely has the stuff to be president.

This is just a general response because I could not read through 7 pages of the cons vs libs drivel.

SO let me throw this out there because as a Republican turned Libertarian I am not sure how I feel on this. But Libertarian Bill Weld is going to run in the Repub primaries. While I like the fact that maybe this is the only way to get the Libertarian agenda in the door, in a way I feel kind of like we are selling out.

So my two choices, as of right now would be Rand Paul or Bill WEld, either of those two guys could bring me back to the Republican Party. I want the Neo Nazis, white supremacists, White nationals, or whatever is the term 0f the hour gone from my party. I want to get back to what the Repub party is supposed to be about , and these individuals have destroyed that.

There's more people like you out there than some would care to admit.

I'm never going to agree with either party on every issue. But bringing back at least an ounce of respect to the Republican party is certainly a step in the right direction.

I'm curious to know who the Democrat Party would prefer to go up against. I don't consider Trump in a position to win re-election, although the recent news as of late and media bias continues to push people away from progressive agendas.

That said, Bill Weld is, for the most part, an unknown to many voters and it could look like, if he were to win a primary, that the Republicans are more divided than originally thought, had a knee-jerk reaction to a Libertarian candidate because of Trump's antics, and went against the grain of keeping with their party preference for a re-election term.

Just thinking out loud at this point.

Pence would be a slam dunk, but the Democrats would get demolished by Trump if they don't embrace M4A at least.

Based on how the last election played out - I think it's totally wrong for anyone to think Trump is out of it. I spent a year before the last election saying Trump was un-electable. . . . a month before the election and seeing how putrid Clinton's campaign was, the harm Comey did and then driving through rural OH and IN and seeing tons of 'Trump' banners in front yards together with NO Clinton support on display I started to change my mind. Never say never - the opposition HAS to step up and stand for something and appeal to the middle ground.

Rand Paul please.

That's who I was pulling for in the 2016 election because he aligns closest to all of my views. Unfortunately he wasn't the nominee.

2020 I am either voting for Rand Paul, Howard Schultz, Donald Trump, or Ross Perot.

Bill Weld is a career Republican, his tenure as Governor of Mass was as a Republican, he is just another guy who saw the party losing their damn mind

Well he's got that going for him at least. That's a big positive.

Democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders enters the 2020 presidential race

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign.html

OCD is jumping for joy!

YUP! GO Bernie!

Not sure he will be my candidate this time around or not, but he is why the left is more left now!

Medicare for all!
Education!
Infrastructure!
Criminal Justice/Prison Reform!
Green New Deal!
Addressing Income Inequality!

And more things good for the average Joe! No more Billionaire looking out for Billionaires. No more traitor selling us out to the highest bidder and destroying our world standing.

Read something that sounded like a compromise maybe Kloboucher? Free community college...that would be something a lot of people would flip on.

I've been watching Klobuchar and like most of what I see.

When junior gets free college that his parents pay for with high taxes, who really benefits? Is it really free?

That's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.

I know you won't watch it 40, but here it is.




Bernie is the most popular politician in America. #FACT

Of course it's not actually free, nothing is. However baseline education for people without the means would improve our country not hurt it. The money pouring out overseas is NOT America first, Educating our own IS America first.

The artificial inflation of college is directly correlated to government backed loans....You go bankrupt....too bad so sad, the government won't forgive you on those loans. If we aren't going to expose these college to significant losses by exposing them to the reality that people cannot repay them for essentially defrauding teenagers then something has to give.

We are talking about state run colleges worth BILLIONS with a B.

Education is a good thing.
I see your point on out of control costs.
We also agree free education ain't free.

We have free community college in Tennessee with a Republican governor and a Republican legislature. 66% of the state voted for Trump. Sometimes your empty rhetoric does not apply. Romneycare is another example.

Never let facts get in the way of Trumpian propaganda!

And who pays for your free education?
You do, through higher taxes.
Republicans or Democrats can provide free food too, if you pay for it.

