Politics 2020 Field - DNC

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Further said:
I totally disagree. If Trump is the R nominee then I can't see any D losing. The only question is how much the D wins by. I'd be happy to bet.
Click to expand...
I want part of that action.
 
oldfisherman said:
Dems would be crazy to run Hillary again. So it might happen.

Biden would be a better choice.

Cuomo could carry enough of the larger states to make it a tight race.

My post about running Michelle Obama was not a joke. She could make it an interesting race. And would do better than Hillary. So would Oprah. But I doubt either will run.
Click to expand...
Hillary, Michelle and Oprah will not run.
If Biden wins the primary, he'll be our next President.
 
I think if Trump gets primaried and loses to a different R, that person will stand a great chance to beat whomever the D’s put up. But, if Trump is the R on the ticket a D will win.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
I don't know who this guy is with Rogan but he's pretty much spot on. Don't know who to trust about the Syrian gas attacks but overall I give him high marks. Maybe @Cippy91 knows who he is.

Click to expand...

His name is jimmy dore. Been on a few times. Has his own channel. He’s pretty spot on when it comes to these subjects from the times I listened when he was on. He’s very anti war. Not a trump supporter but he just tells it how it is.
 
Cippy91 said:
His name is jimmy dore. Been on a few times. Has his own channel. He’s pretty spot on when it comes to these subjects from the times I listened when he was on. He’s very anti war. Not a trump supporter but he just tells it how it is.
Click to expand...
Oh good I was right. Figured it out this morning.
 
Further said:
I think if Trump gets primaried and loses to a different R, that person will stand a great chance to beat whomever the D’s put up. But, if Trump is the R on the ticket a D will win.
Click to expand...

If Trump loses in the primary he will run as a 3rd party candidate.
 
Further said:
I think if Trump gets primaried and loses to a different R, that person will stand a great chance to beat whomever the D’s put up. But, if Trump is the R on the ticket a D will win.
Click to expand...
No way. Unless there's a Republican out there who we haven't heard of.

It is Trump or nothing for the R's.

Maybe I'm missing some Republicans that aren't owned completely by the Republican Party LLC.
 
Further said:
I totally disagree. If Trump is the R nominee then I can't see any D losing. The only question is how much the D wins by. I'd be happy to bet.
Click to expand...

I believe there are enough silent undecided voters to swing the election either way.

The longer this shit show goes on, the more the left looks like the power hungry evil empire.
 
Biden would have been the right choice against Trumpo in 016. For him to run again, his age factor and stamina for the job are the ??'s. Personally, from this list, I like Cory Booker.
 
oldfisherman said:
I believe there are enough silent undecided voters to swing the election either way.

The longer this shit show goes on, the more the left looks like the power hungry evil empire.
Click to expand...

There are no "silent" voters in America.

That ship sailed long ago.
 
Likely losing options for Dems include:

Clinton - duh

Biden - pedophile rep, no accomplishments of any importance throughout career, Billions from China to his son, a pure swamprat

Sanders - Sex harassment last campaign, soldout his supporters and supported corrupt DNC primary result, bought really nice beach house

Warren - never was/will be seriously supported by a majority, not very "human" in many people's perception

Harris/Booker - both ruined their chance to swing any voters with their frequent and childish hyperbolic hysteria attacks over Trump's normal execution of Presidential powers, abolish ICE!, seriously, we're choosing someone to run the country successfully and securely

Gabbard could win the primary, but besides the baggage of being a Hindu she is a woman. I think it's obvious the Dems will not win against Trump if they run another woman. In America, like it or not, bills proposing extravagantly wasteful spending and an impractical and unsustainable approach to becoming the Nanny to the World while pawning our natural resources to our 2 largest enemies to bankroll it are largely the product of Pelosi, Clinton, Warren and other women in Congress.

Castro - A guy named Castro attempted to have me and all Americans murdered by Russian Nuclear Weapons. He'd seriously have a better chance if his name was Satan. He could however draw Hispanic votes as a VP for a Conservative Dem candidate (if such a thing even exists anymore).

Merkley - gives the impression he still lives with his mother, a total wuss/dweeb, this is why Oregon gets no respect from anyone

Nobody from Hollywood or the media has a prayer of remaining credible throughout a 2-year campaign.

