Joe B updated Democratic Field Rating (Progressives only, please)

[Ame®icano]

I like Sanders. He would be my first choice, but I think he's too far too fast for most folks.

There's also the simple fact that the nation may not survive 4 more years of a spoiled child as president. As it is it will take decades to undo all the damage he's done, rebuild the experience and institutional knowledge he has thrown out, and deprogram all his rabid followers..

Mayor Pete has a similar issue. The nation just isn't ready for a gay president.

Styer isn't really going anywhere fast.

Warren isn't going anywhere fast.

Klobuchar does seem to be angling for a VP spot.

That leaves Bloomberg, who really does seem to have the best chance right now. Both more money and brains that tRump, all he lacks is the legions of brain-dead followers. But I don't think he's a zombie king kinda guy. He seems to atract folks with a higher IQ than the average tRumpling.

I'm gonna hafta say he's the favorite, at the moment at least.

You claimed you know what "that word communism" means.

Then this: "I like Sanders."

LOL

Yeah, you got it!

If you are calling any of the current candidates communist, then you do know what that word means.

Communism starts with socialism. Socialism leads to communism.

I did not call anyone but Bernie a communist, whose ideology is Marxism. The rest of them are not far behind.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You claimed you know what "that word communism" means.

Then this: "I like Sanders."

LOL

Yeah, you got it!

If you are calling any of the current candidates communist, then you do know what that word means.

James Carville hits back at Bernie Sanders after criticism: 'At least I'm not a communist' - CNNPolitics

"Last night on CNN, Bernie called me a political hack. That's exactly who the f**k I am!" Carville told Vanity Fair contributor Peter Hamby in a phone interview, according to a tweet Thursday from Hamby. "I am a political hack! I am not an ideologue. I am not a purist. He thinks it's a pejorative. I kinda like it!"

"At least I'm not a communist," he added.




Bernie Sanders in 1972: 'I don't mind people calling me a communist'

Again. It isn't communism.

It is not totalitarianism but it certainly smells more communist than capitalist in my view.

Socialist maybe.

Definitely and with Communist leanings.

 

[yidnar]

Dumb.

We don’t need your summary, when it mimics the establishment’s. You add nothing. One would think you would have learned something about the establishment these past 30-40 years, but no.

The establishment is there for a reason. But don't worry, the CIA is tracking you with that chip they put in your ass.

Does anyone have anything intelligent to add to the thread?

yep i sure do ! Trump is going to win in 2020 ...and the dems are going to beat the crap out of each other at their brokered convention !the left is a mess !

 

[yidnar]

I like Sanders. He would be my first choice, but I think he's too far too fast for most folks.

There's also the simple fact that the nation may not survive 4 more years of a spoiled child as president. As it is it will take decades to undo all the damage he's done, rebuild the experience and institutional knowledge he has thrown out, and deprogram all his rabid followers..

Mayor Pete has a similar issue. The nation just isn't ready for a gay president.

Styer isn't really going anywhere fast.

Warren isn't going anywhere fast.

Klobuchar does seem to be angling for a VP spot.

That leaves Bloomberg, who really does seem to have the best chance right now. Both more money and brains that tRump, all he lacks is the legions of brain-dead followers. But I don't think he's a zombie king kinda guy. He seems to atract folks with a higher IQ than the average tRumpling.

I'm gonna hafta say he's the favorite, at the moment at least.

You claimed you know what "that word communism" means.

Then this: "I like Sanders."

LOL

Yeah, you got it!

If you are calling any of the current candidates communist, then you do know what that word means.

Communism starts with socialism. Socialism leads to communism.

I did not call anyone but Bernie a communist, whose ideology is Marxism. The rest of them are not far behind.

socialism is communism with training wheels.

 

[Olde Europe]

Far too many....I expect.
To me..in this context..it is the same...a candidate's ability..is what gets me excited. Not ideas..although ideas are cool...but governmental skills. Do they look at politics as, "the art of the possible."? Are they willing to do the right thing..even when it means crossing their constituents? When elected..are they going to be partisan lemmings..or are they going to do what they can..within the system..to make the system work?

