Elect a Woman in 2020

From the Press Democrat , June 8, 2019


Elect a Woman in 2020

There are currently 22 candidates for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. They range from a former vice-president to an activist/writer who has never held public office.

There are sixteen men and six women in the field. Among the women are four sitting United States Senators, a member of the House of Representatives and Marianne Williamson, the aforementioned activist/writer.

My suggestion is that, for the good of the country, all the male candidates withdraw from the race. Given the assault on women's health, rights and freedom, this would be a clear signal that the Democratic Party stands with and for women and for the future of the planet.

There is plenty of diversity by age, race and political perspective among the female candidates. All of these women would drive Trump crazy--and none of them will be bullied.

What do you say, guys? Do the right thing, and put the good of the country and the planet ahead of your personal political ambitions. We need a woman in 2020.

Abraham Entin

Because Abraham, you don't think that these six women candidates are running for their personal ambitions but all the male candidates unequivocally are? Do you believe that women are somehow above personal ambition as a driving force in their decisions, actions and behaviors? Certainly women should have an equal opportunity as any male counterpart but just as any male counterpart, shouldn't women be judged by their merit rather than simply their gender?

Now, if you are serious about the good of the country, I suggest we talk about actual policies and achievements of the candidates, not packaging. I personally try to not “profile” when making decisions about friends, employees, contractors, instructors, mentors and certainly not political representatives. If you are in the “future is female” camp I can only say in response: Do the names Sarah Palin and Condoleeza Rice mean anything to you?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Abraham Entin:

From the Press Democrat , June 8, 2019


Elect a Woman in 2020

There are currently 22 candidates for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination. They range from a former vice-president to an activist/writer who has never held public office.

There are sixteen men and six women in the field. Among the women are four sitting United States Senators, a member of the House of Representatives and Marianne Williamson, the aforementioned activist/writer.

My suggestion is that, for the good of the country, all the male candidates withdraw from the race. Given the assault on women's health, rights and freedom, this would be a clear signal that the Democratic Party stands with and for women and for the future of the planet.

There is plenty of diversity by age, race and political perspective among the female candidates. All of these women would drive Trump crazy--and none of them will be bullied.

What do you say, guys? Do the right thing, and put the good of the country and the planet ahead of your personal political ambitions. We need a woman in 2020.

Abraham Entin

---

I think Abraham has a point. If a woman is elected prez, maybe we can begin to stop blaming men for the state of the world. We can include misandry in addition to misogyny when naming blinding prejudice. Personally, I'm most attracted to the cute, smart, gay guy.

I would love to see the first woman president of the U.S. But it would be worse to have the current president re-elected. Another option would be to have a good man, such as Bernie Sanders, commit himself to having a woman vice-president, of whom there are many good candidates in the running. That woman could be our next president.

All else being equal, I'd like to see a woman be the next president. However, all else is NOT equal. Each candidate offers a unique blend of talents and identities.

I am also "most attracted to the cute, smart, gay guy", Pete Buttigieg! You can tune into Pete by watching one of his longer interviews, or town halls. Aside from being a talented polyglot, he has an exceptional talent for seeing the bigger picture and framing issues within their larger context and based on the values of Freedom, Security and Democracy. He appears to have taken George Lakoff's lessons regarding framing when it comes to messaging. It's a skill that so many on the left lack.

He also comes off as just plain reasonable, rather that combative, or as a fighter, who invites others to share his vision in a compelling way. I think he would be very helpful in healing our divided country. While he is very liberal, he makes compelling arguments, to those on the center and even the right, including reaching out to the faith communities by encouraging them to embrace the values (and thus policies) they profess to believe.

He is also exceptionally real, present, and authentic. Many interviewers have commented on what a genuine presence he brings. At the same time he has made some cutting indictments against Trump, while deftly sidestepping and returning jabs thrown his way. Being that he is such a unique character, and Pete refuses interact with Trump on his low level, I think he will be our best contender to defeat Trump!

I often forget he is gay. Oddly, in the current backlash against old straight white males, it may help him, in at least the Democratic primary. He also uses it to embrace and include all the other subgroups that experience "othering", be it by race, or gender or....

He has also all but declared he would select a woman as a running mate. I think there is no doubt that there will be a woman on the Democratic ticket in 2020!

A good sense of humor is a wonderful attribute to have – thanks for that Rossmen.

In regards to the cute smart gay guy – smart as a fox, or sly, as I believe the saying goes. Donning progressive garb in his cute gay guy manner, Mayor Pete is frequently referred to as the centrist left darling of the DNC. Giving lip service to progressive talking points while planning with establishment insiders on how to stop Sanders puts Buttigieg, in my book, at the top of the page with Joe Biden and Beto O'Rourke, slippery centrists. But maybe that cute gay guy comment was more humor and I missed it.... so sorry.

By the way, I would add to that mainstream centrist Dem list a few of those women that we are suppose to be happy with just because they are women; Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar, who at least don't pretend to be what they are not. And let's not forget Kamala Harris, who is the epitome of personal ambition, playing the progressive card, though likely would be the DNC choice behind Biden should he explode before the convention.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

I think Abraham has a point. If a woman is elected prez, maybe we can begin to stop blaming men for the state of the world. We can include misandry in addition to misogyny when naming blinding prejudice. Personally, I'm most attracted to the cute, smart, gay guy.

---

I guess it's time for me to step back in here.

First of all, I DID NOT suggest that "we should be happy with any of the candidates... just because they are women." I just said that they are a diverse group. Please, everyone, stop putting words in my mouth or making me a straw person for your ideas.

Rustie--if it were me, I would have used Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi or Hilary ("Henry Kissinger is a friend and a mentor to me") Clinton as examples rather than Condee and Sarah. But there are certainly plenty to choose from. Actually, I just said that the female candidates are a diverse group (so if you want to nominate a corrupt centrist or corporate democrat) you can find a woman among these just as easily as among the men. I never said or suggested that I supported any of them.

As far as the "future is female" is concerned, I would say this: In a time of "gender fluidity" I do think that the capacities and characteristics that have historically been labelled "feminine" (empathy, unselfishness, etc) must come to the fore in public as well as private life if we are going to have a chance for a humane future. Whether these are embodied in a "male" or "female" body is certainly less relevant than that they are present and active in the candidate.

I do enjoy the progression of these threads. I just don't like becoming straw, although I did once play the scarecrow in a production of the "Purim Wizard of Oz". Probably my biggest audience as an actor.

I will end with a commercial message: My memoir, Living on the Fringe (Steinerbooks, 2018) is available at Copperfields, Amazon and the Sonoma County Library. Please check it out.

Abraham

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

A good sense of humor is a wonderful attribute to have – thanks for that Rossmen.

In regards to the cute smart gay guy – ....

---

Nice to see there are some Sanders supporters in Wacco world. If we're looking for serious systemic change, in my opinion, he is the only candidate, who from the Oval, will fight with and for us to seize the moment of this amazing populist progressive movement. And seize it we must. If we dilly dally around like it's a delicious buffet trying a little bit of everything on our plates no one will get 50% on the first ballot at the nominating convention. End result, the DNC will decide for us who the nominee will be via the super-delegates...... just saying...

And by the way, Bernie has indicted in numerous interviews that he will likely name a woman as his running mate. I personally think it's a safe bet that he will.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

I would love to see the first woman president of the U.S. But it would be worse to have the current president re-elected. Another option would be to have a good man, such as Bernie Sanders, commit himself to having a woman vice-president, of whom there are many good candidates in the running. That woman could be our next president.

---

Dear Abraham;
I too misunderstood your intention in your original post. Thank you for your clarification, which I do agree with.
As a lesbian, a long-time feminist, and a priestess of the Goddess who remembers the matriarchy, of course I would love to have a female president, but not at the expense of any better candidate.

My name for Hillary Clinton is "Patriarchy In A Skirt". I do not support any of the current female DNC candidates - but also do not support the DNC. I do not subscribe to "lesser evil" voting and voted for Jill Stein in the last election.

That said, I would not have a problem voting for Bernie as my "lesser evil" in this election if he gets the DNC nomination. Why not have "The First Jewish President"? He wouldn't even be the first socialist president. There are a lot of things I don't like about him, but I would have a lot less to complain about if he were president.

I lost friends in the last election because so many of my lesbian friends supported Hillary Clinton and some of them were really nasty with me about that. I was accused of supporting Trump because I was so against Clinton. My replies about Margaret Thatcher were disregarded. People in the UK voted for her, knowing how conservative she was, because they wanted their First Woman Prime Minister. That thinking is just stupid, in my opinion.

Who is going to steer the ship in the direction we want to go? That is not going to be determined by anything other than the person's morals, if anyone has any of those left by the time they get to that level of power, who they owe favors to, which is more realistic, and what are their values. If we are going to choose a criteria for eliminating most of the candidates, let's eliminate anyone who is primarily motivated by personal financial gain, anyone who has a limited scope for problem-solving, and anyone who does not understand social justice and cultural diversity. Who is left? I think it's Bernie.

Love,
Emerald

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Abraham Entin:

I guess it's time for me to step back in here.

First of all, I DID NOT suggest that "we should be happy with any of the candidates... just because they are women."...

---

It's interesting that this time we calies might have a vote in the bearer of the demo standard. While I vote, as an anarchist I really believe we would be better off without monopolistic violence. So my consideration in adding a grain of sand to the primary is the omnipresent opponent. Who can beat our orange demon of a leader? I appreciate the crowd sourcing scrum of the current democratic feild and will wait to decide, the problem for me is they all believe in democracy!

