Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

A pack of nobodies is running for President

Recommended Posts

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Like Oprah...a real chance at taking-on Trump...but enjoys being beloved by all...not just half the population.

:lol:

 

Right....a viable foe with name recognition and ability to raise money, but she doesn't want to swim in the toilet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Right....a viable foe with name recognition and ability to raise money, but she doesn't want to swim in the toilet.

 

Hillary 2020 (Campaign Slogan: Why Am I With Her?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boges said:

Please cite some Dems that aren't "nobodies". Derision from "any" Democrat candidate will come. I'm sure Obama faced similar derision. The 2016 race suffered from a lack of candidates. Good or otherwise.  

We talking Biden, Sanders, O'Rourke? Only white men need apply? 

How about Corey Booker? 

Fringe Leftist is certainly subjective. I'm sure Obama is seen as a Fringe Leftist and he would have served Trump his lunch if he could have run again. 

I've already expressed my opinion on the kind of candidate the democrats need in order to crush the Republicans.

White. Male. Moderate to centrist. Strong business or military background. Such a person could steal everyone in the center and left, and grab some centre right votes too. He'd also have the ability to propose sensible policies which the majority of Americans want, like national health care and better gun control, without provoking the same outrage these policies would arouse if proposed by someone from the Left.

Someone like Jim Webb, for example, could, I think, crush Trump. Or maybe Bill McRaven. Hell, he could take Texas for the Democrats.

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boges said:

So forgive me in disagreeing that a woman like Kamala Harris would be a non-starter. IN FACT there's not a more mushy middle candidate I can think of than Hilary and she lost. And it's not even that Trump really beat her, it's that she didn't garner any excitement and people stayed home.

There's another aspect to this selection. People should be looking for someone who can unite the country, not further divide it. Harris would further divide it, and solidify the division that Trump has been working so hard at.

https://www.businessinsider.com/seal-william-mcraven-who-slammed-trump-eyed-for-spot-on-2020-ticket-2018-8

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Argus said:

There's another aspect to this selection. People should be looking for someone who can unite the country, not further divide it. Harris would further divide it, and solidify the division that Trump has been working so hard at.

 

Not going to happen...not the most important issue despite media talking heads who actually want more conflict to drive ratings.

Obama did not "unify" the country..."unification" is way overrated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boges said:

Please cite some Dems that aren't "nobodies". Derision from "any" Democrat candidate will come. I'm sure Obama faced similar derision. The 2016 race suffered from a lack of candidates. Good or otherwise.  

We talking Biden, Sanders, O'Rourke? Only white men need apply? 

How about Corey Booker? 

Fringe Leftist is certainly subjective. I'm sure Obama is seen as a Fringe Leftist and he would have served Trump his lunch if he could have run again. 

Definitely Joe Biden.  Perhaps Andrew Cuomo.  Even Michael Bloomberg.  The problem is that Democrats have been decimated at the local and state levels, as well as in Washington until this past election.  So there isn't a deep bench of governors or legislators that they can draw from.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Argus said:

You might or might not have heard of the various nobodies proudly declaring they're running for president down south. It unfortunately looks like the Democratic party is in something of the same sort of flux the Republican party was in a few years ago, when about a dozen people declared they were running to lead the party. It's two years from the next election and there are already five declared candidates for the Democrats, none of them people of any substance, most of them (all the women) from the far fringes of the Left. Names like Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris and John Delaney do not exactly resonate as experienced, veteran politicians.

The reason this is a bad thing is because with a whole host of candidates the crazy ones can slip through without the proper degree of attention being focused on them. Witness Donald Trump.

There is an ongoing theme that a woman deserves to be the candidate because Hillary Clinton was supposed to be the first female president, and #metoo. That, of course, is bloody idiocy. Clinton was an experienced veteran, and in spite of her attachment to identity politics, could have made a decent president. No one else is in her league. Also, the best candidate to defeat Trump is clearly a moderate centrist, not a fringe leftist. The Democrats are on the path to choosing the latter and handing Trump another term in office.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46947839

Your analysis paints you as someone completely out of touch with reality.  You obviously want the next George Bush.  Unfortunately for you, hardly anyone else does.

People want change.  When Obama couldn't (or wouldn't) deliver, they were so frustrated, they elected a senile know-it-all who talks like someone's embarrassing racist uncle.  Trump won't deliver either, at least not in any way that will make most people happy.  It looks more and more like Trump's main accomplishment will be to demonstrate conclusively that about one third of the US electorate consists of racist lunatics who aren't too bright.

It's likely Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016.  Unfortunately, the Democratic party is controlled by people who (like you, it seems) are perfectly happy with all the wealth being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

The tsunami is  coming and people like you are going to find yourselves swept away.  Buh bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ReeferMadness said:

Your analysis paints you as someone completely out of touch with reality.  You obviously want the next George Bush.  Unfortunately for you, hardly anyone else does.