I have had it up to my eyebrows with cultural posturing..I don't care about most litmus tests. What excites me about a candidate is if I perceive that they might give up a chance at reelection to do the right thing. I don't care about gender, race or religion. I consider them irrelevant.

As you might guess..I don't excited very often.

To speak to the Democratic field...if this were a job interview...why should I hire them? To lead us...all of us? To offer the hand of reconciliation to the Right? To unite us going forward? To herd the 300m mass of cats that we are..as a society? Is that even possible? I guess it really doesn't matter..as none of the candidates are offering any of that..anyway.

I want a President who will take the office back to what it was meant to be..who will enforce ALL laws..even the bad ones...until Congress does their job..and makes better ones.

As I said, 'Meh' is what we got...from my point of view.

You mean, like President Obama, following the law and not closing Gitmo after a cowardly, irresponsible Congress denied him the funds to do so? Thus breaking one of his major campaign promises and risking his reelection? All told, he didn't go through the federal budget and tried to find a billion here, a billion there, to do it anyway.

While I tentatively agree with much of your posting, you seem to underestimate the struggle for power, and the fact that not getting re-elected results in looking at politics as the "art of the impossible" - out of power, out of influence, handing the other side the weapons to defeat you. So, at the very least, "do the right thing, give up a chance at reelection" and "the art of the possible" aren't as reconcilable as you make it appear.

Anyway, I would have thought that Senator-Professor Warren would warrant a second look, given your preferences, based on her deep understanding how government regulation is supposed to work and her unflinching focus on the bottom 90%. In a way, I am surprised you didn't find her worthy at least an honorable mention.

I said it before, and I say it again, the only way to "unite the country" is based on a common, decent respect for discernible facts. Uniting the country in any other way is the same as trying to find a compromise between the truth and a myriad of lies, which still means uniting the country around lies. That cannot amount to anyone's benefit, except for those at the top of the pile promulgating the self-interested lies. And that's why a decent respect for facts would be my #1 criterion.

 

[Preacher]

DECONSTRUCTING JOE B:

In no particular order.

Any of them would be an improvement over Trump, except Moscow Tulsi... And she might be a good pick if she promises to wear that surf outfit her whole term.

Literally sound like a Parrot repeating what the media says especially about the ONLY sane democrat Gabbard that can and would beat Trump...eh don't believe me. Watch in November. I got no dog in this fight I ain't voting for Trump nor his opponent.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Republican campaign

Sanders is.......Commie, Commie, Commie
Buttengeig is......Fag, Fag, Fag
Biden is.......Crooked, Crooked, Crooked
Warren is.......Pocahontas
Bloomberg is.......Short, Short, Short

And you disagree....?

BTW: Fauxahontas.

 

[Crepitus]

I like Sanders. He would be my first choice, but I think he's too far too fast for most folks.

There's also the simple fact that the nation may not survive 4 more years of a spoiled child as president. As it is it will take decades to undo all the damage he's done, rebuild the experience and institutional knowledge he has thrown out, and deprogram all his rabid followers..

Mayor Pete has a similar issue. The nation just isn't ready for a gay president.

Styer isn't really going anywhere fast.

Warren isn't going anywhere fast.

Klobuchar does seem to be angling for a VP spot.

That leaves Bloomberg, who really does seem to have the best chance right now. Both more money and brains that tRump, all he lacks is the legions of brain-dead followers. But I don't think he's a zombie king kinda guy. He seems to atract folks with a higher IQ than the average tRumpling.

I'm gonna hafta say he's the favorite, at the moment at least.

You claimed you know what "that word communism" means.

Then this: "I like Sanders."

LOL

Yeah, you got it!

If you are calling any of the current candidates communist, then you do know what that word means.

None of these tRumplings does.

 

[Coyote]

I like Sanders. He would be my first choice, but I think he's too far too fast for most folks.