While I respect your opinion that Pete might be the right person for the job, and I appreciate your thoughtful summation of all his valuable qualities, I'm not reading anything from this that indicates what his actual policies are. No argument from me that Buttigieg is a very intelligent person that speaks multiple languages, has a big picture perspective, an appealing style of discourse and is a liberal, gay, religious guy which might enable him to bridge the gap between a variety of social subgroups – but..... what are his politics?

The summation of what I know about his politics is that he is a centrist left party player Democrat. That might be exactly the standard bearer you would like to see in the Oval, me personally, not so much. I'm hoping we can seat a champion of and for the working class people. Someone who will get in the trenches and fight the health insurance industry, the fossil fuel industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, giant agribusiness and Wall Street. I've heard nothing about Buttigieg, or from him, to indicate he is that person.

Though it appears that you've attempted to make a case for him as a viable prospect for president I'm still waiting to hear something of substance about him rather than the package. Certainly I acknowledge that some of the qualities you point to are more substantive than merely gender, ethnicity or religion but at the end of the conversation there's no information about his politics, where he stands on issues and what, if any, concrete plans he has to implement his positions.

I'm repeatedly dismayed at the ongoing discourse around the packaging and personalities of these candidates rather than the issues, policies, alliances and track records that they bring to the table. I suspect that a Buttigieg administration, as well as a Warren or Harris administration, would look like business as usual with a continuation of unfettered capitalism, economic and racial injustice and more market based reactions to social and environmental problems.

That having been said, if that's the vision one has for our nation then those are probably wise choices. Which brings me to the salient question, what is our long view? Have we thought about what comes after the election or are we so distracted with beating Trump that we no longer consider the big picture?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

All else being equal, I'd like to see a woman be the next president. However, all else is NOT equal. Each candidate offers a unique blend of talents and identities.

I am also "most attracted to the cute, smart, gay guy", Pete Buttigieg! You can tune into Pete by watching one of his longer interviews, or town halls. Aside from being a talented polyglot, he has an exceptional talent for seeing the bigger picture and framing issues within their larger context and based on the values of Freedom, Security and Democracy. He appears to have taken George Lakoff's lessons regarding framing when it comes to messaging. It's a skill that so many on the left lack.

He also comes off as just plain reasonable, rather that combative, or as a fighter, who invites others to share his vision in a compelling way. I think he would be very helpful in healing our divided country. While he is very liberal, he makes compelling arguments, to those on the center and even the right, including reaching out to the faith communities by encouraging them to embrace the values (and thus policies) they profess to believe.

He is also exceptionally real, present, and authentic. Many interviewers have commented on what a genuine presence he brings. At the same time he has made some cutting indictments against Trump, while deftly sidestepping and returning jabs thrown his way. Being that he is such a unique character, and Pete refuses interact with Trump on his low level, I think he will be our best contender to defeat Trump!

I often forget he is gay. Oddly, in the current backlash against old straight white males, it may help him, in at least the Democratic primary. He also uses it to embrace and include all the other subgroups that experience "othering", be it by race, or gender or....

He has also all but declared he would select a woman as a running mate. I think there is no doubt that there will be a woman on the Democratic ticket in 2020!

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

While I respect your opinion that Pete might be the right person for the job, and I appreciate your thoughtful summation of all his valuable qualities, I'm not reading anything from this that indicates what his actual policies are. ...

---

There's quite a bit at the link below. I'll elaborate when I get a chance....

https://peteforamerica.com/issues/

It seems to me that you hit the proverbial nail on the head with respect to a Devi-Harris administration, which thankfully has virtually zero chance of happening. You probably got it right with Buttigieg's administration, which has slightly more chance of happening than Devi-Harris.

However, with respect to Warren, either you have not been paying attention ("she has a plan for that!") or consider her to be something she is not.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

... I'm repeatedly dismayed at the ongoing discourse around the packaging and personalities of these candidates rather than the issues, policies, alliances and track records that they bring to the table. I suspect that a Buttigieg administration, as well as a Warren or Harris administration, would look like business as usual with a continuation of unfettered capitalism, economic and racial injustice and more market based reactions to social and environmental problems.

---

So here's the deal, I don't think Warren is the worst of the bunch but her positions on our economic structure, in my opinion, don't go far enough to effectively change the paradigm. While she has written great legislation toward finance reform, at the end of the day she clearly states, “I am a capitalist. I believe in markets. They are what make us rich”. My first question is, makes who rich? Certainly not the working class.

Creating a new paradigm where there is equity, equality and opportunity for all people will take a deep systemic change in how we function as a society. Capitalism and market economy, by their nature, function only in a class divide environment.

Unfettered capitalism and markets with rules are really not going to bring the bottom up nor will they adequately address the climate crisis. Further, continuing to perpetuate the ideology that “getting rich” is a worthy goal seems counter to a progressive movement rooted in values of equality and personal dignity. I think it fair to say that our wealth driven ethics are a major contributor to our current political, economic and environmental crisis.

Plans attempting to correct the problems in our system are not something Warren is short on. She has a plan for everything. It's the details of many of her plans that concern me.

For instance, Warren's version of Medicare for All does not include removing health insurance companies from the equation. Her plan is to get drug prices lowered and to make Obama-care more affordable and more accessible and to protect consumers from insurance policy changes and premium increases. The not-so-obvious indirect problem with that plan, (insurance companies being the direct problem), is Obama-care, period, full stop.

Obama-care is and will continue to be corporate welfare. While for many, out-of-pocket premiums dramatically decreased with ACA, the actual premiums collected by the insurance industry did not. Who pays the difference? We do. Government subsidies pick up the tab to the insurance industry. Mind you, not our health care providers, but the insurance industry, a cadre of non-medically qualified personnel determining what medical care they will allow us to have. Additionally on top of our premiums we pay out-of-pocket co-pays and deductibles. Warren's plan to keep the health insurance industry in place is like leaving the fox in the hen house. I call this business as usual.

Addressing our climate crisis is another area where I have problems with Warren. She is on-board with stopping all drilling on public lands and banning fracking, and that's great. Of course so is Sanders and several others. But some of her long-term goals, in my opinion, are way off-track.

Huge investments in research, manufacturing and exporting of green technology seems to be the underpinning of her climate policy. Creating institutes and markets and making America the leading supplier of green energy products worldwide are Warren's primary climate action goals. Her Marshall Plan will subsidize foreign governments and companies so they can purchase and deploy American made clean renewable energy technologies. In a Warren administration we will corner the market on energy efficiency and turn the climate crisis into to a huge industrial profit machine.

Not necessarily all bad but it's counter-intuitive to one of the fundamental rules of deep green solutions – decentralization of everything we do to the greatest extent possible.

To begin with there's a lot of embedded energy in green technology. Resources needed to build much of that technology is usually not renewable. To centralize the manufacturing of green technology in the U.S., by way of “cornering the market”, and then exporting that technology all over the world, is the antithesis of an environmentally sound policy that is designed to address our climate crisis first. It is clear to me that Senator Warren's climate plan is focused first and foremost on creating markets and profits.

Certainly with Warren's plan millions of jobs will be created and for many the quality of life will improve. However, in the end, as it was with the Industrial Revolution, the rich will get richer and the poor will remain poor and the small few, already in a position to reap the benefits, will remain in power.

Meanwhile there's little to no talk in her climate crisis proposals about creating millions of jobs with large scale investment in America's infrastructure, food security and climate impact protections. Working in concert with our international communities to further renewable technological innovations and reduce our worldwide carbon footprint would better be accomplished in an inclusive environment rather than in a competitive one. I see Warren's approach to our climate crisis as the epitome of a market based reaction to a social and environmental problem.

Further, her idea to “green the military” seems to be the long way around. Per Warren's website, “the Pentagon spends $4 billion a year to power its bases at fixed locations and consumes tens of billions of barrels of fuel per year.” “Nibbling around the edges of the problem is no longer enough”... etc. Her Defense Climate Resiliency and Readiness Act begins with greening the Pentagon to reach net-zero carbon emissions for non-combat bases and infrastructure by 2030. The broad-brushstroke plan she has to achieve this goal is to throw billions of dollars into researching green technology and adapting our over 700 bases worldwide.

I'm no expert here but it seems to me that a far more expedient path to dramatically reduce the Pentagon's carbon emissions would be to immediately begin reducing our military bases, personnel, operations and budget. There may still be more to address if the goal is net-zero but reducing the size of the beast automatically reduces the emissions which in turn would automatically reduce the steps, dollars and likely the time line necessary to attain a net-zero goal.

Warren is quick to tell us that we don't need to choose between a green military and an effective one but she doesn't speak to the bloated size of our military. She does address the bloated budget by way of cutting out the fat to defense contractors but in the end, leaving our oversized operations in place.

This of course makes sense if you're a capitalist driven market based economy. The defense industry is huge and even after cutting out some of the money fat you still have an organization that is grotesquely oversized for the purpose of American National Security. However, it's business as usual to keep our military bloated in size, to keep money flowing to the defense industry and to keep us engaged in military conflicts all around the world.

These are just a few of the most egregious examples of why I consider Warren to be in the “business are usual” category. While I suspect that her heart's in the right place I think her ideology limits her ability to think beyond the restrictions of contemporary capitalism and market based economies. It is my opinion that we need someone with a broader perspective and a more creative imagination to successfully deal with our problems of economic and social injustice and environmental crisis.

