So Who You Liberals Got For 2020?

DarkFury

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2015
27,260
8,247
940
Sun, Sand And Palm Trees
Joe "Paws" Biden?
AL "The freak" Franken?
"Mad" Maxine Watters?
Kamala " invisible planes"Harris?
Hillary "crime wave" Clinton?
Bernie "socialist" Sanders?

Honest to god you ignorant if you just remove the names using four little rules...
1, They cannot be in or on their way to prison.
2, They cannot be in or on their way to a mental asylum
3, They cannot be in or on their way to a nursing home.
4, They cannot be a pervert.

That wipes out your ENTIRE leadership. Hell if those rules applied to your voters you would have no base. So who is going to lift up that torn tatterd nasty ratty flag of the DNC and lead you forward?

Fury
 
I think Cory booker might be their nominee. I believe he would lose in the general tho
 
Joe "Paws" Biden?
AL "The freak" Franken?
"Mad" Maxine Watters?
Kamala " invisible planes"Harris?
Hillary "crime wave" Clinton?
Bernie "socialist" Sanders?

Honest to god you ignorant if you just remove the names using four little rules...
1, They cannot be in or on their way to prison.
2, They cannot be in or on their way to a mental asylum
3, They cannot be in or on their way to a nursing home.
4, They cannot be a pervert.

That wipes out your ENTIRE leadership. Hell if those rules applied to your voters you would have no base. So who is going to lift up that torn tatterd nasty ratty flag of the DNC and lead you forward?

Fury
/----/ Well you forgot to mention the Silverback.
1234.jpg
 
I'm a liberal. I don't see any liberals on the horizon.
 
Anyone at all would be better for working class Americans and American values. Consider that working class families with children helped by CHIP are passed over for taxes for the rich. This tax BS will cause short term improvement as it did in the thirties, then under Reagan and finally Bush Jr, but soon the economy will once again slump, that is history for anyone awake. The rich take they do not create. For us it doesn't matter but I do want to make sure when the next crash comes our investments are safe. Republicans play you conservatives and you perform the ball balance like a trained seal. Fooled again you'd think you'd learn? Donnie will laugh all the way to the bank and you fools will still miss the point. LOL

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth

"For his part, Mr. Trump has repeatedly asserted with a straight face that the tax bill would hurt him. In fact, it will give him and his family a windfall. That’s because the Senate bill will provide a generous tax break for income that people earn through limited liability corporations, partnerships and other so-called pass-through businesses that do not pay taxes before passing on profits to owners. Under the Senate bill, the president will be able to claim a 23 percent deduction on profits he earns through his more than 500 pass-through businesses."

Opinion | A Historic Tax Heist

Judging By This New York Times Story, Steve Mnuchin Is a Liar

House tax bill made kinda simple - Analysis | The House just passed its big tax bill. Here’s what is in it.

"I have to wonder how many know wealthy people who use their wealth to create jobs? In truth it is the struggling that create jobs as they want a bit of the wealth. The truly rich could give a crap, well maybe they care a bit about their portfolio. But wealth for corporations is another issue, they do sometimes create jobs here and abroad but they are privileged as Baker writes."

Dean Baker: The Conservative Nanny State
 
Biden, Warren, Sanders, Booker

Running against a candidate under indictment
 
Joe "Paws" Biden?
AL "The freak" Franken?
"Mad" Maxine Watters?
Kamala " invisible planes"Harris?
Hillary "crime wave" Clinton?
Bernie "socialist" Sanders?

Honest to god you ignorant if you just remove the names using four little rules...
1, They cannot be in or on their way to prison.
2, They cannot be in or on their way to a mental asylum
3, They cannot be in or on their way to a nursing home.
4, They cannot be a pervert.

That wipes out your ENTIRE leadership. Hell if those rules applied to your voters you would have no base. So who is going to lift up that torn tatterd nasty ratty flag of the DNC and lead you forward?

Fury

It needs to be someone like Obama. Someone with virtually no record and an unknown. For you see, history and liberalism don't get along too well.