So what realistic candidates did I miss?

Who's left? (pun intended) :dunno:
 
MARIS61 said:
There are no "silent" voters in America.

That ship sailed long ago.
Click to expand...

Huh? Rolling my eyes.

The far left and far right have moved so far from the middle, they can no longer hear the contempt coming from the silent majority that are feed up with the loud nonsense coming from the big mouth passive aggressive radicals from both parties.
 
Lanny said:
Don't project your problems on me.
Click to expand...
Only someone on a 72 hour Insomnia episode would say Jeb is a threat in the next election unless Hillary is the opponent.

If that happens I'll personally collude with Putin and get him to release all the info he's getting spying on us.

I just hope it isn't aliens in the spinal cord like on Star Trek the Next Generation.
 
MARIS61 said:
Likely losing options for Dems include:

Clinton - duh

Biden - pedophile rep, no accomplishments of any importance throughout career, Billions from China to his son, a pure swamprat

Sanders - Sex harassment last campaign, soldout his supporters and supported corrupt DNC primary result, bought really nice beach house

Warren - never was/will be seriously supported by a majority, not very "human" in many people's perception

Harris/Booker - both ruined their chance to swing any voters with their frequent and childish hyperbolic hysteria attacks over Trump's normal execution of Presidential powers, abolish ICE!, seriously, we're choosing someone to run the country successfully and securely

Gabbard could win the primary, but besides the baggage of being a Hindu she is a woman. I think it's obvious the Dems will not win against Trump if they run another woman. In America, like it or not, bills proposing extravagantly wasteful spending and an impractical and unsustainable approach to becoming the Nanny to the World while pawning our natural resources to our 2 largest enemies to bankroll it are largely the product of Pelosi, Clinton, Warren and other women in Congress.

Castro - A guy named Castro attempted to have me and all Americans murdered by Russian Nuclear Weapons. He'd seriously have a better chance if his name was Satan. He could however draw Hispanic votes as a VP for a Conservative Dem candidate (if such a thing even exists anymore).

Merkley - gives the impression he still lives with his mother, a total wuss/dweeb, this is why Oregon gets no respect from anyone

Nobody from Hollywood or the media has a prayer of remaining credible throughout a 2-year campaign.

So what realistic candidates did I miss?

Who's left? (pun intended) :dunno:
Click to expand...
Only those with the most wild eyed and often evil thoughts project Biden to be a pedophile. Remember the Pizzagate that Hillary was supposedly deep into? Not a shred of evidence in either case. Not a shred.
I asked for a Clergyman the last time I was in the ICU at the VA. I requested that the clergyman be an Episcopalian and they sent me a Hindu. Okay, she was nice but not what I really needed. She gave me an MP3 recording of relaxation and meditation exercises. Yeah, no help.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Only someone on a 72 hour Insomnia episode would say Jeb is a threat in the next election unless Hillary is the opponent.

If that happens I'll personally collude with Putin and get him to release all the info he's getting spying on us.

I just hope it isn't aliens in the spinal cord like on Star Trek the Next Generation.
Click to expand...
Relax, I seriously, make that very seriously, doubt either one will run.
I'm thinking it will be Biden-O'Rourke vs ?. I'm thinking Trump is going to face a serious challenger in the primary, that is if he lasts until the primaries.
 
Lanny said:
Relax, I seriously, make that very seriously, doubt either one will run.
I'm thinking it will be Biden-O'Rourke vs ?. I'm thinking Trump is going to face a serious challenger in the primary, that is if he lasts until the primaries.
Click to expand...
If he outlasts the Mueller investigation and the economy is strong....
 
oldfisherman said:
Huh? Rolling my eyes.

The far left and far right have moved so far from the middle, they can no longer hear the contempt coming from the silent majority that are feed up with the loud nonsense coming from the big mouth passive aggressive radicals from both parties.
Click to expand...

The silence was broken when they elected Trump, and they will speak in the same way in 2020.

THEIR VOICE IS PRETTY F'ING LOUD IF YOU ASK ME! :dammit:
 
Biden's brother voted for Trump, says Joe would have won.

I agree Joe would have probably won, for the reasons stated.

He wouldn't win now though, because the depth of the Deep State, and Joe's family's China-bribe winnings have blown his above-it-all image he enjoyed back then.