Thanks to take the time to read this, sorry it's so long, some things just can't be expressed succinctly.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

It seems to me that you hit the proverbial nail on the head with respect to a Devi-Harris administration, which thankfully has virtually zero chance of happening. You probably got it right with Buttigieg's administration, which has slightly more chance of happening than Devi-Harris.

However, with respect to Warren, either you have not been paying attention ("she has a plan for that!") or consider her to be something she is not.

---

Rustie,
While I favor Warren more than the others, I totally agree with your points.
I've sent your paragraphs on to her (hopefully) via her website and will post what comes back.
Onwards, Jude

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

So here's the deal, I don't think Warren is the worst of the bunch but her positions on our economic structure, in my opinion, don't go far enough to effectively change the paradigm. While she has written great legislation toward finance reform, at the end of the day she clearly states, “I am a capitalist. I believe in markets. They are what make us rich”. My first question is, makes who rich? Certainly not the working class....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

Rustie,
While I favor Warren more than the others, I totally agree with your points.
I've sent your paragraphs on to her (hopefully) via her website and will post what comes back.
Onwards, Jude

---

Warren is proposing some pretty radical plans for what you'd call a European-style social democracy that would rein in corporate malfeasance, heavily tax the wealthiest, provide for a new green deal, increase social benefits, etc. She knows how to do it too.

On the matter of capitalism, small business has always been the most innovative and creative aspect of our economy. While there is a need for large business to produce some items such as automobiles, they generally lend themselves to monopolizing, slicing and dicing labor costs and benefits, environmental pollution, mechanization to cut jobs, and quality reduction. All because their shareholders are greedy for profits and cutting costs is the way to boost their coffers. Approximately 20% of Americans own stock. Unless it is invested in socially and environmentally conscious companies, they are part of the problem along with the 1%.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by EmeraldMatra:

.... If we are going to choose a criteria for eliminating most of the candidates, let's eliminate anyone who is primarily motivated by personal financial gain, anyone who has a limited scope for problem-solving, and anyone who does not understand social justice and cultural diversity. Who is left? I think it's Bernie.

---

Nice short list of criteria for eliminating candidates. Thank you for that Emerald. I would add to that anyone who doesn't come to the table with a past history of actions and a proven record of accomplishments in the specific areas of our desired objectives. Anyone can say anything but what have they actually done and how hard will you fight once they get their day in the sun...

In this overcrowded field of contenders it would behoove us to figure out how to cut through the chaff asap. I guess at the end of the day it ultimately depends on what principles and policies we each want to see enacted in our country. I for one am fighting for environmental, social and economic justice. A nation of social equity, equality and opportunity rather than wealth-driven capitalism.

That having been said, I also absolutely agree with you regarding the “lesser evil” voting strategy. I too could not vote for Hillary. If, as a country, we had the courage to vote “for” someone rather than voting “against” someone else, we possibly by now could have actually established some viable alternative political parties, not to mention taking our power back.

Having voted for Nader, both times, I'm well aware of the mental gyrations people go through when faced with fear... And now, in 2020 there are those who have the audacity to once again refer to Bernie as “the spoiler”. How does that work? He's the one running second behind Biden in the polls. Further, when Biden supporters are asked who their second choice would be, 48% of those polled said Sanders. Fear is a powerful tool in the hands of those who know how to wield it.

Personally I refuse to participate. Full disclosure, I will not make a fear vote in November 2020. Eventually we will have a revolution. I hope it can be at the ballot box and not in the streets.

This post by Entin must be a joke, a little tongue-in-cheek humor?

I value extensive experience and deep knowledge, empathy and understanding. Certainly, Elizabeth Warren qualifies under this criteria. Other candidates have not been around the block.

During the 1970's, I was an enthusiastic supporter of the early women's movement. Though I still hold these beliefs, my starry-eyed views have since been badly damaged by the election of many women to high office, ones that have totally failed to meet my hopes and ideals.

I still highly value women for their sensitivity, intuition, caring, heartfulness, but to vote for someone based on their body-type is absurd.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Abraham Entin:

Elect a Woman in 2020...

---

Revolution does not happen at the ballot box. Why not celebrate all the brave contenders? There is still plenty of time to make a decision, which of course matters little in rep dem. I appreciate the op, why not sort by gender? What do you think of tulsi?

Thanks for the link Barry. I went to Mayor Pete's site and it struck me very much like his interviews. He's a polished speaker but he doesn't actually say much of anything, it's a lot of platitudes. My opinion of him after I did more research is less than it was when I started.

There are two primary issues that for me are the make or break in all current political considerations. Health care and climate crisis. If people cannot get out from under the fear of being financially ruined, homeless and hungry from an unexpected family illness we will never achieve a just society where all people can live to their full potential, free of oppression, with dignity and self-respect. And of course if we don't effectively address the climate crisis none of this will matter.

On both of those issues, in my opinion, Buttigieg falls way short of the mark.

His position on health care is troubling to say the least. First and foremost, like Warren, Mayor Pete's plan is to keep health insurance companies in place. I would ask why? They do nothing but take exorbitant sums of money and provide zero medical services.

On the other hand the health insurance industry has a huge lobbying front that funnels excessive sums of money into the hands of our politicians buying themselves a powerful seat at our legislative table. Therefore it is wise and lucrative for any self-serving politician to continue to perpetuate the myth that we need these fine folks meddling with our health care.

It seems obvious to me that any Medicare for All legislation that does not include the removal of the health insurance industry is a waste of time. To make matters worse Pete's version of Medicare for All is the public option concept. This sits squarely in the DNC establishment's preferred response to health care. Of course we all know that it doesn't work. First of all Obama tried to float that and it failed. More importantly the two biggest problems with the public option strategy is it leaves the health insurance industry in place and sets up a class divide in our health care. Those who have the ability, via economic means, will have superior health care and those who can not afford private insurance will have the public option which will be limited in its ability to compete with the private sector for quality care.

Medicare for All, as in Sanders' version, that removes the insurance industry and covers everyone equally works, because it is an all in system. Buttigieg's plan is just another way to keep the status quo in place, the fat cats on top and the 99% oppressed.

And in my opinion he's not doing much better on climate. Buttigieg's primary talking point is a carbon tax. Another industry friendly fix. While a carbon tax will definitely produce funding that can be directed toward green energy programs it does little to actually curb, let alone stop the pollution and carbon output coming from the mega-corporate manufacturing, timber and ag industries. It is far more cost effective to pay a carbon tax and keep spewing and dumping toxins into our environment than it would be to retool, enforce regulations and overhaul and adapt operations to function in a net-zero carbon footprint requirement.

Additionally Pete talks about a dividend for Americans, increasing energy efficiency in homes and investing in building retrofits. Those are great ideas but they're not going to get the job done. I don't see where he talks about a ban on fracking &/or banning new fossil fuel infrastructure or fossil fuel leases on public lands. He makes no mention of keeping oil, gas and coal in the ground. But then again why would he – Buttigieg is a straight up mainstream party player. In my opinion he's addressing our climate crisis with half measures at best.

He talks a good talk, caring about the environment, social justice, equality, dignity, etc, but as the old saying goes, talk is cheap. His stated policies, the few that he actually spells out, tend to lean heavily to the right – corporate friendly, not so much for working class people.

This perspective is reinforced with Mayor Pete's accomplishments in his home town. It's reported that South Bend's downtown got it's promised facelift with new hotels, storefronts and restaurants but unfortunately the poor black neighborhoods, that he also promised to uplift, have remained unchanged. He did attempt to follow through with one of his initiatives for aiding low-income communities. However due to his poor planning and lack of comprehensive understanding of the project, it's implementation caused more problems than it solved. In the end, little to zero has improved. Economic opportunity remains slim and crime rates are up from pre Mayor Pete days in 2012.

In the spirit of mainstream establishment politicians Buttigieg likes to credit himself with the reduction in South Bend's unemployment rates since he became Mayor. While it is true that South Bend saw unemployment cut in half during his tenure it's fair to note that the city's drop in unemployment follows the same trajectory as the entire state of Indiana as well as the country. I don't believe that this salient point was missed by Pete, it's just a fact that he chooses to not mention when boasting about his accomplishments.

These examples of his past performances as a political representative, his lack of transparency, his pro industry policies and his participation in meetings held with major DNC players about how to stop Sanders, all add up to another status quo politician who, in my opinion, has little integrity and even less of a moral compass.

In conclusion the most recent news about the DNC centrist left darling Buttigieg is that he is one of Wall Street's 3 top choices, in the company of Biden and Harris. Rumor has it that his current campaign funding is over $20 mil in the second FEC quarter, sourced from giant tech, Wall Street and elites who rub elbows with federal lobbyists. I personally don't think there is much more needed to make the case. I imagine a Buttigieg administration would be pro-corporate, elite ruling class, business as usual, but with the outer appearances of being progressive.

However, that all having been said, perhaps that's exactly what you're looking for and why Pete appeals to you. Then again, maybe you really do want to see deep systemic change in our political system and society. Possibly, like me, you're excited and hopeful with the results of our mid-terms and the truly progressive new wing of our government. If so I would suggest considering a proven progressive with an actual track record of fighting in the trenches with and for the people, not campaign rhetoric in a cute package.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

There's quite a bit at the link below. I'll elaborate when I get a chance....

https://peteforamerica.com/issues/

---

My sympathies are with you, Rustie, but I think the reality is that change is not going to happen as quickly or dramatically as we would like it to. There are still too many Republicans in government, and the President needs the cooperation of Congress to get things done. We're stuck with choosing a candidate who at least approaches our ideals and is attractive enough to draw voters. Same old, same old.
All my life I've voted against someone, never for someone. In this particular election any candidate would be better than what we've got.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Thanks for the link Barry. I went to Mayor Pete's site....

