Democrats 2020

[Harry Bosch]

I don't like him because he's generally bought and paid for by big pharma, and as such he tends to vote against anything that would make it easier for people to import drugs into the US from elsewhere, for example. Only McConnell receives more in donations from pharma than Booker, now that Hatch is gone. So, basically just another corporate liberal who doesn't really stand for much of anything and thinks every problem is just waiting for the free market to be unleashed, solving it to the satisfaction of all parties

You make good points but I still think he is a strong Democratic candidate.

Meh. I've listened to one of his speeches and two tv interviews. I find him to be boring and uninspiring. I'd vote for him over Trump. But I'm sorry but the left is very difficult to motivate to vote. We need someone inspirational to get the left off the couch to vote.

 

[untermensche]

I don't like him because he's generally bought and paid for by big pharma, and as such he tends to vote against anything that would make it easier for people to import drugs into the US from elsewhere, for example. Only McConnell receives more in donations from pharma than Booker, now that Hatch is gone. So, basically just another corporate liberal who doesn't really stand for much of anything and thinks every problem is just waiting for the free market to be unleashed, solving it to the satisfaction of all parties

You make good points but I still think he is a strong Democratic candidate.

Meh. I've listened to one of his speeches and two tv interviews. I find him to be boring and uninspiring. I'd vote for him over Trump. But I'm sorry but the left is very difficult to motivate to vote. We need someone inspirational to get the left off the couch to vote.

You prefer style over substance.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Meh. I've listened to one of his speeches and two tv interviews. I find him to be boring and uninspiring. I'd vote for him over Trump. But I'm sorry but the left is very difficult to motivate to vote. We need someone inspirational to get the left off the couch to vote.

You prefer style over substance.

Untrue. I voted for Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, and Hillary. All had considerable more substance than their republican opposser. All lost. And they all mostly lost because the left wasn't "inspired enough" to get out and vote.

 

[untermensche]

Meh. I've listened to one of his speeches and two tv interviews. I find him to be boring and uninspiring. I'd vote for him over Trump. But I'm sorry but the left is very difficult to motivate to vote. We need someone inspirational to get the left off the couch to vote.

You prefer style over substance.

Untrue. I voted for Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, and Hillary. All had considerable more substance than their republican opposser. All lost. And they all mostly lost because the left wasn't "inspired enough" to get out and vote.

You are asking to be inspired, not enlightened.

That is preferring style over substance.

Trump inspired a lot of racists to dream.

His messages were carefully crafted to inspire racists and others unusually afraid.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Untrue. I voted for Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, and Hillary. All had considerable more substance than their republican opposser. All lost. And they all mostly lost because the left wasn't "inspired enough" to get out and vote.

You are asking to be inspired, not enlightened.

That is preferring style over substance.

Trump inspired a lot of racists to dream.

His messages were carefully crafted to inspire racists and others unusually afraid.

Reading problem? I always vote for the best candidate. I actually prefer deliberate, careful policy wonks. But I'm in the minority. I'm telling you that a large bloc of the left would rather play fortnight than get off their asses to vote unless they are inspired. Dems must have a large turnout in order to win due to the unfair barriers in our system.

 

[southernhybrid]

Cory Booker jumped into the race this morning. I like him, but I don't think very many people do. I doubt he will get the nomination. He supports many of the Democratic Socialist positions, but he also supports business. That makes sense to me, but...... Anyway, one more person to consider. How many others will jump into the race, is anybody's guess.

Hopefully, money isn't going to have much to do with the race, because I read that Trump has already built up over 129 million dollars. Surprisingly, 75% was from small donors, so there's still a lot of suckers out there who believe in him.

Who doesn't like him and why?

I'm sure many Trump supporters don't like him. Some only because his color is a nicer shade than orange.

A lot of people who I've spoken to about him. I'm not sure why. They come in all shades of skin so it has nothing to do with his skin color, and they are all Democrats. Of course, my sample is small, so I could be wrong about his lack of appeal to others. It might just be that the people I know, simply don't know much about Booker.

Regardless of others, I still like him, but it could be because I'm from a town that borders on Newark, NJ, where he was mayor. He did a lot of good things when he was mayor, although he's also been imo, unfairly criticized. I read an article this morning about how he was criticized for supporting charter schools in Newark, but the fact is that in Newark, the students who attended charter schools did much better than the students who attended traditional public schools. My own granddaughter attends a charter school in Indianapolis. It's a secular based school and from what I've read about it, it's an excellent school. Not all charter schools are the same.