Joe Biden’s brother says family members voted for Trump, ‘felt slighted’ by Clinton: report

By Elizabeth Zwirz | Fox News
Frank Biden, younger sibling of former Vice President Joe Biden, reportedly said that some members of the family “felt slighted” by 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and instead decided to cast their ballots for Donald Trump.

The former U.S. leader’s brother took aim at the Clinton team’s campaign strategy during an interview with The Palm Beach Post. Frank told the outlet, in the report posted Monday that he believed if his brother had run at the time, he would’ve secured states that Clinton lost.

“We never would have lost Pennsylvania, and all my relatives — the Finnegan family — who voted for Donald Trump because they felt slighted by Hillary and her campaign,” Biden said. “We never would have not gone to Michigan as the campaign decided not to do because they felt entitled to the votes of those people.

“Assumptive politics is losing politics,” he said. “You have to work for every single vote and people have to know individually, collectively and severally that you care about them, that they’re important.”

Clinton visited Michigan shortly before the election, although she ultimately did not win the state.

Biden announced in 2015 that he would not be running for president.

But Frank thinks that could be different this time around.

“I think we’re going to run,” Biden told The Post. “You can say that ‘Frank thinks his brother’s going to run.’ Now, he could surprise me. But I know the family’s behind him 100 percent.”

So far, Biden has not said whether he'll run but has been rumored as a potential candidate. The family is expected to meet “very soon” about the matter, after which he'll decide, his brother told The Post.

“I believe Joe should run. I’m urging him to run and have been for a long, long time,” he told the outlet.

The Democratic Party is left with a nearly “existential” choice, Frank said.

“Who do you think that the disaffected Republicans and the disaffected Democrats that we need to win over to win Pennsylvania, to win Michigan, to win Wisconsin, to win Ohio, to win Florida — as a strictly Machiavellian question, who is best positioned to win those folks back?” he said.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jo...ted-for-trump-felt-slighted-by-clinton-report
 
Lanny said:
Only those with the most wild eyed and often evil thoughts project Biden to be a pedophile. Remember the Pizzagate that Hillary was supposedly deep into? Not a shred of evidence in either case. Not a shred.
Click to expand...

And that's why Hillary won!

Oh, wait...
 
MARIS61 said:
I forgot Beto - couldn't beat Ted Cruz so...
Click to expand...
I wonder if I'm the only one who saw Beto speaking to a group of black people and acting like a black preacher when he was doing it?

Might as well have been passing out Hillary's hot sauce when he was doing it. He's another phony.

Tulsi isn't a phony from what I can tell.
 
Losing the Catholic vote means losing the election.

Rule out Harris and Hirono for any spot on the ticket.

Gabbard scores points for calling Them out.

Todd Starnes: Yes, Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono are religious bigots

By Todd Starnes | Fox News

Senate Democrats Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono criticize Trump nominee for membership in the Knights of Columbus

There are a disturbing number of Democrat lawmakers who believe Christians must renounce their religious beliefs and affiliations in religious-based organizations if they want to hold public office.

The latest victim of this blatant religious bigotry is Brian Buescher, President Trump’s nominee for the U.S. District Court in Nebraska.

Buescher came under attack by Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, for his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a revered and highly-respected Catholic charitable organization.

KAMALA HARRIS COMPARES ICE TO KKK, GETS SLAMMED FOR 'DISGUSTING,' 'HORRIFYING' REMARKS

Both lawmakers posed a series of written questions demanding to know if he would end his membership in the Knights of Columbus should he be confirmed.

“The Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions,” Hirono wrote in the questionnaire. “For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

“We must call this out for what it is – religious bigotry."

— Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii

Harris referred to the group as an “all-male society” and took issue with their positions on abortion and other culture war issues.

“Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” Harris queried.

The condemnation from conservatives was swift.

“This isn’t just about the Knights of Columbus or Catholics, this is an ongoing attack from the extremist left of the Democratic Party to silence people of faith and run them out of engaging in public service based on their religious beliefs,” Penny Nance, the president of Concerned Women for America, wrote in a statement.

But I was especially encouraged to see Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, a newly announced presidential candidate, call out members of her own party for “weaponizing religion.”