---

I guess if gender is your criteria for president than that would be a good way to sort. I tend to start with background. What have they done, what do they stand for and what are their policies?

Tulsi – I can't say, she doesn't have much clear policy platform. She strikes me as a one trick pony. Everything seems to be viewed through the lens of her military experience.

Brave contenders....... What's so brave about these contenders? The majority of them are up there to get some name recognition in the hope that this will be beneficial to their future careers. I see it as opportunistic. Trump is an easy target and everybody's going to pile on to beat the bully, or at best get some valuable publicity. Buttigieg seems to have done well for himself on this bet. Some of the more notable contenders, Harris and Warren, in my opinion, are there because it's their next obvious career move. Sanders has stepped up again because he genuinely wants to bring the bottom up and redistribute the power to the people. Beto's joined because he's a narcissistic rich boy who gets to play with whatever toys he wants. And I can't imagine what Biden is thinking...

My thoughts on 23 candidates, and still counting, is that it further demonstrates how dysfunctional the system is. Not to mention the fact that the waters are so muddied it will be an easy touchdown for the DNC when the super-delegates hand us Biden. No questions asked.....

I disagree with your comment about revolution. I think the revolution has already begun at the ballot box. Small albeit, but it's happening. I'm in reference to those amazing, fearless women that are now leading the progressive charge in our House – Ocasio-Cortez, Ilan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. These women all came from the organization offshoot of Sanders' 2016 campaign, Our Revolution. And now there are more of these organizations, again offshoots from Sanders, who are actively recruiting, training and backing campaigns of progressives to run for elected seats across the country in local, state and federal elections.

This is a movement that is taking hold and in my view this 2020 primary election is the make or break as to whether or not it will survive. The DNC is spending a lot of time and resources trying to stop it. I consider that alone a significant sign that the revolution is taking place. The question is will it sustain and take power or will the GOP and DNC shut it down?

I think it's up to us. Do we buy into the same old manipulative talking points, fall in line and capitulate? Or do we take a chance and take a stand?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:

Revolution does not happen at the ballot box. Why not celebrate all the brave contenders? There is still plenty of time to make a decision, which of course matters little in rep dem. I appreciate the op, why not sort by gender? What do you think of tulsi?

---

This post has been bothering me for days, but every time I try to reply it gets long winded...

I would *never* vote for someone because of their gender (or gender identity), their race, their religion, their sexual orientation... anymore then I would vote against them for such a thing.

If you take the post back a little over a decade ad subitute "woman" for "African-American" ... well, regardless of how you feel about Obama it is hard to deny that it woke a long simmering racism in America , and is largely responsible for everything from the widening divide in America, the increased partisanship in congress, ... our current "president". I have a bad feeling electing a woman, a gay man, a "socialist"... is just going to repeat the problem in new ways...

And,,,as to the two leading women - let's not be blinded by their current spiels. Harris has a LOT to answer for in regards to her time as a prosecutor, DA, and AG. And Warren has a LOT to answer for in regards to her years as a *very* high priced lawyer representing despicable companies in dis disgusting cases. Neither deserve the free pass Dems seem to be giving them.

Having been the only person I know in CA who predicted Trumps win... I'm going to say it now - with what the Dems are giving us Trump *will* win a second term. (Remember- CA does NOT represent the views or values of the majority of the democratic party in the US).

I think you missed my prior post (#7 in this thread) in which I (think) I spoke to many of the points you raised.

Abraham

Thanks for the empathetic support. I suspect that you agree with me in theory though not in practice. Unfortunately, I also suspect that that position is consistent with mainstream talking points. This is why, in part, we are where we are today. When one feels stuck they lose the ability to move. Hanging close to the handrails gets us nowhere new.

I'm sorry for you that you've never voted for someone, always against. For me, win or lose, to vote for whom I genuinely want to elect is empowering. It is, in my opinion, the point of voting.

The antithesis of exercising our right to vote is to give our vote away by accepting the narrative that there is no other choice. There's always a choice. Voting is actually the easiest thing we can do to make our voices heard. But if we're not casting our ballots with our true voice, we are sending the wrong message.

The same old, as you called it, in my opinion, is actually a result of the vote against strategy. It keeps us locked into the two party system believing that we can only approach our ideals but never quite get close enough to realize them. In that complacent state we repeatedly convey our approval of the same old story and never find our way off the merry-go-round.

Since Truman (with a couple of exceptions) the two party establishment players keep trading places every eight years. The Democrats pass paltry legislation on environment, equality, economy, etc. We're delighted because it's better than what preceded them. Eight years later the Republicans get back in and reverse or diminish what little ground was gained, and the cycle repeats with zero accountability.

Stuck in our belief that we have no other options we continue to vote for the same old Democrats. Functionally this does little more than signal our approval of the DNC platform and the corporatist shills they keep foisting on us. And the beat goes on, the cycle continues, and we're responsible.

Our most recent history tells us that voting against rather than for someone may not actually be the best strategy. As per your comment, you, and I'm guessing the overwhelming majority of Democrats that voted, voted against Bush. Those were the times that the phrase “anybody but.....” was coined. Four years later after Clinton's team stole the nomination from Sanders the majority held their nose fell in line and voted against Trump. And in the end, each time, what did voting against get us? Four more years of Bush, and President Trump.

Now they're dragging the mantra out again and we can't wait to get in line and obediently vote for any Democrat. We don't care about their policies, ethics, past performance, or integrity. What will they actually do once/if seated in the Oval? It doesn't matter, it's all about beating Trump, because after all, anyone would be better.

In the meantime if we don't take some major steps and make some dramatic changes to address the climate crisis none of this will matter. Our DNC traditional Democrats are not likely to take on the fossil fuel industry in any meaningful fashion. Certainly, if given another 4 years, Trump will expedite the devastation of our environment. However, a Biden, Buttigieg, Harris or Warren administration will likely do too little too late. Either scenario will result in the continued destruction of our Eco-system leaving bleak prospects for future generations.

My expectation is not that anything will happen quickly or dramatically. Speed may or may not be the issue. I think that depends on what specific issue one is addressing. One thing is certain, if we continue to accept the mainstream fear driven talking points, and do nothing dramatic, nothing dramatic will happen.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

My sympathies are with you, Rustie, but I think the reality is that change is not going to happen as quickly or dramatically as we would like it to. There are still too many Republicans in government, and the President needs the cooperation of Congress to get things done. We're stuck with choosing a candidate who at least approaches our ideals and is attractive enough to draw voters. Same old, same old.
All my life I've voted against someone, never for someone. In this particular election any candidate would be better than what we've got.

---

Still in agreement with you for the most part, Rustie, despite your patronizing remarks and way-off-base assumptions about me. I feel no obligation to defend myself against them.
As Utah Phillips famously said, "If God had wanted us to vote, She would have given us candidates."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Thanks for the empathetic support. ...

---

So Jude I'm curious why you favor Warren particularly in light of your comment that you totally agree with my points. Maybe I've done a poor job in expressing my point which is that I think Warren is really not the progressive champion of the people she tries to sell herself as. What are your thoughts on this?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

While I favor Warren more than the others, I totally agree with your points. ...

---

I'm really not patronizing you nor do I make any assumptions about you. With all due respect my commentary has nothing to do with you personally. I'm responding to your comments on this thread.

In summary, on the topic of voting strategies you expressed the opinions that; change isn't going to happen quickly or dramatically because there are too many Republicans and we're stuck with only approaching our ideals when choosing a candidate. You also shared that you personally have never in your life voted for someone, only against and that in this particular election you feel that anyone would be better than what we have, thus, validating the vote against strategy.

I happen to disagree with both of the premises that you set forth as well as disagreeing with the wisdom of voting against rather than for an elected official. In the spirit of participating in a discussion I shared my opinions and thoughts in response to yours.

In brief the gist of my opinion on this subject is that we have been sold a bill of goods that tells us we can't possibly have/get what we want and we would be wise to settle for second best or else we will be stuck with something even worse than that which we don't really want in the first place.

Your comments, in my opinion, are the epitome of that narrative and I happen to believe that that perspective is at the root of why we find ourselves unable to harness the necessary energy to make any dramatic change.

Apparently there is a very fine line between opposing opinions and patronizing remarks. I understand that it is difficult to separate our opinions and beliefs from our self-identity. Often this overlap can leave us feeling personally attacked when our opinions are being challenged. I know nothing about you and have no desire to make assumptions or attack you. I'm having a conversation about the topic at hand. If I've misunderstood the meaning in the words you wrote, please correct me.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

Still in agreement with you for the most part, Rustie, despite your patronizing remarks and way-off-base assumptions about me. I feel no obligation to defend myself against them.
As Utah Phillips famously said, "If God had wanted us to vote, She would have given us candidates."

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

I happen to disagree with both of the premises that you set forth as well as disagreeing with the wisdom of voting against rather than for an elected official. In the spirit of participating in a discussion I shared my opinions and thoughts in response to yours.

In brief the gist of my opinion on this subject is that we have been sold a bill of goods that tells us we can't possibly have/get what we want and we would be wise to settle for second best or else we will be stuck with something even worse than that which we don't really want in the first place.