Which George Bush?

Quote

People want change. 

They want change from Trump. They want change from chaos. They want order and intelligence and competence.

Quote

The tsunami is  coming and people like you are going to find yourselves swept away.  Buh bye.

The people like me? Centrists, you mean?

Edited by Argus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Argus said:

They want order and intelligence and competence.

Meh, you overestimate people. Just like in ancient times, people just want bread and circuses. Trump is great at the circus part, at least.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

Which George Bush?

They want change from Trump. They want change from chaos. They want order and intelligence and competence.

The people like me? Centrists, you mean?

 

15 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Meh, you overestimate people. Just like in ancient times, people just want bread and circuses. Trump is great at the circus part, at least.

Jesus.  You guys really don't get it.

They thought they were voting for change when they elected Obama but he let them down.   Clinton was completely out of touch and didn't even bother to campaign on change until long after she was defined as a tired, corrupt legacy figure.  So, they held their noses and voted for the buffoon Trump.

If AOC were old enough to run for POTUS, she would probably win in a landslide.  She's young, smart, savvy and not afraid to say what she thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ReeferMadness said:

If AOC were old enough to run for POTUS, she would probably win in a landslide.  She's young, smart, savvy and not afraid to say what she thinks.

 

Nope...wouldn't even get a nomination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that new faces come to politics.

 

I don't like those new faces and old socialist ideas though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ReeferMadness said:

Jesus.  You guys really don't get it.

They thought they were voting for change when they elected Obama but he let them down.  

Voting for "change" means nothing. Change can be any of a million things, in many different directions. Ask 10 people about what they would like to see changed and you'll get 20 different answers. There's two things that win votes in America: providing entertainment and controversy, which Trump excels at, and promising free stuff, which a Democrat challenger will likely try to do. 

Quote

If AOC were old enough to run for POTUS, she would probably win in a landslide.  She's young, smart, savvy and not afraid to say what she thinks.

She'd win in a landslide in liberal areas, and be rejected in a landslide everywhere else. Electoral map would look the same as always but probably even more starkly divided than usual. As for not being afraid to say what she thinks, of course she's not afraid, she's in a super safe seat for that kind of rhetoric. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bonam said:

Voting for "change" means nothing. Change can be any of a million things, in many different directions. Ask 10 people about what they would like to see changed and you'll get 20 different answers. There's two things that win votes in America: providing entertainment and controversy, which Trump excels at, and promising free stuff, which a Democrat challenger will likely try to do. 

She'd win in a landslide in liberal areas, and be rejected in a landslide everywhere else. Electoral map would look the same as always but probably even more starkly divided than usual. As for not being afraid to say what she thinks, of course she's not afraid, she's in a super safe seat for that kind of rhetoric. 

AOC can say whatever she wants, she's unopposed and rather has her butt licked by everyone who think they could get some at the same time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

If AOC were old enough to run for POTUS, she would probably win in a landslide.  She's young, smart, savvy and not afraid to say what she thinks.

You seem to have a very odd idea about what the voters would go for. I think if she was the alternative to Trump, Trump would have no problem getting re-elected.

This is a woman who won the nomination in a very safe Democratic seat by saying the 10 term Democratic representative, probably the most liberal congressman in the house, had to be replaced because he was a white man. White men should not be representing the district, she said. It was an open and unapologetic appeal to race politics. Aside from racial politics she has literally nothing going for her. She's barely out of college and has had a couple of short term race-based jobs since then. What exactly qualifies her to even be a congressperson much less president?

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people-- not just left-wing voters-- are starting to question the system. A couple of signs that this isn't just a left-wing thing anymore:

 -Tucker Carlson's recent monologue about how capitalism isn't working for working-class families anymore, and the flurry of debate it touched off among right-wing commentators at places like the National Review.

 -Ann Coulter endorsing Ocasio-Cortez's suggestion of a 70% top marginal tax bracket: "start with the Koch brothers and make it a WEALTH tax!"

In 2016 large numbers of people jumped onto the Trump train as well as the Bernie Sanders bandwagon because they're fed up with the status quo.  While some of the people who voted for Trump might well have been motivated by a fear of Mexicans or Muslims, many of them voted for Trump because they believed he was going to fight for the blue collar people-- those Rust Belt voters in Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania that won him those states by a razor-thin margin voted for Trump because they thought he would listen to them while the establishment politicians in both parties aren't listening.

I think that desire still exists and has only grown stronger. And that's why I think there's a strong appetite for the kind of policies that Elizabeth Warren has put at the center of her campaign. Breaking up monopolies, accountability for financial institutions, attacking tax avoidance, and this kind of thing: these are policies that people of all political stripes support.  And that has been the focus of Warren's whole political career, starting from when she designed the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau for Obama before she was a Senator.  I think an end to the rigged game in economics is one of the public's highest priorities right now, and Warren is the most credible person to campaign on that issue.