The taxes in Tennessee didn't go up when this was passed.

I can see it now. Our three choices again in 2020 will be

So the money comes from other needs, like paving roads and such.

It is not free.

40 is against making our lives better in favor of killing Arabs overseas.

No, 40's quota has been filled with 10's of thousands of dead ISIS fighters, I want us to come home now that Trump has gotten the limit.

Nah, 40 is onto his next war. He has to liberate US oil from Venezuela. He needs the troops. Drill baby drill!

Damn so we can’t scream “getting Arab money” anymore?

Bernie is so old he can't even comb his hair anymore.

trump is so fat he can't even see his own junk anymore.

He has Malania to look at it for him. All Barry had was Big Mike.

melania ain't touched his junk in years. and atleast obama's wife wasn't picked out of a catalog.

but lemme know what the new group of chicks look like that you're thinking of buying. you get yours from ukraine or russia?

LMAO Trump can't even get Melania to hold his hand! Having baron sealed the deal for her to get paid, now she's just waiting (wishfully) for Trump to die or ditch her. lol

You couldn't be more wrong!

I am pulling for Bernie for 2020!

If America is going down the tubes as a Socialist Country, who better to lead us down than the King of Socialism!

I encourage all Libs to join me in voting for Bernie because he was robbed by Hillary and we owe it to him to have his day.
(wipes unhinged, emotionally overwhelmed tear from his eye)

Forget MAGA bucky, this time it will be...

United
States
Socialist
Republic

Good to know that being morally bankrupt and sleeping with mistresses when your wife is pregnant isn't an issue but hair is .... but then again, apparently you think Trump's hair is kosher ... smh.

Booty Duty Monthly?

Yet you say SOCIALISM like it's a bad thing, when we could use a little socialism to fix this dumpster fire Trump and other GOPers created.

Trophy Wives for Loser Guys weekly.

Trump is so old that he has dementia so bad that the FBI has to consider evoking the 25th amendment so a child mind won't have the nuclear codes.

Ever studied history before? The ideas of socialism have killed millions of people.

Because unbridled capitalism works out for everyone...

Why don't you try to understand the real facts and drop the Russian sourced GOPer anti-democrat slurs.

Where does Socialism work? Venezuela, Cuba ?

Uruguay, Europe and Africa

Automatic response from a make belief system. That it just hasn't been implemented correctly!!!

Ideas relating to socialism below. Intentions may have started out good but ended in death due to government control, famine, misused resources, power hungry controllers.

Stalin: ~20 million people

Lenin: ~5-7 million people

Mao Zedong: ~45 million people

Democratic socialism is a fake buzzword and is a path to real socialism. Once you get to socialism the next step after that is communism. The goal of socialism is to transfer from a capitalism to communist philosophy, its the in-between step. What is most scary is that you don't seem to learn from the past history of economics or how governments and people behave selfishly.

Alright, do Hitler, King Leopold, Churchill and US's #'s.

Yea, I love how people pretend that we don’t have a stupidly high ass body count ourselves.

In addition, socialism provides a fake top down planning economy with artificial supply and demand. The market and prices don't dictate freely the way they're supposed to. I'm against most government interference, regulation, most tariffs in the market because of this reason.

The free market principle of the invisible hand is there for a reason.

It cost 30,000 to 80,000 to keep someone in jail PER YEAR. THe cost of college and trade schools at most state levels is less than 10k per year when the school is set up as a non profit. We can easily afford to send every kind in the USA to college just by knowing that if we do so the chances they will end up in prison drops by 90%. When kids don't learn a trade or go to college their chances of ending up in prison rise dramatically due to the desperate situations they will face due to being unemployed and no hope of finding decent work.

I'd rather pay taxes to educate people than to keep them locked up in prison anyday.

We don't have a free market anymore. We have a corporation run regional monopoly system where a big company buys all the supply and holds onto to it to drive up demand and them unloads it all to bankrupt the competition who can't sell at a loss long enough to survive the sudden price drops.

