14
   

Big Crowd of Democrats For 2020

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2017 12:03 pm
I think it is too soon to measure Trump's progress with the base of Republicans and wavering other voters.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2017 05:40 am
The Republicans cheered every word out of the Donald's mouth. Not Bernie Sanders:

At a time when over half of older Americans have no retirement savings, I did not hear President Trump say one word, not one word, about Social Security or Medicare. During the campaign as we all remember, President Trump promised over, and over, and over again that he would not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But in his first address to the nation, he didn't even mention Social Security or Medicare once, not a single time. Even worse, President Trump has proposed a massive cut to Medicaid. Massive cut. Threatening the nursing home care of millions of senior citizens, and the health care of many of our children.
Sanders also held Trump to account for failing to mention climate change, which he described as "the greatest environmental threat facing our planet," and for his failure to address mass incarceration.

Not only did he not mention climate change, he pledged to increase our dependency on fossil fuels. Furthermore, at a time when we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, disproportionately African-American, Latino, Native-American, I did not hear President Trump say one word about how he was going to fix our broken criminal justice system.

And, of course ― it's right in his wheelhouse, after all ― Sanders hit Trump for his broken promise to "drain the swamp," pointing out just how swampy things are looking in the halls of pwer right now.

During his campaign, President Trump told us he was going to take on Wall Street and "drain the swamp." Remember that? Drain the swamp. Well, the swamp, big time, is now in his administration, which has more millionaires and billionaires than any presidential administration in history. Amazingly enough, for someone who's gonna drain the swamp, who's gonna take on Wall Street, his chief economic adviser Gary Cohn is the former president of Goldman Sachs. One of the major financial institutions that paid billions of dollars in fines for their illegal activity. That's really draining the swamp.
If you're interested in hearing Sanders' thoughts on everything Trump did say, some of which Sanders acknowledged "sounded good on the surface," you should definitely give his full response a look. It's only 14 minutes long, and it's a good display of a progressive taking an attack to Trump that's not at all based in personality, but entirely in policy.

For the record, Sanders wasn’t the person charged with giving the official Democratic response to Trump’s speech, a longstanding tradition for one lucky (or depending on how it goes, not so lucky) member of the opposition party. This time around, that job fell to someone who isn’t even in elected government right now ― former Democratic governor of Kentucky Steve Beshear, who was replaced by Republican Matt Bevan in late 2015.

Regardless, however, Sanders is a much bigger voice at the moment than Beshear is. Indeed, among grassroots progressive movement, there’s no doubt that Sanders’ voice carries a tremendous amount of clout, which means his above words could end up having some resonance.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/201505-bernie-sanders-reacts-to-trumps-congress-address-in-the-most-passionate-way
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2017 02:25 pm
@edgarblythe,
Are you giving up on the thread's premise of Democrats and potential 2020 candidates?

Disney CEO Bob Iger Reportedly Flirting With 2020 Presidential Run

And Oprah says to
look under your chair in about 2 years!
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2017 03:13 pm
@tsarstepan,
I hadn't given up, but had not seen new material. Thanks for those.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2017 03:17 pm
At this point I can't see myself getting on either band wagon. But it's early.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2017 12:37 pm
@edgarblythe,
Purple state/Democrat Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper as possible presidential candidate?

1. Too unknown?
2. Too bland?
3. Not enough support in own state?
4. Better choice for VP ticket?
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2017 12:56 pm
@tsarstepan,
I'm enthusiastic for him, as I've mentioned in another thread, but whether he could do well at the top of ticket is iffy even to me. Today I'll pick #4.
I assume he is aware of the iffiness factor.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2017 12:57 pm
@tsarstepan,
I don't know a thing about the man, but am willing to learn.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 01:44 pm
@edgarblythe,
Edgar is correct. The Clinton power structure is still in place, but laying low. Pelosi, Schumer, Perez. Many, many more. Certainly, the press.

The canary in the coal mine was the DNC seat. Sanders' guy lost.
0 Replies
 
girlie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 01:47 pm
@edgarblythe,
People also predicted that Trump would lose but he won...so I'm not believing anything in the Dems favor, lol.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 01:49 pm
@hightor,
A black president wasn't popular either.