“We must call this out for what it is – religious bigotry,” she wrote in a scathing op-ed in The Hill. “I stand strongly against those who are fomenting religious bigotry, citing as disqualifies Buescher’s Catholicism and his affiliation with the Knights of Columbus. If Buescher is ‘unqualified’ because of his Catholicism and affiliation with the Knights of Columbus, then President John F. Kennedy, and the ‘liberal lion of the Senate’ Ted Kennedy would have been ‘unqualified’ for the same reasons.”

I respect Gabbard’s bold declaration that “no American should be asked to renounce his or her faith or membership in a faith-based, service organization in order to hold public office.” But I’m afraid she may be in the minority within her party.

Radio host Dennis Prager said on Fox Nation’s Starnes Country, that secularists and leftists are attempting to drive people of faith out of the public arena.

“The only organized opposition [to leftism] comes from within Judaism and Christianity,” Prager said. “The Orthodox Jew, the faithful Mormon, the traditional Catholic, and the Evangelical Protestant, these are the only organized opponents to leftism, and they know it, and they will do anything they can to suppress it.”

To his point, in 2012 Democrats removed God from their party platform. And in 2016 delegates heckled a preacher attempting to deliver a prayer during the national convention.

That could explain why modern-day congressional confirmation hearings now seem to resemble religious inquisitions.

In 2017, Notre Dame law professor and mother of seven Amy Coney Barrett was grilled by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., over her orthodox beliefs.

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern,” Feinstein infamously declared.

During that same year, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., viciously attacked the religious faith of Russell Vought, the president’s nominee to be deputy director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Sen. Sanders deemed Vought unsuitable for office because the nominee believes that salvation is found alone through Jesus Christ. He said someone with that kind of religious belief system is “really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”

The Democrats may as well have asked, “Are you now or have you ever been a follower of Jesus Christ?”

It’s not just religious bigotry, but it comes dangerously close to violating Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution – there “shall be no religious test” for any American seeking to serve in public office. In other words, a religious litmus test for public office is against the law.

Sens. Harris and Hirono are either woefully ignorant of the law or they are, in fact, religious bigots. I contend they are both – making them undeserving of a place in Congress.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/todd-starnes-yes-kamala-harris-and-mazie-hirono-are-religious-bigots
 
Former Clinton supporter chooses appropriate setting to announce candidacy for President.

Gillibrand to announce presidential bid during appearance on 'Colbert' show, report says

By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News

Gillibrand facing Dem donor blacklash as she mulls 2020 bid?
Politico reports major Democrat donors are refusing to support the senator after she led the charge for Sen. Al Franken to resign.

New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand will become the next Democrat to enter the 2020 presidential fray, according to CBS News, which reported Monday that she will announce her formation of an exploratory committee Tuesday during an appearance on the network's "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.”

The Associated Press, citing people familiar with Gillibrand's plans, also reported that she would launch a White House bid "within days." Representatives for the senator had no immediate comment when contacted by Fox News.

Gillibrand - who heads to the early caucus state of Iowa this weekend - would become the fifth Democrat, and the second senator, to officially jump into a presidential primary that could feature dozens of candidates before all is said and done.

NEW YORK DEMOCRAT MOCKED FOR SAYING FUTURE IS 'FEMALE AND 'INTERSECTIONAL'

Video
While Gillibrand’s prominence as a face of her party has grown, she faces a tough battle to capture the attention of Democratic voters in a crowded field that’s expected to include multiple women. Several of her potential rivals have spent more time in critical primary states while Gillibrand has visited just one — New Hampshire — in October to stump for the Democratic candidate for governor.

She’s expected to move quickly this week to make connections in the leadoff caucus state of Iowa. She’s scheduled to headline a meeting with Democratic activists in Sioux City on Friday evening. The event is to be held at a private home with top donors to the Woodbury County Democratic Party.

Gillibrand has been in touch with some Iowa Democrats and enlisted the help of Lara Henderson, who was finance director for Fred Hubbell, the 2018 Democratic candidate for governor. But she hasn’t built up a network in the state to the degree of prospective rivals, including Booker and Harris.

She was appointed to the Senate in 2009 to succeed Hillary Clinton, who became secretary of state, and she easily won re-election, most recently in November. She has $10.6 million in her campaign fund, which can be used to jump-start a presidential bid.