The only way to have a free market is to ban corporations whose only goal is to destroy and tear things apart so they can make profit from the pieces they carve up.

Invisible hand that passes everything to the 1%ers. Bro you live in a Plutocracy, there is no capitalism here anymore and you are too blind to see it. We are talking about empowering the common man not some myth about pulling up your bootstraps and getting the American dream!

I'd love to have 1950s style opportunity today, but that is only going to come if we level the wealth inequality playing field and educate our working class. Have you looked at twitter or facebook or even on here? More than a few can't form a sentence or recite basic facts!

And you are just another statistic on how keeping people afraid of everything keeps you under the thumbs of those with real freedom. The say boogie man this week is socialist and give you a death toll from communist regimes and you lose you crap!

How about you calm down and look around. Maybe there are others you could give a hand up to, maybe even get one yourself. We are all in this together, there is no Red and Blue in we the people because that's what the founders wanted. People working together to build the perfect union. What we have now is not that at all.

Preach

j/c:

I gave $4.20 yesterday.

4 times more than Kamala Harris who was second in the first 24 hours at 1.5 Mil, the Klobuchar second at 1 Mil, and Warren third at 300K.

You should read Adam Smith. He was very fearful of the power of the free market and how it would destroy citizens.

As far as the invisible hand goes, I always liked the quote, "It's an invisible hand because it's not always there. Invisible hand doesn't take into account externalities.

if bernie wins the primaries then im going to go ahead and cast my vote for him. screw it.

he better have revised that trash ass tax plan of his from 2016, though.

I don't care WHO wins the nomination this time, I'm voting against Trump and for the dem. I like Bernie but he'll be running against the media and the establishment just like last time. I just wonder if the DNC will be stupid enough to cheat him this time around.

i can say with confidence the DNC learned their lesson.

however, don't pull that nonsense and think just because bernie lose the primaries this time around, that it must automatically mean the DNC cheated.

For the first time in my life, I'm thinking about voting for a Democrat for federal or state position. To win my vote they will leave to at least believe in M4A. I would prefer it if they also supported the Green New Deal, but it's not a requisite.

Only if it's as blatant and obvious as last time bro. It's no secret I like Bernie but I'm open to any dem over Trump bro. But I think Trump is going to get primaried hard too, between that and potential impeachment it might not even be him in 2020.

Personally I don't want to see Trump challenged in a primary because that will help him solidify his base before the general election.

I'm thinking of voting Democratic next time. Hav'nt made up my mind yet. Heels up Harris,Pocahonas. Crazy Bernie, Spartacus, stupid OLD joe Biden......Never mind any Republican over these clowns is my choice.

Well, you have Lying Donnie and his Russian friends.

Its starting to look like the Russian thing is just another 2 year money drop by the Dems. I will be expecting a lot of apoligies from you Lefties.... Not holding my breath though.

huh?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

Yeah with all the contacts that those surrounding him have lied about and the indictments, convictions of those surrounding him, it looks great!

I mean we all know that wonderful people surround themselves with criminals.

He can't even keep wedding vows much less tell you the truth.

Class warfare is a common tenant, talking point of advocating for socialism. All that talk that you preach about the 1%, why do you have a problem with people like that?

I'm perfectly calm I don't understand why do you always talk about the 1%? Do you think all rich people are bad? Do you think they some haven't earned what they've got? Do you think they're not entitled to keep what is theirs, that they've earned? Do you want their money? Do you want a handout that you haven't earned? I don't really get it.

When I don't succeed I don't blame my failures on the 1% either. I take responsibility. Blaming inequality because you can't succeed is a scapegoat and a BS excuse. Socialism promises a social utopia where everyone shares resources. If I make a living by working hard, you're darn right I'm going to keep and choose what I spend my money on. If I feel like helping people that is a choice, a CHOICE, not a forced government overly taxing me to shift money to people who didn't truly earn it.