While it's true that Cory Booker once voted in favor of a law that protected the large drug companies, he's changed his position on that issue. He supports the same things that other progressive candidates do. I don't find him boring. In fact, I think he's anything but boring. I might vote for him during the primaries, but it's far too early to make that decision. I need to learn a lot more about all of these candidates. All candidates have flaws, just like the rest of us.

I've followed his career for many years. Maybe that's why I find him more attractive than the other candidates at this point. I will vote for whoever becomes the Democratic nominee. Of that, I am positive.

 

[Opoponax]

I'm telling you that a large bloc of the left would rather play fortnight than get off their asses to vote unless they are inspired.

Right on both counts. To win, a candidate must have a certain level of charisma. Obama running on the exact same things as Hillary would've easily won a third term. Same with Bill Clinton. Charisma inspires people, and the denial of its importance is a fantasy on the part of those who say it shouldn't matter. Such denials usually go hand in hand with the idiotic liberal purity tests that helped put both Dubbya and Trump in the White House.

 

[poster]

I'm telling you that a large bloc of the left would rather play fortnight than get off their asses to vote unless they are inspired.

Right on both counts. To win, a candidate must have a certain level of charisma. Obama running on the exact same things as Hillary would've easily won a third term. Same with Bill Clinton. Charisma inspires people, and the denial of its importance is a fantasy on the part of those who say it shouldn't matter. Such denials usually go hand in hand with the idiotic liberal purity tests that helped put both Dubbya and Trump in the White House.

I'm curious about these sorts of replies.

Are you an anointed authority figure who comes along and verifies as right what other members post? Or is it more a condescension on your part to say "yes, you got it right, little man!"?

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm telling you that a large bloc of the left would rather play fortnight than get off their asses to vote unless they are inspired.

Right on both counts. To win, a candidate must have a certain level of charisma. Obama running on the exact same things as Hillary would've easily won a third term. Same with Bill Clinton. Charisma inspires people, and the denial of its importance is a fantasy on the part of those who say it shouldn't matter. Such denials usually go hand in hand with the idiotic liberal purity tests that helped put both Dubbya and Trump in the White House.

I'm curious about these sorts of replies.

Are you an anointed authority figure who comes along and verifies as right what other members post? Or is it more a condescension on your part to say "yes, you got it right, little man!"?

They are simply agreeing with each other. Why is that a problem? I also agree with the two of them. In the US, a candidate's personality often makes the difference between winning and losing. That might be crazy, but it's just part of our culture. I voted for plenty of Democratic candidates who lost. They might have made good presidents, but they had dull boring personalities. I think that's why many of us want a candidate with a dynamic personality. We want a candidate who can win. If the best candidate is boring or lacks personal appeal, it's unlikely that he/she will win. Do you understand now? And, it's your right to disagree, even if some of us feel that you're wrong.

 

[PyramidHead]

Meh. I've listened to one of his speeches and two tv interviews. I find him to be boring and uninspiring. I'd vote for him over Trump. But I'm sorry but the left is very difficult to motivate to vote. We need someone inspirational to get the left off the couch to vote.

You prefer style over substance.

Untrue. I voted for Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, and Hillary. All had considerable more substance than their republican opposser. All lost. And they all mostly lost because the left wasn't "inspired enough" to get out and vote.

Holy shit and you think that was because they were too bored by their speaking tone and not repulsed by their disgusting positions

 

[poster]

I'm curious about these sorts of replies.

Are you an anointed authority figure who comes along and verifies as right what other members post? Or is it more a condescension on your part to say "yes, you got it right, little man!"?

They are simply agreeing with each other.

Not so! The post was one way, not two. You'd think someone as smart as Obnoxious appears to believe himself to be he/she/it would then know enough to say "I agree" instead of "[r]ight on both counts". Truth be told, the HB wanna be, offered nothing more than an opinion, and a silly opinion at that. I realize people like Obnoxious believe it to be a profoundly enlightening insight, but it isn't. So HBwb might not be "right" at all, afterall. Right? Just sayin'! (see how carefully I read your posts?)

 

[Elixir]

I'm curious about these sorts of replies.

Are you an anointed authority figure who comes along and verifies as right what other members post? Or is it more a condescension on your part to say "yes, you got it right, little man!"?

They are simply agreeing with each other.

Not so! The post was one way, not two. You'd think someone as smart as Obnoxious appears to believe himself to be he/she/it would then know enough to say "I agree" instead of "[r]ight on both counts". Truth be told, the HB wanna be, offered nothing more than an opinion, and a silly opinion at that. I realize people like Obnoxious believe it to be a profoundly enlightening insight, but it isn't. So HBwb might not be "right" at all, afterall. Right? Just sayin'! (see how carefully I read your posts?)