---

I take issue with the phrasing 'sold a bill of goods'. Maybe it's nitpicking, but maybe not - the phrase implies a concerted effort by someone to mislead. In this case, I think the burden's on you to explain how hell yes, we can certainly have/get what we want. I don't think history supports that. Rather, it instead strongly supports the idea that you'll be stuck with something worse. Bush/Gore/Nader, anyone?

That's not to say it's not worth fighting for what you want - something's got to be done to move the Overton Window (to use a newly-popular jargon). Each vote is a question of tactics vs. strategy. Do you take a tactical defeat that's going to advance you toward your strategic goals? usually, yes. But a tactical defeat that turns into a strategic loss is also possible. If you believe that the trends are going in the right direction, which demographics and a lot of surveys tend to show is possible, then doing things that give McConnell and his gang four more years to entrench judges and attack the legal basis for regulating corporate malfeasance (which they are demonstrably doing) is a poor tactic and strategy both.

No one can guarantee anything in this realm, particularly when it's as vague as "certainly have/get what we want." That doesn't mean we accept "tactical defeats" and pray that somehow enough of them will add up to something good (maybe because of "demographic trends"?).

As for the phrase, a bill of goods, i.e. intentional deception, is EXACTLY what it is. Just to pick a few examples, when Obama said he'd advocate for single-payer and immediately dropped it once in office, was that because of a changed situation or did he simply make a promise he never intended to keep? (If something changed, what was that exactly?) When he said he'd close Gitmo and then dropped the issue once in office, how was that not also a promise he never intended to keep? When he said he'd keep special interests out of gov't and then put Goldmann Sachs in charge of the Treasury department, how was that not also a promise he never intended to keep? When Nancy Pelosi (a very wealthy, old white lady) said the four new progressives (Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Tlaib, & Pressley, all young women of color) were the only ones to vote against the border bill, a huge gift to Trump with no meaningful strings attached, when in the real world NINETY-FIVE democrats voted against it, i.e. she told a huge, obvious, bald-faced lie, did she not know she was lying? (Is she just too demented for the job at age 79? Is there some other explanation?) When Elizabeth Warren votes for every ever-increasing defense budget and then holds herself out as a progressive, she is telling a lie. The list of these things is endless. Grouping them together and calling them a "bill of goods" is very mild language, indeed.

In the same vein, bringing up Ralph Nader nineteen years after the fact is silly. Al Gore lost because he was a conservative who inspired no one. Obama inspired a lot of people in 2008, but by 2012 we had all seen how corporatist he actually was and most of the new voters disappeared in 2012 and the rest by 2016. I recently criticized Joe Biden to someone who said, "Electability is the only thing that matters." (Who decides who's "electable"? Wolf Blitzer? Chuck Todd? Ross Douthat?) I couldn't help but think of all the conversations I had with people in 2016 who kept telling me we just HAD to vote for a shitty candidate (HRC) because the alternative was so much worse. HOW DID THAT WORK OUT? It's really simple: If we keep voting for shitty candidates, that's all they'll ever give us. Living in fear of Even Worse is destroying this country. Please stop it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I take issue with the phrasing 'sold a bill of goods'. ....

---

Quod erat demonstrandum, Rustie.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

I'm really not patronizing you nor do I make any assumptions about you. With all due respect my commentary has nothing to do with you personally. I'm responding to your comments on this thread.

In summary, on the topic of voting strategies you expressed the opinions that; change isn't going to happen quickly or dramatically because there are too many Republicans and we're stuck with only approaching our ideals when choosing a candidate. You also shared that you personally have never in your life voted for someone, only against and that in this particular election you feel that anyone would be better than what we have, thus, validating the vote against strategy. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RicoBoccia:

...As for the phrase, a bill of goods, i.e. intentional deception, is EXACTLY what it is. Just to pick a few examples, when Obama said he'd advocate for single-payer and immediately dropped it once in office, was that because of a changed situation or did he simply make a promise he never intended to keep? ...

---

is that a rhetorical question? I say, yes, it was because of a changed situation. Do you just have a different opinion or do you have insider knowledge of some sort?

Quote:

---

In the same vein, bringing up Ralph Nader nineteen years after the fact is silly. Al Gore lost because he was a conservative who inspired no one.

---

I missed the statute of limitations on useful examples. It's silly to attribute his loss to a single cause. I also suspect you're dismissing more than a few people as 'no-one'. You may not have been inspired, but you're probably not in a position to speak for people who for some reason may not share your world view. I think it's quite plausible that he would have won if Nader wasn't running, just as Clinton probably would have won without Jill Stein. But we don't get to run that test, just like we don't get to find out what would happen if Bernie ran against Trump. I'd like to see a few cases where out-and-out doctrinairily-pure progressives won in anywhere less lefty than Brooklyn -- ok, actually, I'd need to see it happen in places with somewhat conservative populations - before I'd feel good about risking a chance at limiting damage vs. shooting for the moon.

You say it was a changed situation yet you failed to say what changed. We'll wait.

Blaming Ralph Nader and Jill Stein (seriously?) for the failures of poor Democratic candidates is EXACTLY the problem. When those who fail can admit their own failures, there MIGHT be a chance for something to change. Until then, it'll be nothing but Republicans and Republicans Lite.

Outside of Brooklyn, Ilhan Omar won in the Minnesota 5th, Ayanna Pressley won in the Massachusetts 7th, Rashida Tlaib won in the Michigan 13th, Ocasio-Cortez won in the New York 14th -- which is in Queens and the Bronx, not Brooklyn. (But do facts matter?)

As long as voting your values is seen as a "purity test," we're screwed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

is that a rhetorical question? I say, yes, it was because of a changed situation. Do you just have a different opinion or do you have insider knowledge of some sort?....

---

Some people seem to have forgotten that W was "selected," not elected. He lost the the popular vote both times he ran.
Additionally, poll after poll showed that Sanders could defeat Trump, but the Dem. Establishment chose to ignore them. Clinton had 3 million more popular votes than Trump and might likely have won without Russian interference, despite Republican gerrymandering.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

is that a rhetorical question? ...

---

Not that facts matter, but in 2004, W got 62 million votes to Kerry's 59.

But yes, the DNC was against Bernie in 2016. This is well-documented, but it's too unpleasant for many to think about.

And of course, if it's not Ralph Nader's fault, it's Jill Stein's. And if it's not Stein's fault, it's the Russians'. Or James Comey's. But in no case is it ever, EVER the fault of the Democrat who lost.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

Some people seem to have forgotten that W was "selected," not elected. He lost the the popular vote both times he ran.
Additionally, poll after poll showed that Sanders could defeat Trump, but the Dem. Establishment chose to ignore them. Clinton had 3 million more popular votes than Trump and might likely have won without Russian interference, despite Republican gerrymandering.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RicoBoccia:

Not that facts matter, but in 2004, W got 62 million votes to Kerry's 59.

---

And yet... let's not forget- Kerry got "swift boated" by WND's James Corsi (wing nut daily news as I like to call it), and others. People who went on to backTrump.

Likewise- let us not forget 2000 - where by every possible method of recount - Gore won FL. Bush should never have been in power to win 2004....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RicoBoccia:

...Blaming Ralph Nader and Jill Stein (seriously?) for the failures of poor Democratic candidates ...

Outside of Brooklyn, Ilhan Omar won in the Minnesota 5th, Ayanna Pressley won in the Massachusetts 7th, Rashida Tlaib won in the Michigan 13th, Ocasio-Cortez won in the New York 14th -- which is in Queens and the Bronx, not Brooklyn. (But do facts matter?)

As long as voting your values is seen as a "purity test," we're screwed.

---

pretty selective reading. To reiterate my other post: I explicitly say you can't pick one cause; I'm not blaming anyone. I do claim that without either of those running the results are very likely different. And sure, to acknowledge your thought, if the candidates were better they'd have won anyway. I don't blame them for not being better, I don't blame Nader or Stein for running, I'm making an observation that I think makes sense.
.. and nice rhetorical trick too, implying I ignore facts, but who did I say was from Brooklyn? I would have picked Sonoma instead, but Brooklyn seems more reliably lefty than we do -- I know a lot of rednecks here.
.. also, you imagined you were reading 'purity test' to construct an argument I never made. To channel Mayacaman, "You're Making a STRAW MAN argument". I don't ever suggest you should never vote your values. I support a society where my values can flourish by blocking those who oppose my values from winning. I won't say voting values and losing is an empty gesture, but it often runs that risk.

kind of apropos to this discussion:

HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE PANICKED ABOUT PRIMARIES, AND NEW YORK SHOWS HOW POTENT THEY CAN BE

how in New York, progressives actually did take over. So it's possible. But note that not only did they win the primaries, but their party was strong enough that they won the general election too. The Tea Party did something similar - their most ideological members won primaries - but that made several of them unelectable, leading to some breakdowns in previously reliable red states. With luck this is going to happen again with trumpy acolytes. I'd prefer to avoid it happening to the good guys as well.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Lilith Rogers:

No, no, no tRUMP wil NOT get reelected and things are gonna get much better!!

Lilith

---

Hmm. And I was the lone wolf crying in the wilderness saying Trump would get elected in the first place. Because I grew up on the Mason-Dixon line. Because I travel to parts of our country that are uncomfortable for people like me. And I talk to and break bread with people that shouldn't like me.

California does *not* represent the views of the democratic party. North bay in particular. People here are so detached from the realities of most of our nation.