During her time in the Senate, Gillibrand has been a central figure in Washington’s reckoning with the #MeToo era. In 2017, she was the first Senate Democrat to call on Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota, a fellow Democrat, to resign amid multiple sexual misconduct allegations. She has said President Bill Clinton should have stepped down after his relationship with a White House intern was revealed and has also called on President Donald Trump to resign over sexual assault allegations.

And before #MeToo, Gillibrand spent several years pushing for legislation addressing sexual assault in the military and on college campuses.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gi...dential-bid-during-appearance-on-colbert-show
 
And another one bites the dust.

Absolutely no way Tulsi gets the nomination now, and if she did this would still cause her to lose against Trump's far more accepting stance and record towards the gay community.

Tulsi Gabbard under fire for past anti-gay remarks amid 2020 bid, says she has since 'evolved'

By Elizabeth Llorente | Fox News

Tulsi Gabbard under fire for past anti-gay remarks amid 2020 bid, says she has since 'evolved'

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard barely finished announcing she is running for president in 2020 when the spotlight quickly shifted to anti-gay comments and actions from her past.

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard barely finished announcing she is running for president in 2020 when the spotlight quickly shifted to anti-gay comments and actions from her past.

Gabbard, a 37-year-old Democratic lawmaker from Hawaii, is known for being politically unpredictable, something she has publicly said she takes pride in. But some of her most fiery remarks against same-sex marriage in years past, as well as her active campaign to promote “traditional marriage” legislation, have drawn closer scrutiny since her announcement Friday.

In years past, she several times referred to LGBTQ activists as “homosexual extremists,” a view that echoes that of her father, Mike Gabbard, whom a New Yorker profile of the congresswoman described as having long been “Hawaii’s leading opponent of the gay-rights movement, an energetic and often brusque activist who stood ever ready to denounce what he called ‘the radical homosexual agenda.’”

Gabbard was a visible force against same-sex marriage, and in 2004 spearheaded a fight in the state against a same-sex union measure. “To try to act as if there is a difference between ‘civil unions’ and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” she said at the time. “As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists.”

Gabbard then also blasted Massachusetts’ passage of same-sex marriage legislation, making it the first in the nation to recognize gay marriage. Speaking on behalf of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values, a group headed by her father, she said the Massachusetts marriage law would cause a ripple effect across the country.

“It is highly likely that federal judges will soon be tearing apart our U.S. Constitution in order to force same-sex marriage down the throats of the people of Hawaii and America,” Gabbard said. “The only way to protect traditional marriage in Hawaii and throughout our country, the only way to stop activist federal judges from rewriting our constitution, is by the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment.”

The Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values also drew controversy for supporting so-called conversion gay therapy, which views homosexuality as a mental illness. More than a dozen states in the country have since outlawed or restricted the controversial practice.

At the time, Gabbard also gave a lengthy speech at the Hawaii State House against a proposed resolution that addressed the bullying of gay students in public schools. Gabbard argued the resolution would cast homosexuality as normal, and that it would attract “homosexual-advocacy organizations into our schools to promote their agenda to our vulnerable youth.”

Rarely have we seen someone who was so actively and vehemently and viscerally against LGBTQ equality and acceptance. [Gabbard] was someone who worked so actively against our community when the stakes were so high.

— Zeke Stokes, the vice president of programs at GLAAD

On social media, critics for the most part were not forgiving.

Some said they had been aware of talk about Gabbard’s controversial remarks about gays, but were surprised to hear about the depth of her anti-LGBTQ views.

Others said they wanted to hear more from the congresswoman about why she held the views and, in particularly, why she went out of her way to fight against issues of importance to the LGBTQ community.

“We’ve seen [people] who may held a particular view and evolved to a place of acceptance,, but rarely have we seen someone who was so actively and vehemently and viscerally against LGBTQ equality and acceptance,” said Zeke Stokes, the vice president of programs at GLAAD, one of the most prominent LGBTQ advocacy groups, in an interview with Fox News. “[Gabbard] was someone who worked so actively against our community when the stakes were so high.”

“One thing is to say that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but another is to actively work to stymie the progress of a community that is marginalized, and to oppose an effort to keep kids safe.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pr...s-says-she-regrets-them-and-that-shes-evolved
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top