Cute nickname... reminds me of someone else who does that. And good to have you here to tell us what other posters think about themselves and what they believe to be profound. It's a wonder that this forum ever got along without the benefit of your piercing wit and unfathomable insight.

 

[poster]

Not so! The post was one way, not two. You'd think someone as smart as Obnoxious appears to believe himself to be he/she/it would then know enough to say "I agree" instead of "[r]ight on both counts". Truth be told, the HB wanna be, offered nothing more than an opinion, and a silly opinion at that. I realize people like Obnoxious believe it to be a profoundly enlightening insight, but it isn't. So HBwb might not be "right" at all, afterall. Right? Just sayin'! (see how carefully I read your posts?)

Cute nickname... reminds me of someone else who does that. And good to have you here to tell us what other posters think about themselves and what they believe to be profound. It's a wonder that this forum ever got along without the benefit of your piercing wit and unfathomable insight.

*said in my best Elvis voice*

Thank you - thank you very much!

 

[southernhybrid]

I have nothing personally against you poster, despite the fact that I disagree with you frequently. I'm just not going to stay quiet if I think you are making false accusations about someone's intentions or character. That's all. ( said in my best Meryl Streep voice as in the movie, "The Devil Wears Prada" )

 

[Opoponax]

I'm telling you that a large bloc of the left would rather play fortnight than get off their asses to vote unless they are inspired.

Right on both counts. To win, a candidate must have a certain level of charisma. Obama running on the exact same things as Hillary would've easily won a third term. Same with Bill Clinton. Charisma inspires people, and the denial of its importance is a fantasy on the part of those who say it shouldn't matter. Such denials usually go hand in hand with the idiotic liberal purity tests that helped put both Dubbya and Trump in the White House.

I'm curious about these sorts of replies.

Are you an anointed authority figure who comes along and verifies as right what other members post? Or is it more a condescension on your part to say "yes, you got it right, little man!"?

Irrelevant Response: a disconfirming response in which one communicator's comments bear no relationship to the previous speaker's ideas.

 

[Opoponax]

I'm curious about these sorts of replies.

Are you an anointed authority figure who comes along and verifies as right what other members post? Or is it more a condescension on your part to say "yes, you got it right, little man!"?

They are simply agreeing with each other.

Not so! The post was one way, not two. You'd think someone as smart as Obnoxious appears to believe himself to be he/she/it would then know enough to say "I agree" instead of "[r]ight on both counts". Truth be told, the HB wanna be, offered nothing more than an opinion, and a silly opinion at that. I realize people like Obnoxious believe it to be a profoundly enlightening insight, but it isn't. So HBwb might not be "right" at all, afterall. Right? Just sayin'! (see how carefully I read your posts?)

Oh no. I've been Shitgibboned! By Pisster no less. But if Posterior insists on Shitgibbon insults, that's okay. Pornster is totally free to make up nicknames for me. I've never seen Puto do that though, so I am somewhat honored that Post-smart spent the time to come up with such a clever nickname. It ain't no Rocketman, but I'll take it.

 

[poster]

I'm curious about these sorts of replies.

Are you an anointed authority figure who comes along and verifies as right what other members post? Or is it more a condescension on your part to say "yes, you got it right, little man!"?

Irrelevant Response: a disconfirming response in which one communicator's comments bear no relationship to the previous speaker's ideas.

That would be a "yes", you are the validation guy? People post stuff and you come along and validate its rightness or wrongness?

 

[Elixir]

People post stuff and you come along and validate its rightness or wrongness?

Is there someone here who doesn't do that?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

My overview so far.

It is said that candidates primary to the side and campaign to the middle, that Democrats run left in the primary and centrist in the election while Republicans run right in the primary and centrist in the election.

I see the left is getting pretty harsh on candidates right now.

 

[PyramidHead]

We're already getting all the mealy-mouthed concessions to private insurance companies, along with the buzzwords about "access" and "affordability" of health insurance, while they sneakily continue to use the "M4A" acronym on all their policy lists. It's a trick and nobody should fall for it. There is a moral and ideological gulf between guaranteed health services for everyone with no premiums, no deductibles, no copays, and no questions, versus another bureaucratic nightmare of means-testing, tax credits, and tiered service that expects human beings to shop for vital services like consumers browsing for lawnmowers and maintains the parameters defined by private insurance companies who will continue to bleed us dry.