Come on- show of hands... how many people here voted for Bernie because they actually thought he could win (not just because your vote for president in CA doesn't matter- it's a foregone conclusion the D will win so you can vote for the green, libertarian, etc with impunity. Quite the luxury we have here).

Biden can win the purple states. But he will lose the liberal and progressive states. Harris or Warren can win the progressive / more liberal states but will lose the rest. Bernie has no chance in ^&)#. And all of the above except Biden will drive turnout on the right.

The *only* way I see Trump loosing is if a R or conservative I runs against him.

I'm sorry... look around you (and by this I mean outside of the Nor Cal bubble). America is *not* going to elect a woman, a black, a gay man, a socialist,...

My only caveat to this- is the economic indicator that has foretold a recession every time- and never given a false positive- indicates a major recession in 9-18 months. If this holds true all bets are off. But, if you've been paying attention to the markets... the immortal words of Alan Greenspan... "Irrational Exuberance" . Didn't Three Twins ice cream just admit that despite selling in all 50 states and multiple countries they have never turned a profit? There are countless companies with hundreds of millions in valuation and billions in sales- that have never... or once or twice, actually turned a profit.

It's a strange world we live in - and people seem to have forgotten the concept of reality....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

Some people seem to have forgotten that W was "selected," not elected. He lost the the popular vote both times he ran.
Additionally, poll after poll showed that Sanders could defeat Trump, but the Dem. Establishment chose to ignore them. Clinton had 3 million more popular votes than Trump and might likely have won without Russian interference, despite Republican gerrymandering.

---

As to W... Didn't the senior Bush's once say they thought Jeb could be president... not George Jr?

As t (at least until we get instant runoff elections or something similar). ...and ignores the bump to the opposition when a candidate they can't stand is the frontrunner. Bernie never had- and never will have a chance. (And that's a good thing... please, someone here tell me 5 things he's ever been able to accomplish in congress. Or a single time he's been able to cobble together a coalition of R & D's to accomplish a single damn thing in congress??? ) rr

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

Biden can win the purple states. But he will lose the liberal and progressive states. Harris or Warren can win the progressive / more liberal states but will lose the rest. Bernie has no chance in ^&)#. And all of the above except Biden will drive turnout on the right.

The *only* way I see Trump loosing is if a R or conservative I runs against him.

---

I disagree - not about the bubble we're in here, but that Trump's a shoo-in. I think Biden would certainly win all the traditional blue states, liberal or not. In that sense he's maybe a safer choice - certainly the commentators on the right seem to think so. But there's a lot of purple, and a lot of people with only lukewarm support of Trump. So enthusiasm will matter a lot, and I agree with you that our local area's enthusiasm doesn't help directly. But a lot of people's political activities and engagement crosses state lines. The right will try to demonize anyone left of Reagan (actually, they'd demonize him if he were here now) but only so many people will respond. I believe the analysts who claim this rides on enthusiasm of minorities and young voters, and the disgust of women of all demographics. If they don't turn out, and if nothing bad happens to people who don't much like 'giving free stuff to immigrants' and so reflexively support Republicans, it's more Trump. But there are a lot of smart candidates and once they're winnowed out I think any of them can hold their own against the clown show - especially if there's any economic problems, continuing human rights abuses on children, and deterioration in international relations. I suspect all those three are in our near future.

The significant points detailed in this cogent post should be examined in depth. Thank YOU so much for making them.

Project Censored (the SSU award-winning journalism program looks at these and other issues) often pointing to a "deep state" and special interests who are really controlling our government and representatives. These special interests range from defense contractors (remember America's No 1 Export is military arms - Saudis are the biggest buyers of our arsenal - as documented in Medea Benjamin's book KINGDOM OF THE UNJUST) to Big Pharma, Fossil Fuels and Wall Street ... all powerful-players. And my personal favorites -- the Koch Brothers now giving money to Democrats in the 2020 race to squash opposition to Big Oil's play in this multi-faceted "Risk Game" called our government.

For myself, I have an eagle eye on the military budget and the control it wields in the world. It seems to fade from most people's view. Yet it has been estimated to be between 60 to 70% of our overall budget. Elizabeth Warren's support of our bloated military is disturbing, to say the least, and yet she nails so many of the special interests to the cross. How can she miss this one?

Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stones Investigative Reporter) wrote a powerful article on the failed Pentagon Audit. 900 million dollars spent and close to a thousand agents who participated in this multi-year analysis of the trillions of dollars that mysteriously go missing and cannot be accounted for. In my opinion, Matt gets a toe hold on the heart of the beast controlling America. Not just the trillions of dollars wasted and the corruption implied but the bigger question arises: What are they doing with this money? The imagination starts to go wild here.

In WikiLeaks historic and unprecedented C.I.A "Vault 7" dump of classified information from this notorious organization (New York Times) --

One revelation that Pulitzer prize-winning journalists uncovered, is the C.I.A has dominion over the NSA ... which might shed light on the power of this "agency" and its influence on our government. And it might illuminate why Obama went back on his promises as outlined in the earlier post. Clearly, he was following our military's lead and empire protocols.

Of the existing candidates - Tulsi Gabbard and Marianne Williamson dared to take aim at the US military monster. Do I think either of these women has a chance in this perverted system to win? NO, I don't. But I was happy to hear their voices raising questions about our military system and our "sick care system". Marianne went where no other candidate dared to go - beyond the endless conversation of Health Care to the heart of why Americans are so sick, to begin with (we are the sickest western culture because of what we eat and our contaminated environment and food system). It was a breath of fresh air to look behind that big curtain.

We must ask who could possibly handle dismantling this system and it's many arms and tentacles?

When people go to "it must be a woman" I cringe. It feels so simplistic and frankly uneducated. A woman is the answer. Certainly, it would be nice to see a woman take the helm. But I am not focused on gender in this campaign as much as character.

The point was made on a Pacifica Radio program the other day - that it wasn’t Russia that lost Hilary the election - it was the Electoral College. We just seem to keep forgetting key factors in our analysis of this election.

Question 1: Who can effectively go up against the quagmire of special interests?

Nader said we must first take money out of politics to even begin to resurrect our democracy. Until then - it is futile.

EXCERPT FROM MATT TAIBBI ARTICLE:
"Meanwhile, the Air Force, which has a $156 billion annual budget, still doesn’t always use serial numbers. It has no idea how much of almost anything it has at any given time. Nuclear weapons are the exception, and it started electronically tagging those only after two extraordinary mistakes, in 2006 and 2007. In the first, the Air Force accidentally loaded six nuclear weapons in a B-52 and flew them across the country, unbeknownst to the crew. In the other, the services sent nuclear nose cones by mistake to Taiwan, which had asked for helicopter batteries.

“What kind of an organization,” Andy asks, “doesn’t keep track of $20 billion in inventory?”

Despite being the taxpayers’ greatest investment — more than $700 billion a year — the Department of Defense has remained an organizational black box throughout its history. It’s repelled generations of official inquiries, the latest being an audit three decades in the making, mainly by scrambling its accounting into such a mess that it may never be untangled..."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by RicoBoccia:

...As for the phrase, a bill of goods, i.e. intentional deception, is EXACTLY what it is. Just to pick a few examples, ...

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFoE...ature=youtu.be

Tulsi Gabbard, a real star in the group of candidates running.

US presence in Afghanistan costs us $4 billion a month. Imagine what we could do with those billions to care for our sick, support our teachers, provide housing and education, and in other ways serve the American people. I’ll end wars that waste our money and make us less safe.

Please do not vote for Biden. Though not as bad as Trump, especially given both of their inappropriate behavior with women, there are many better male and female candidates than he. Biden does not have any of the votes of the progressives and radicals (by which I mean return to the roots of the U.S.) whom I am close to. He is an example, in my opinion, why being a mere liberal is not enough to deal with the extreme conservatives who now dominate American politics.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I disagree - not about the bubble we're in here, but that Trump's a shoo-in. I think Biden would certainly win all the traditional blue states, liberal or not. In that sense he's maybe a safer choice - certainly the commentators on the right seem to think so. ....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

Please do not vote for Biden.

---

hey, if it's him or any republican I can think of, it's him. Merely being willing to be associated with McConnel/Trump/et. al. is a disqualification in my mind, despite any protestations that "no, I'm an Eisenhower republican". I wouldn't vote for Eisenhower either.

but sure, I don't see why anyone would pick Biden given all the other choices. I'm not convinced by the argument that a progressive candidate won't get votes. My post, however, was addressing CPC's claim that Biden couldn't win. Sure he could.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

hey, if it's him or any republican I can think of, it's him....

---

I think it would be helpful if everybody would specify whether they are referencing the primary election or the general election.

In general my guideline would be to vote your preference in the primary (which matters for the first time in California!) and vote Blue in the General. However, being that we are in solid blue California, you can vote for whoever you want in the general election, because the Democrat is going to win.

I'm still liking Pete the best, but I think Warren would be good, too. While her policies are good, I wonder if she has the political chops to pull off both a successful campaign against Trump and the presidency.

I think Bernie already won in 2016 in that he moved the party. Now his time has passed. I don't think he is going to win the nomination because Warren will siphon off his support. I also think he would be the most vulnerable candidate to the Republican fear propaganda machine. Like or not, there are a lot of sheeple out there! And being a grumpy (too) old white man, doesn't help. However if he does win the nomination, he'll have my full support.

As the originator of this thread (which has certainly taken on a life of its own!) I am going to weigh in one more time.