But if Hillary wants the position again all she has to do is rig the system again.
 
When Nancy Pelosi takes back over as speaker next year, Trump and Pence will get impeached, Nancy will be President and will name Hillary her VP then she'll step down and the rightfully elected person will finally be seated.
 
Anyone at all would be better for working class Americans and American values. Consider that working class families with children helped by CHIP are passed over for taxes for the rich. This tax BS will cause short term improvement as it did in the thirties, then under Reagan and finally Bush Jr, but soon the economy will once again slump, that is history for anyone awake. The rich take they do not create. For us it doesn't matter but I do want to make sure when the next crash comes our investments are safe. Republicans play you conservatives and you perform the ball balance like a trained seal. Fooled again you'd think you'd learn? Donnie will laugh all the way to the bank and you fools will still miss the point. LOL

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

Tax cuts spur economic growth

"For his part, Mr. Trump has repeatedly asserted with a straight face that the tax bill would hurt him. In fact, it will give him and his family a windfall. That’s because the Senate bill will provide a generous tax break for income that people earn through limited liability corporations, partnerships and other so-called pass-through businesses that do not pay taxes before passing on profits to owners. Under the Senate bill, the president will be able to claim a 23 percent deduction on profits he earns through his more than 500 pass-through businesses."

Opinion | A Historic Tax Heist

Judging By This New York Times Story, Steve Mnuchin Is a Liar

House tax bill made kinda simple - Analysis | The House just passed its big tax bill. Here’s what is in it.

"I have to wonder how many know wealthy people who use their wealth to create jobs? In truth it is the struggling that create jobs as they want a bit of the wealth. The truly rich could give a crap, well maybe they care a bit about their portfolio. But wealth for corporations is another issue, they do sometimes create jobs here and abroad but they are privileged as Baker writes."

Dean Baker: The Conservative Nanny State
All that mouth running and not one name! Off topic as well.
 
When Nancy Pelosi takes back over as speaker next year, Trump and Pence will get impeached, Nancy will be President and will name Hillary her VP then she'll step down and the rightfully elected person will finally be seated.
There will be civil war before that happens!
 
It is amazing how many people on political forums are so woefully ignorant of political history. The eventually nominee is almost never being talked about 3 years out. Obama was not a serious contender in 2005, Bush II was not even being talked about in 97 nobody had even heard of Bill Clinton 3 years before that election. Oh, and then there is Trump who three years out was not even sure which party he was going to run with.

Hillary is the only person that was a serious contender early on that got the nomination and that was done with a lot of help from her friends
 
It is amazing how many people on political forums are so woefully ignorant of political history. The eventually nominee is almost never being talked about 3 years out. Obama was not a serious contender in 2005, Bush II was not even being talked about in 97 nobody had even heard of Bill Clinton 3 years before that election. Oh, and then there is Trump who three years out was not even sure which party he was going to run with.

Hillary is the only person that was a serious contender early on that got the nomination and that was done with a lot of help from her friends
So Hillary to run a 3rd time? You need drug tested!
 
It is amazing how many people on political forums are so woefully ignorant of political history. The eventually nominee is almost never being talked about 3 years out. Obama was not a serious contender in 2005, Bush II was not even being talked about in 97 nobody had even heard of Bill Clinton 3 years before that election. Oh, and then there is Trump who three years out was not even sure which party he was going to run with.

Hillary is the only person that was a serious contender early on that got the nomination and that was done with a lot of help from her friends
So Hillary to run a 3rd time? You need drug tested!

If you think I just said that Hillary should run again then you are the one needing to be tested. The point is that nobody being talked about now will end up being the nominee if history holds true. I brought up Hillary only to show she was the one exception to the rule, not because she would run again. And she was only the exception to the rule because the DNC did everything they could to make sure she won. Had they started on level playing fields she would likely not have won. Which in and of itself supports my point that the early names never win because the other side has had 3 years to attack them at every turn.
 

Forum List

Back
Top