Until we voted him in.

We already have socialism in many forms. Once the people finally understand how we've been lied to, used, and robbed, a form of socialism will prevail.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 01:51 pm
@edgarblythe,
Hot damn. I've been waiting.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 01:56 pm
@girlie,
She's the JTT of Republicans.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 02:22 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

We already have socialism in many forms. Once the people finally understand how we've been lied to, used, and robbed, a form of socialism will prevail.


How are you defining socialism with this remark?
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 02:53 pm
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:

Purple state/Democrat Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper as possible presidential candidate?

1. Too unknown?
2. Too bland?
3. Not enough support in own state?
4. Better choice for VP ticket?


I have seen some news feeds where Hickenlooper says he will not run in 2020.
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2017 03:10 pm
@edgarblythe,
I confirmed with Diane that Bob knew and worked with him re social services and liked him.
He seems cool to me, but given how things are happening now I figure he would fit better in some useful high up government department. I don't (not that I know him) take him as bound for longtime campaigning with all that entails.
On who he is, I posted a link somewhere to wiki, not sure it was this thread,
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Apr, 2017 01:50 pm
I'm listening to Tulsi Gabbard to try to get a better grasp on her philosophy, but I have a lot of respect for her out of the gate. She won't have the support of the DNC or the establishment Dems.

She may be strong enough to split the Dems and make a Sanders-like run in 2020. I'd LOVE to see her go head to head against the establishment with Bernie ******* Sanders and Nina Turner by her side. We have some up and coming, fierce, corruption-hating progressives ready for action.



0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Apr, 2017 04:35 pm
Tulsi

Donald Trump’s feverish tweeting appears to be contagious. Amid a chorus of praise for the administration’s cruise-missile strike on a Syrian air base last week, Neera Tanden, the head of the Center for American Progress, dashed off a tweet calling on voters in Hawaii to oust Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard for expressing skepticism about the Syrian government’s responsibility for the chemical attack that provoked the US military strikes. Former presidential candidate and former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean piled on, and tweeted that Gabbard’s comments were a “disgrace” and that she “should not be in the Congress.”

Gabbard had good reason to ask for proof. By his own account, Trump struck rapidly after seeing gruesome televised pictures of dying babies. No time was allowed for an independent investigation into the source of the chemical-weapons attack. No presentation was made to the United Nations or the Congress asking for permission to use force. Trump flipped his own policy on its head overnight, and began lobbing missiles.

Here’s what Gabbard said: “This administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning.” Gabbard added she would support Assad’s prosecution and execution as a war criminal if the attacks were proven, though she still wouldn’t support military action. “A successful prosecution of Assad (at the International Criminal Court) will require collection of evidence from the scene of the incident, and I support the United Nation’s efforts in this regard. Without such evidence, a successful prosecution is impossible,” she said.

But Tanden and Dean apparently agreed with Trump’s quick conclusion that “There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons.” So did much of the mainstream media and foreign-policy establishment.

Perhaps Assad was responsible, but skepticism is warranted in times of war. Assad’s forces are winning the war against their opponents; ISIS is in retreat. The Trump administration had recently reaffirmed its intention to focus on defeating ISIS, not on removing Assad. Increased US cooperation with Russia in that effort was looking more likely. Assad—along with the Russians and Americans and others—were dropping thousands of bombs in Syria with little international condemnation. Why would Assad endanger all of that with a brutal chemical-weapons attack on a target of no military value?

Gabbard isn’t the only one expressing doubts. Respected experts in the field of military weapons, including at least one former UN weapons inspector, are raising questions about the US narrative of the attack. So are some members of the US intelligence community, according to the investigative journalist Robert Parry.

The Syrian government has admitted to bombing the village, but claimed that the poisonous gas may well have come from a rebel supply stored there. We do know that both sides in the war have used chemical weapons.

The Obama administration believed that Assad was guilty of the far worse gas attack on Ghouta in 2013. But even there, responsible analysts, including former United Nations investigators, have raised doubts around US government claims about what geographic area the rockets originated from.