There's also the simple fact that the nation may not survive 4 more years of a spoiled child as president. As it is it will take decades to undo all the damage he's done, rebuild the experience and institutional knowledge he has thrown out, and deprogram all his rabid followers..

Mayor Pete has a similar issue. The nation just isn't ready for a gay president.

Styer isn't really going anywhere fast.

Warren isn't going anywhere fast.

Klobuchar does seem to be angling for a VP spot.

That leaves Bloomberg, who really does seem to have the best chance right now. Both more money and brains that tRump, all he lacks is the legions of brain-dead followers. But I don't think he's a zombie king kinda guy. He seems to atract folks with a higher IQ than the average tRumpling.

I'm gonna hafta say he's the favorite, at the moment at least.

You claimed you know what "that word communism" means.

Then this: "I like Sanders."

LOL

Yeah, you got it!

If you are calling any of the current candidates communist, then you do know what that word means.

Communism starts with socialism. Socialism leads to communism.

I did not call anyone but Bernie a communist, whose ideology is Marxism. The rest of them are not far behind.

Sweden has had socialism for years. Has yet to turn communist.

 

[JoeB131]

Hmm.....sorry Joe..ya missed this one. The reason the revolution was a blood bath was that the Russians wanted one. it was brutal from the beginning. While there was some sporadic effort on the part of the West to support the Whites..they were occupied with WWI and didn't give a shit about what was going on in Russia. The White forces were divided and had no clear plan for the nation. They treated the populace brutally, as did the pro-communist forces.

Yes, they did. But you underestimate the scale of the intervention by the west to desperately keep the Whites in Power, which went on well into 1920 (more than a year after WWI had ended.) Japan was still intervening as late as 1922.

 

[JoeB131]

"Last night on CNN, Bernie called me a political hack. That's exactly who the f**k I am!" Carville told Vanity Fair contributor Peter Hamby in a phone interview, according to a tweet Thursday from Hamby. "I am a political hack! I am not an ideologue. I am not a purist. He thinks it's a pejorative. I kinda like it!"

"At least I'm not a communist," he added.

And maybe people are rightfully sick of partisan hacks like Carville. Frankly, from a progressive point of view, his hero Bill Clinton really didn't do much to stop the war on the Working Class by the One Percent.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey Joe, how come you dislike Trump, can't take his blunt honesty or you don't care for the successful?

Trump isn't honest. He's told 14,000 documented lies.

he isn't successful. He's spent his whole life living off the hard work of others.

Oh, yeah, and he's a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic POS.

 

[JoeB131]

Literally sound like a Parrot repeating what the media says especially about the ONLY sane democrat Gabbard that can and would beat Trump...eh don't believe me. Watch in November. I got no dog in this fight I ain't voting for Trump nor his opponent.

The only people who like Damascus Tulsi are the right wing... because she looks hot in a surfing outfit.

Most sensible people realize she's a nut.

 

[basquebromance]

by running so many different candidates, the Dems are throwing cats in a bag, to see who claws out!

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, after due consideration, I'm leaning towards Bloomberg right now. Here's my reasoning.

First, we need someone who can go toe to toe with Trump. Bloomberg could buy and Sell Trump. He's the eighth richest man in America. LIke it or not, the Plutocracy is not going to give up the presidency easily.

Second, we need a guy who actually has the Administrative chops to run the country. Bloomberg ran a city that has more people in it than the 22 smaller states combined. If New York was an independent country, it would have a GDP of 2.5 TRILLION. More than most countries in the world. He guided it through the 9/11 aftermath, the 2008 economic crash (which hit NYC particularly hard) and the response to Hurricane Sandy.

Furthermore, he knows Wall Street and economics. Sadly to say, the Economic Recovery that started in 2009 is going to come to an end sooner rather than later, and the Fed can't keep pumping up the economy forever in response to Trump's reckless trade policies.

Finally- the country is too divided right now. We need a guy who can fix that. Again, Bloomberg has been a Republican, and Independent and a Democrat over his career, and has worked with all sides to get things done.