I agree with Barry that one should vote for the candidate one most agrees with, or whose values and proposals resonate with who we are. For this reason I am not only voting for Marianne Williamson, I have agreed to step forward as Northern California volunteer coordinator for her campaign. Her willingness to speak to the depths of what must be done to "change our hearts and minds" if we are to deal with the existential crises that face us set her apart from all of the other candidates.

In my close to sixty years of activism I have never worked for a candidate before. I have only voted for a "winner" twice--and did not feel like a winner either time. I don't know that she "can't win"--that is, after all, what almost all the experts said about Trump (with the notable exception of Michael Moore). I doubt that the Democratic Party will ever embrace non-violent direct action as a political principal, but perhaps a new party will emerge from the chaos.

The power We the People have is based in Love. We certainly don't have guns or money, nor do guns and money bring about real change. A Politics of Love is both difficult and powerful, but anyone who thinks that real change will come easily is deep in self-delusion.

If you are interested in working on this campaign please let me know. We are just beginning the journey, and there is plenty of room on this train.

Abraham Entin wrote:

Quote:

---

...I doubt that the Democratic Party will ever embrace non-violent direct action as a political principal, but perhaps a new party will emerge from the chaos.

The power We the People have is based in Love. We certainly don't have guns or money, nor do guns and money bring about real change. A Politics of Love is both difficult and powerful, but anyone who thinks that real change will come easily is deep in self-delusion...

---

Quite so, Abraham. Perhaps a new party will emerge from the Chaos. But the two major parties are the "two wings of the same bird of prey." My grandfather said that, in a rousing speech on May Day in 1934, at a Farmer-Labor Party gathering in the plaza in Rochester Minnesota. It was a new saying at the time, only six years old. It is now a proverb, among the disaffected.

My grandmother also wrote this, in their little weekly, the "Mid-West American" in 1934, when it was published in Rochester:

"Ever since the aftermath of the Compromise of 1877 worked out so well for the plutocrats, the bi-partisan party bosses have been meeting in a smoked-filled room in a Men's Club in mid-town Manhattan on election years before the Spring primaries, to work out who will run in the coming elections, and who will win, place, and show, and where the patronage will go..."

That is pretty much the sum of my own cynical credo concerning the duopoly that we here in Amerika have been saddled with. The System is rigged. It does not work for We, the People. That much is obvious. And, sadly, the plutocracy has a whole lot of experience in co-opting and/or side-tracking potential third parties. They like the duopoly; they are old hands at working it. It works for them.

Picking potential ponies in the race for the Democrat Party nomination in 2020, seems to me like a futile & hopeless endeavor. Sorry to rain on your parade, but it all seems so sad. Yes, "hope springs eternal" - but at this point, perhaps it is time to acquire another faith.

In my elder, hard-won cynicism, I remember the "Watermelons of Hope" that Bill Clinton peddled in 1992, and the Hope/hype that Obama peddled in 2008. Those guys were shoe-ins; that is, they were selected.

My grandmother, a savvy little Jewish gal from Flatbush, knew Manhattan, mid-town & downtown, like the back of her hand. She knew City Hall and Tammany Hall - and she knew where the bodies were buried. She was the City reporter for the New York Call in the 1920's, & she had it right: the "bi-partisan party bosses" {her term} "...work out who will run in the coming elections, and who will win, place, and show..."

More than likely, "emerging out of the chaos" will be a Civil War. None of us, I tell you, are prepared for what 2020 is going to bring. Putting one's hope in any Democrat candidate, & thinking, even remotely, that any of that will save you, personally, is like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Sorry, but that is how I see it...

Dear Maya,

So, my uncle was a Jewish communist union organizer in NYC who died in the Spanish Civil War.

I have never had any illusions about the duopoly and I am certainly not looking for any candidate to save me personally. I am about as "saved" as I am going to be in this lifetime. I see this as a long game and refuse to be sidetracked by cynicism, which, IMHO, deflects us from seeing who we are and what we might accomplish. At worst, it is the intellectuals' rationale for doing nothing and feeling good about it.

No matter what happens in 2020, I believe the Williamson campaigns represents a chance to talk about issues at a deeper level than usually happens in a Presidential campaign, and I relish that possibility.

Abraham Entin Wrote:

Quote:

---

...I see this as a long game and refuse to be sidetracked by cynicism, which, IMHO, deflects us from seeing who we are and what we might accomplish. At worst, it is the intellectuals' rationale for doing nothing and feeling good about it.

No matter what happens in 2020, I believe the Williamson campaigns represents a chance to talk about issues at a deeper level than usually happens in a Presidential campaign, and I relish that possibility...

---

No doubt about it, Abe, Marianne Williamson is by all means the "best candidate" - as far as purity of intent goes. And, not having been in politics, she is also the least polluted. And I am sure, what she is saying - and shall say - is worthwhile. Also, "talk about issues at a deeper level than usually happens in a Presidential campaign" is good. Let's hear it.

But Marianne Williamson does not have a ghost of a chance of winning the Democrat Party nomination. Let's get real. Nor does Bernie - whom I would have preferred to Trump.

The DNC & the RNC {the "bi-partisan party bosses"} in spite of all appearances work in tandem, and they select who will be the presidential candidates - for both parties. That's all. I am not a cynic on all points - but this is one: "Democracy in America."

Yes, they still allow us good old-fashioned "Town Hall Democracy" =OR= at least the appearance of it, to be sure. But when it comes to the election of congress, senate & presidents, It is all a charade.

Tulsi Gabbard knocks it out of the park in this interview on Stephen Colbert.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0jnKb8MDks

Hawaii's member of Congress - Tulsi knows what she is talking about.

Hi Abraham and all you in Wacco land

I heard an interview with Maryanne Williamson. I was listening because I was considering supporting her.

I haven't watched the debates.

That being said, after the interview, I emailed Williamson's campaign, saying she had just lost my vote because she was unsure about single payer etc. and also about forgiving student loan debt. I never received a reply.

I appreciate her honesty, but was amazed that she was unprepared on those 2 extremely important issues.
She said in the interview that she couldn't see anyway to pay for these .

Perhaps she was clearer on the debates or--?

Haven't fact checked this, but I heard today that Ralph Nadar is endorsing Bernie Sanders/ Elizabeth Warren ticket.

I've not time or desire to "debate" about this.

Just offering this as food for thought.

I agree with you Abraham on many points you raised, and anyone who knows me knows that I'm all about walking the path of Love, politically and in all walks of Life!

Kindly,
dusty

The entire media, campaign and election infrastructure is so embedded with a 2 party democratic tyranny that unless the MSM is truly routed out and replaced with a truly honest and open media system, no reform can hope to take place. I see the Democratic party has become the MSM and visa-versa, and neither have any of our best interests at heart. The country is a lot more than California and New York, and the rest of the country needs to be heard in a fair and honest way with public discourse, dialogue and solution oriented debate and not this constant noise of opinion and fact-less accusation. It is great to have an opinion, but not cool to wave it around as though it is a fact. The world and this country is in quite a mess and been created by a long history of both parties abuses culminating to what we have here.

DJT was elected because enough people of this country were fed up with an entitled established ruling class that had no genuine interest in representing the people of this country to then provide us a platform to represent better values to the world. Clearly lots of people here in SoCo do not like him, but I believe that time will prove him right as he slowly unravels an incredible web of filth that has become the political world that some of us hold to be true and normal.

I am not trying to pick a fight, but just state that this has been a very long and dirty road and most of us may not remember what it might really mean to have a fair and honest media and election system, and until we get them back, I do not see much of anything truly taking place.

Please take a look at Robert David Steele's Election Reform Platform as it is the best first step that I have ever seen.

Be well,
Ken.
https://unrig.net/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mayacaman:

...Quite so, Abraham. Perhaps a new party will emerge from the Chaos. But the two major parties are the "two wings of the same bird of prey."...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kburgess:

.... unless the MSM is truly routed out and replaced with a truly honest and open media system, no reform can hope to take place.....
I am not trying to pick a fight, but just state that this has been a very long and dirty road and most of us may not remember what it might really mean to have a fair and honest media and election system, and until we get them back, I do not see much of anything truly taking place.

---

not to be cynical -- well, ok, to be cynical. Unless you're a lot older than me, I can't imagine you remember a time with an "honest media and election system", even compared to now. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing about a point in history where people were blessed with anything "truly honest and open", much less a media system. Yet, periodically, we do get reform. It's always relative, it's never really good enough, but it's what we do.

I don't mean to disparage the push for reform, openness, and fairness. That's an ongoing fight. But that's kinda my point, it's an unreachable goal but incremental progress is better than none, and recovering from backsliding is better than continuing to lose what progress has been made. I guess it's motivating to think that the current crowd of enemies, both systemic and personal, have pried us out of Eden, but personally I'm more motivated by someone who understands the bastards in charge, understands their motivations (rather than cartoon characterizations of them) and can find the winnable goals -- and win them. Glorious defeats are no fun, and I've lived through lots of those. That's the history I remember...

I am glad that you at least are in support of some type of reform. Yes total reform may be a far goal for most folks, but I do not believe that any of us have to settle for 2nd best, and unless we have a goal of getting there, we probably will not. It is also part of the choice to see that society is at least a 2 level system, the power holding elites with a clear agenda of control and the rest of us as the controlled. All that said, even the power brokers have their weakness, and that is their arrogance, their sense of invincibility, disclosure and the level of satanic sacrifice that they use as their spiritual core.