After Gabbard expressed her doubts and in the face of growing questions about the attack, the administration declassified a brief intelligence report to bolster its assertion that Syria was responsible. The report stated that US intelligence tracked the plane that did the bombing. It claims to have seen Syrian units experienced in chemical weapons at the base before hand. It cited credible independent groups concluding that nerve gas was used, and Amnesty International reported evidence that pointed to an air-launched chemical attack. Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Theodore Postol has aggressively questioned many of these claims, however.

An independent investigation is still needed, but surely Gabbard’s skepticism was not only defensible but laudable at a time when the media was blaring patriotic support for another military attack in the Middle East.

Gabbard isn’t going to lose her seat because of Tanden and Dean’s tweets. Her opposition to escalating the wars in the Middle East enjoys wide popular support. But the calls for her ouster are instructive in any case.

For all the urgent pleas for unity in the face of Trump, the party establishment has always made it clear that they mean unity under their banner. That’s why they mobilized to keep the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Representative Keith Ellison, from becoming head of the DNC. It’s why the knives are still out for Sanders and those who supported him. It’s why the DCCC still is loath to contribute resources and energy to populist challengers like James Thompson in Kansas, who threaten to build the Sanders/Warren wing of the party.

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.


Enter Email
SIGN UP!
Gabbard earned Tanden and Dean’s enmity when she resigned as deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee in 2016 in order to endorse Bernie Sanders, warning that a Clinton victory would mean further futile interventions in the Middle East chaos. The attack on Gabbard from two ardent Clinton supporters should not surprise us.

Tanden and Dean walk in the footsteps of those who would have read Republican Senator Wayne Morse and Democratic Senator Ernest Gruening out of the Congress for providing the only votes against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, or censored William Fulbright for leading the indictment of the Johnson Administration’s Vietnam lies and myths. Would they banish the 21 Democratic Senators who got it right when they doubted the distorted intelligence that claimed to prove Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and voted against Bush’s catastrophic war of choice on that country?

Neither Tanden nor Dean is a foreign-policy expert; both made careers in domestic policy. Neither knows as much about Middle East wars as Tulsi Gabbard, a major in the Army National Guard who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Gabbard earned a Combat Medical Badge, an Army Commendation Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, and a Meritorious Service Medal, among other honors. Like many who saw the human costs of the calamity up close, she became an ardent opponent of the war. She now serves on both the House Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees.

Tanden was domestic-policy adviser to Hillary Clinton in the Senate and during her first presidential run, and ardent advocate in her second campaign. Dean was also a Clinton supporter. They would like to oust Gabbard for expressing skepticism about the basis for a military strike, yet supported a candidate who got snookered by the lies and distorted intelligence of the Bush administration and voted for the worst foreign-policy debacle since Vietnam.

Later, as secretary of state, Clinton championed the “humanitarian” intervention into Libya as a model of “smart power,” hoping to claim it as exemplary of a “Clinton doctrine,” before Libya disintegrated into a violent, failed state and a staging base for terrorists.

Democrats are in the midst of a major struggle to decide what they stand for and who they represent. Part of that is the debate over a bipartisan interventionist foreign policy that has so abjectly failed. In her short time in Congress, Gabbard has established herself as a leading critic of that policy. The harsh attack on her is simply an attempt to enforce the boundaries of conventional wisdom. Gabbard deserves applause and support for questioning those boundaries in the cause of peace.

https://www.thenation.com/article/democrats-shouldnt-be-trying-to-banish-tulsi-gabbard/
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Apr, 2017 05:19 pm
@edgarblythe,
Thanks for that. I was grateful to see that her opinion about the Syrian strike was the same as mine on Twitter the day it happened.

There was one position she took or something she did or said months ago that made me hit pause, and now I have to review and find it. Can not remember.

I hate that Neera **** and Dean as much as I do Hillary. I ripped both of them - along with a half million other people on Twitter - when they were tag-teaming Tulsi.

I don't think Tanden or Dean expected such a shitstorm.

0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Fri 14 Apr, 2017 07:53 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Lash wrote:

We already have socialism in many forms. Once the people finally understand how we've been lied to, used, and robbed, a form of socialism will prevail.


How are you defining socialism with this remark?

The USPS is a nationally run institution. Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance are socialist. Public libraries as nonprofit entities accessible for all. Any government driven safety net programs are socialist.

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 5.46 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 06:52:11