  -k

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kimmy said:

A lot of people-- not just left-wing voters-- are starting to question the system.

I question it myself, often enough. I look around the world and I'm searching for the capable, honest elected governments and I'm not seeing them. Everywhere I look it's bland, venal, self-serving people with small minds only focused on their own re-election. I don't see strong, capable, competent government much these days.

10 hours ago, kimmy said:

In 2016 large numbers of people jumped onto the Trump train as well as the Bernie Sanders bandwagon because they're fed up with the status quo.  While some of the people who voted for Trump might well have been motivated by a fear of Mexicans or Muslims, many of them voted for Trump because they believed he was going to fight for the blue collar people-- those Rust Belt voters in Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania that won him those states by a razor-thin margin voted for Trump because they thought he would listen to them while the establishment politicians in both parties aren't listening.

Yes. And boy were they played for suckers. That's part of the reason I can't stand Trump.

10 hours ago, kimmy said:

I think that desire still exists and has only grown stronger. And that's why I think there's a strong appetite for the kind of policies that Elizabeth Warren has put at the center of her campaign. Breaking up monopolies, accountability for financial institutions, attacking tax avoidance, and this kind of thing: these are policies that people of all political stripes support.  And that has been the focus of Warren's whole political career, starting from when she designed the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau for Obama before she was a Senator.  I think an end to the rigged game in economics is one of the public's highest priorities right now, and Warren is the most credible person to campaign on that issue.

Some of that certainly sounds good. The problem is that no politicians is more deeply invested in identity politics than Elizabeth Warren, which means that she regularly demonizes the very people you speak about in the paragraph above. Thus Warren is anathema to them. And frankly, a person who claimed minority status at university because she thought she was 1/32nd Cherokee is not someone I'm going to find a lot of respect for in my heart. And she's made a fool out of herself on that claim as recently as last month. She's also 69, and would be 72 when sworn in. Is that really the age to be starting a new and extraordinarily stressful and time-consuming job of vast importance and responsibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another nobody has announced he was running for the Democratic nomination.

His name is Pete Buttigieg. And if you don't know who he is, well, obviously you haven't been following Indiana politics closely enough! He's the mayor of South Bend.
His claim to worthiness is apparently that he's young (37) and gay. He is now the ninth person who has declared their intention to run for the nomination.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46970207

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 8:04 AM, Argus said:

The problem is that no politicians is more deeply invested in identity politics than Elizabeth Warren, which means that she regularly demonizes the very people you speak about in the paragraph above.

Huh?  When has that ever happened?

On 1/22/2019 at 8:04 AM, Argus said:

And frankly, a person who claimed minority status at university because she thought she was 1/32nd Cherokee is not someone I'm going to find a lot of respect for in my heart. And she's made a fool out of herself on that claim as recently as last month.

And this "Pocahontas" stuff is the most artificial, most manufactured, inane controversy I've ever heard of. The idea that she claimed minority status to get ahead is nonsense.  She was the gold standard in corporate/bankruptcy law before anybody ever heard that she'd claimed to have native ancestry. I think the only people who think it's an issue are people who are already so deep in the Trump/Fox News sewer that the notion of them voting for Warren was never on the table in the first place.  (Kind of like Bill O'Reilly announcing that Kamala Harris has lost his vote. Oh Really?  You don't say!)

 -k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kimmy said:

Huh?  When has that ever happened?

She is a progressive, an ardent supporter of all the identity politics views those people loath, and which repeatedly insults and demonizes them. She is also a zealous supporter of black lives matter, of  race-based hiring and promotion quotas, and has called for abolishing US customs and immigration enforcement arm (ICE)

She's also an isolationist on trad, and an extremely unlikeable person who would be welcomed by the Republicans with shrieks of joy. 

8 hours ago, kimmy said:

And this "Pocahontas" stuff is the most artificial, most manufactured, inane controversy I've ever heard of. The idea that she claimed minority status to get ahead is nonsense. 

It's also undeniable. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warrens-identity-politics/2012/05/23/gJQAt53clU_story.html?utm_term=.18d3b1dee945

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 11:05 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

In my mind ?    Dude, I actually get to vote on such matters...do you ?

Lucky you....get to vote where foreign nations decide the outcome isn't that right comrade Bc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 8:28 AM, Argus said:

Another nobody has announced he was running for the Democratic nomination.

His name is Pete Buttigieg. And if you don't know who he is, well, obviously you haven't been following Indiana politics closely enough! He's the mayor of South Bend.
His claim to worthiness is apparently that he's young (37) and gay. He is now the ninth person who has declared their intention to run for the nomination.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46970207

 

Meh, they're all nobodies until they become President. Nothing new here. Just look at the contenders for the Republican nomination in 2016. A nomination season with lots of different candidates is better than a coronation of a candidate no one likes, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...