Now, yes, I have some concerns that he is too friendly to Wall Street, and that he won't be as progressive as I like. But you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[Olde Europe]

Actually, after due consideration, I'm leaning towards Bloomberg right now. Here's my reasoning.

First, we need someone who can go toe to toe with Trump. Bloomberg could buy and Sell Trump. He's the eighth richest man in America. LIke it or not, the Plutocracy is not going to give up the presidency easily.

Second, we need a guy who actually has the Administrative chops to run the country. Bloomberg ran a city that has more people in it than the 22 smaller states combined. If New York was an independent country, it would have a GDP of 2.5 TRILLION. More than most countries in the world. He guided it through the 9/11 aftermath, the 2008 economic crash (which hit NYC particularly hard) and the response to Hurricane Sandy.

Furthermore, he knows Wall Street and economics. Sadly to say, the Economic Recovery that started in 2009 is going to come to an end sooner rather than later, and the Fed can't keep pumping up the economy forever in response to Trump's reckless trade policies.

Finally- the country is too divided right now. We need a guy who can fix that. Again, Bloomberg has been a Republican, and Independent and a Democrat over his career, and has worked with all sides to get things done.

Now, yes, I have some concerns that he is too friendly to Wall Street, and that he won't be as progressive as I like. But you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Bloomberg blamed the 2008 crash on the CRA.

He argued for deficit reduction - in 2011 - largely on the backs of the poor and the middle class, filed under "entitlement reform". That was "urgent", he felt - in 2011.

So much on Bloomberg knowing "economics".

As to his prospects, think about the turnout by (1) blacks, (2) progressives (Warren, Sanders), and (3) working class Whites in favor of a stop-and-frisk plutocrat without Trump's serving up someone to look down upon. Also, we're going to get the first glimpse of Bloomberg in the Nevada debate, and that's going to tell you something about how he'll manage tow-to-toe with Trump. Bearing in mind that Trump is a wholly different animal to deal with in a ... "debate".

 

[Preacher]

Literally sound like a Parrot repeating what the media says especially about the ONLY sane democrat Gabbard that can and would beat Trump...eh don't believe me. Watch in November. I got no dog in this fight I ain't voting for Trump nor his opponent.

The only people who like Damascus Tulsi are the right wing... because she looks hot in a surfing outfit.

Most sensible people realize she's a nut.

She has a sensible foreign policy and she's a veteran. Do tell us all why she is a "nut"

 

[JoeB131]

Bloomberg blamed the 2008 crash on the CRA.

So?

He argued for deficit reduction - in 2011 - largely on the backs of the poor and the middle class, filed under "entitlement reform". That was "urgent", he felt - in 2011.

And he has a point. At some point, we are going to have to tackle Social Security and Medicare.

As to his prospects, think about the turnout by (1) blacks, (2) progressives (Warren, Sanders), and (3) working class Whites in favor of a stop-and-frisk plutocrat without Trump's serving up someone to look down upon. Also, we're going to get the first glimpse of Bloomberg in the Nevada debate, and that's going to tell you something about how he'll manage tow-to-toe with Trump. Bearing in mind that Trump is a wholly different animal to deal with in a ... "debate".

If progressives and blacks stay home, that's their own damned fault if Trump gets a second term. So it's kind of a hobson's choice. Make the progressives happy and nominate Commie Bernie, and then wonder why the Suburban Women flee back to the Republicans in droves.

You see, true story. The reason why Democrats won in the Mid-terms is not because AOC stole a safe district screaming "Socialism is wonderful". They won because they ran sensible candidates suburban women could get behind.

 

[JoeB131]

She has a sensible foreign policy and she's a veteran. Do tell us all why she is a "nut"

You mean other than being in Russia's payroll?

 

[Preacher]

She has a sensible foreign policy and she's a veteran. Do tell us all why she is a "nut"

You mean other than being in Russia's payroll?

Proof?