I'm just truly trying to understand why someone would be for a system of socialism. To me that is like death...

Webster's defines socialism as the following:

socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I think people need to do a little thinking and understand the difference between having some socialist policies within a democracy and having a system of socialism.

Save your breath ... the right wing propaganda machine has set the agenda and the stooges are parroting. End of story. Facts won't work, real life won't work.

You seem to be against fundamental economics and the long term success that is capitalism. You need to learn from Milton Friedman. The people in the crowd could be OCD, CHS, or yourself. You need intervention.

Here's another video for you talking with common sense.

j/c

Here,s what the democrats are missing.

You already carry all of the liberal states. You lost the election in states like Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania and those are the places needed to win in 2020.

Winning New York, California and other already liberal states aren't going to give you any more electoral votes.

You're not going to flip the electoral college by coming out with an extremely wild progressive agenda. I think you can sell a living wage, free community college and national healthcare to voters in the states you need.

But when you start talking about reparations and a green deal that overhauls an entire economy in ten years, you're going over the top. When you start talking about free four year degrees for everyone, your talking point flies in the face of what it will take to win in 2020.

Somehow the left doesn't think you need the middle to win. But a lot of voters went from Obama voters to Trump voters for a reason. And those are the voters that decided the presidential election in 2016. A wildly progressive agenda will only help repeat that.

and whatever you do, don't call them names, publicly, on a presidential campaign if they disagree with you. You get into a name calling battle with 45 and the outcome won't be good, he is not good at most things, but name calling....he's the man.

I'm not so sure that name calling is considered manly. Elementary playground material to be sure. But not so much when you're in your 70's.

He wouldn't last 15 minutes in the neighborhood where I grew up.

The minute he showed up with those longass ties and that ridiculous hair, he'd be Target Number One®

"Hey, look at that head... man, whatchyou call dat?"
"Fifty shades of hay!"

Yeah, I'm not sure how much creativity is involved with "lying Ted". Most of his shtick was pretty weak.

Come on you all would have been calling him a giant Oompa Loompa

My wife who doesn't take a great deal of interest in politics has been calling him a giant oompa lumpa for the last 2 year !

I like Bernie, his stance on private prisons would have tipped my hand into the D voting pool has he been the nomination.....but this narrative isn't going to go away. He's right, there is sooo much information, but that excuse doesn't work.

It seems to work well with the GOP sheep when trump spews his BS on the fake news.

j/c

So the field is crowded and growing. It's early, and almost no candidate has done anything to distinguish him/herself. Until now.

Yesterday, I listened to a full hour-long interview with the least-known of them all: South Bend IN's mayor Pete Buttigeig (pronounced: 'bootijidge').

A wholly impressive individual. Intelligent, insanely articulate, and possessing a fleshed-out vision of what America's next steps should be.

Layered, nuanced, and considerate on issues both on and beneath the surface, he has an air of balance and good judgement. It doesn't hurt that he served his nation in Afghanistan, earned a Rhodes scholarship, and distinguished himself at both Harvard and Oxford.

Plain-spoken and no-nonsense, he presents a commonsense Midwest approach to contemporary issues... all while expressing himself in full, complete sentences.

Picture an energetic, youthful candidate like Beto O'Rourke... but with more brains and gravitas.

I'll be looking forward to seeing f he'll make a serious run. He's the least-known, but could easily end up being the most impressive of all Done candidates.

.02

I like Pete Buttigeig too, but I don't think he will get enough traction this time around.

It's late already.

He needs to lay his groundwork in Iowa, NEB, KS, etc like BHO44 did. IN is already mostly his, now that Pence is out-of-state.
Having an infrastructure at his back would help, as well. I don't know how well-organized he is just yet.
His advantage: He's not from either coast, he speaks like his neighbors, and has a clear vision that isn't super extreme.

I would be interested to hear the views of Razorthorns, who actually lives in Buttigeig's town. Would be nice to hear about his administrative style from a first-hand POV.

Pete Buttigieg is a sharp guy. He's young and likely has a long political career ahead. A Presidential run will get his name out there on a national level.

He will also be the first openly gay candidate to run for President.

Clem, did you listen to his interview on WNYC with Amy Walter by chance?

No, but I'll chase it down, fershur.

Check you inbox, Dawg

Truth in print. I ignored it/didn't mention it because for me it's the least important of his personal traits/attributes. Dude's presentation is sharp as a razor, and he has his crap in a pile.

Thanks for the other interview tip, Dawg. Deep appreciation.

Being gay will hurt his run for President in the bible belt.

I really like Pete. I heard him on an NPR interview a few weeks ago, and while I may not agree with all of his politics, I think he is a stand up guy.

Just checking in here, do the democrats have any viable candidates or does everyone have extreme leftist views?


Anyone have moderate stances?

Why do you care? You're a Trump guy.

It is good to have options.

Good to know you are at least considering your options.

I would like the same thing for healthcare, options.

well you won't find that on the right.

*

You sure as heck won't find healthcare options on the left . You get your government for all healthcare and you're going to like it! (Ted Knight voice) Not private entities for you!

I'd rather have options and free choice through the market.

It will hurt him in more than just the bible belt...This country as a whole is not ready for that yet. Religious or not.

I'm just confused why the far right cares about moderate thoughts in the Democratic party. I can't remember the last time a moderate Republican was elected to anything. Certainly not since Obama was elected.

This juvenile behavior is annoying.

Tulsi Gabbard you might like, I know that I do.

Do you think her gay conversion therapy past is surmountable?

I think it's a zero sum issue. She will apologies (already has) explain that she was young and has grown since (she has). At the end of the day on that issue, she will probably offset any hard lefts who will never forgive for hard rights who like that sort of trash.

It would only be a deal breaker within the DNC I'm assuming. Could be wrong.

This country wasn't ready for a [gasp] Black man, either... right up until the day they elected one.


just sayin'-

We were much closer to that outcome than that of gay President.
I'd even say we will see a woman President before we see a gay man President.

Of course, as we have recently seen, the opponents have a large affect on the sway of voters, probably more so than the candidate themselves.

We should probably change the ballot to have X's put next to names you DO NOT want elected, rather than selecting who you do. Probably be less arguing when you say "Who did you vote against", rather than "Who did you vote for"

While I don't think you intended it this way, that's a very loaded question. The term moderate has very differing meanings depending on who you ask. I also don't think we'll see anything moderate about whomever the Democrats nominate.

Let's look what happened in 2016 with the GOP when they had such a crowded field. There were some moderate candidates among that field that were established members of the GOP. What happened is that the majority of GOP votes were split among those qualified candidates and the rest went to the most vile, extreme candidate in the field.

I expect the exact same thing from the Democrats. They will refuse to recognize that the 2016 election was lost by ignoring the mid west voters and they lost the election by just over 77,000 votes.

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan were lost by a total vote count of 77,744 votes. Or. 0.057% of the vote in those combined states.

I don't expect them to get their heads out of their collective asses to understand that you can't convince the people you need to win the presidency by telling them you need to overhaul everything at once that causes a quick, extreme change in our entire system.

Moderate, as I said, varies in its meaning from person to person. But I believe you can convince people of national healthcare if they're given the option of choosing private healthcare too if they wish.

I believe most Americans can see how far backwards those on the lower income level have fallen. I mean if you just take a simple look at the buying power of minimum wage in the 1970's to today, the difference is monumental. So I think phasing in a living wage is something you can sell to most voters. Just being able to break even on a workers buying power over a period of time isn't what I see as some huge liberal idea.

But I think we'll see an ultra liberal with ideas you simply can't sell to the average American emerge from the crowd. It seems like politics has become an all or nothing sum with both sides using it as a tool to tear apart our country.