Miracles and true healing do take place and as a society/world, I think that we are well ready and deserving of one. Not to say that it will happen, but unless we keep our eye on the TRUE prize, we will never get it.
Thanks,
Ken.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

not to be cynical -- well, ok, to be cynical. Unless you're a lot older than me, I can't imagine you remember a time with an "honest media and election system", even compared to now. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing about a point in history where people were blessed with anything "truly honest and open", much less a media system. Yet, periodically, we do get reform. It's always relative, it's never really good enough, but it's what we do.

I don't mean to disparage the push for reform, openness, and fairness. That's an ongoing fight. But that's kinda my point, it's an unreachable goal but incremental progress is better than none, and recovering from backsliding is better than continuing to lose what progress has been made. I guess it's motivating to think that the current crowd of enemies, both systemic and personal, have pried us out of Eden, but personally I'm more motivated by someone who understands the bastards in charge, understands their motivations (rather than cartoon characterizations of them) and can find the winnable goals -- and win them. Glorious defeats are no fun, and I've lived through lots of those. That's the history I remember...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop:

...and ignores the bump to the opposition when a candidate they can't stand is the frontrunner. Bernie never had- and never will have a chance. (And that's a good thing... please, someone here tell me 5 things he's ever been able to accomplish in congress. Or a single time he's been able to cobble together a coalition of R & D's to accomplish a single damn thing in congress??? ) rr

---

Please see below for the short list as per your request. Though it's not a complete list it exceeds your required 5 things Bernie's ever been able to accomplish in Congress. I've included the party majority and white house stats as a shorthand way to respond to your additional comment about Sanders being incapable of cobbling together a coalition of Republicans & Democrats.

And while we're on the subject of a bipartisan coalition let's not forget Bernie's measure to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. That motion passed 63-37, an amazing accomplishment considering the current atmosphere between Democrats and Republicans.

Naturally all the bills that Bernie has put forward that did not pass are not included as that wasn't your criteria. However I happen to think that those bills tell a substantial story regarding his long term commitment to confront and take on our runaway capitalist system and elite ruling class that have been running and ruining our country for decades.

This list also doesn't give any insight into his voting record which of course is of major importance, at least in my opinion, when determining if a potential candidate actually stands for the policies they are quick to give lip service to when campaigning. For the most part, I'm sure there's always an exception to the rule, Sanders' votes reconcile with his policy positions. Throughout his entire political career he has been very consistent. I think it fair to say that one could count on him to follow through with his campaign promises a well as standing up to the corrupt self-serving power structure that most of our politicians are indebted to.

2001 – 2006 President Bush – Senate Republican Majority - House Republican Majority
H.Amdt.238 to H.R. 2590 (July 2001) Sanders Amendment
Prohibits the importation of goods made with forced or indentured child labor
H.Amdt.404 to H.R. 3338 (November 2001) Sanders Amendment
Makes available an additional $100 million for federally qualified community health centers
H.Amdt.562 to H.R. 5120 (July 2002) Sanders Amendment
Prohibits the IRS from using any funding made available from H.R. 5120 for activities that violate current pension, age discrimination, and tax laws
H.Amdt.721 to H.R.5006 (Sept 2004) Sanders Amendment
Increases funding for Low Income Energy Assistance programs by $22 million
H.Amdt.381 to H.R. 3057 (June 2005) Sanders Amendment
Prohibits the use of any funds made available from H.R. 3057 to be used by the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. for a long term loan or loan guarantee for nuclear projects in China
2007 – 2008 President Bush – Senate 50/50 split - House Democrat Majority
S.Amdt. 1525 to H.R. 6 (June 2007) Sanders Amendment
An amendment to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requiring not less than 30% of hot water demand for new and modified Federal buildings be met through the installation and use of solar hot water heaters
S.Amdt 3130 to H.R. 3222 (October 2007) Sanders Amendment
Provided an additional $10 million for operation and maintenance of the Army National Guard which had been stretched thin and overextended by the Iraq war
2009 – 2010 President Obama – Senate Democrat Majority - House Democrat Majority
S.Amdt 306 to H.R. 1 (Feburary 2009) Sanders Amendment
An amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the bank bailout) requiring recipients (financial institutions) of TARP funding to meet strict H-1B worker hiring standards to ensure non displacement of American workers
2011 – 2014 President Obama – Senate Democrat Majority - House Republican Majority
S. Amdt 3183 to S.3254 (November 2012) Sanders Amendment
Requires the database of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors be made publicly available
S.893 (May 2013) Sanders Bill - Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-living Adjustment Act of 2013
Increases the rates of Veterans' disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, the clothing allowance and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children

VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS, and whichever woman he selects as his Vice-President. She then could be our first female president, which we desperately need, in my opinion. If he dies in office, she becomes president. Or he may simply resign, at some point, in which case she becomes our first female president, and can then run for office on her own.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

VOTE FOR BERNIE SANDERS, and whichever woman he selects as his Vice-President.

---

someone on another thread pointed out that this idea, that it's better that the woman should be the VP, is kinda patronizing. I know it's not meant as tokenism, but it was nice that Obama wasn't just the first black VP.

Unfortunately, America is not ready to elect a woman president, in my opinion. So my reason for wanting Bernie to be our president includes that I think he is the most qualified person, and second because he has said that he would have a female vice-president. Taking one step at a time--rather than trying to get a female president at this time--is more likely to be successful. A vote for Bernie is a possible way to get a female president soon, in my opinion. Make your vote count!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

someone on another thread pointed out that this idea, that it's better that the woman should be the VP, is kinda patronizing. I know it's not meant as tokenism, but it was nice that Obama wasn't just the first black VP.

---

The more critical question is have we addressed the lack of justice in the voting systems in America?
The Electoral College for example and Greg Palast work https://www.gregpalast.com

He focuses on the massive voter fraud and suppression (gerry mandering and the hacking of our GOP owned machinery and the purging of voter rolls - millions of votes lost). People seem to keep forgetting what really impacts who gets elected.

From Huff Post article

The Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics today.

The primary impact of the Electoral College is to give the citizens of some states more influence over the presidential election than citizens of other states. If you live in a Battleground State you are showered with attention. Your issues gain traction at the national level. You have political power. But if you happen to live in a Red State or a Blue State — as do roughly 79% of Americans according to Nate Silver’s electoral map — then you are pretty much out of luck. Your vote doesn’t matter. And when we say “your vote doesn’t matter,” we can actually quantify this. According to the Princeton Election Consortium a vote in Nevada this year (a small battleground state) is over one million times more likely to have an impact on this election than a vote in New Jersey (a large Blue state).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

Unfortunately, America is not ready to elect a woman president, in my opinion. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

Unfortunately, America is not ready to elect a woman president, in my opinion. So my reason for wanting Bernie to be our president includes that I think he is the most qualified person, and second because he has said that he would have a female vice-president. Taking one step at a time--rather than trying to get a female president at this time--is more likely to be successful. A vote for Bernie is a possible way to get a female president soon, in my opinion. Make your vote count!

---

it's possible, but another way to look at it is if there's so much resistance to having a female president when the alternative is Trump, there should be tons more resistance when the alternative is, say, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.

this has a lot in common with a bunch of other 'how progressive should we be' arguments. One side thinks that Trump's so bad, we should lean toward middle-of-the-road or conservative positions so that those who normally would oppose Democrats might abandon trump - this, without causing real progressives to defect. Another side (there's lots of sides) thinks that this is exactly the time to push for progressive change, since people who might otherwise shy away will have to accept it since the other choice is trump. Hell if I know which is closer to the truth.

There is a forest beyond the tree's folks...,
It is not about Woman/Man, White/Black or any of that other nonsense,
How about QUALIFICATIONS!!!
For me, I want someone who represents the values of the entire AMERICA, and not just a small progressive faction that tries to think that they represent the USA.

1. I want someone who is not bound by the political establishment as in Party Politics that is generally stuck in a 20-30yr old mindset.
2. I want someone who is smarter with Business and Negotiations than politics and appeasement, And lastly, ...
3. I want someone who has a greater tendency to want to fight back and respect the truth of a situation rather just settle for what sounds good.

This to me is enough for NOW to get us a bit closer to back on track and THEN we can worry about all of the social issues and PC behavior. We need to get a more honest Govt and Media system that actually does work and represent the people without wasting 80% of all the money that goes into it whether it be for campaigns or Govt expenditures.

Consequently I have been VERY satisfied with Donald J Trump, and think that for the most of you who spend a bit too much time watching the MSM news, it is no surprise that it is hard to see the forest through the tree's.
I would love to have a woman as President, but so far there has been absolutely NONE who could effectively do the job. Now if Cathrine Austin Fitts wanted to run, she would be a no-brainer in my book, but she is in a vastly higher level of capability than anyone else in the field.

He did not create this system, but was selected and brought in to fix a horrible situation that was about to go over the cliff into a abysmal doom. You may not see it that way, but I do.

Maybe I am a bit of an optimist, but I would like to think that after the last 20yrs of political BS, that the American people are finally fed up with all the political games that end up wasting money, time and destroying the country for everyone elses benefit other than the people that they are supposed to represent,
Thus DJT got in, and will hopefully stay in till he gets his job done and a bit more honesty will be revealed in how the system has been horribly warped away from what this nation should represent.
Thanks,
Ken. :Clap: :tiphat: :usflag:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kburgess:

...
For me, I want someone who represents the values of the entire AMERICA, and not just a small progressive faction that tries to think that they represent the USA.

1. I want someone who is not bound by the political establishment as in Party Politics that is generally stuck in a 20-30yr old mindset.
2. I want someone who is smarter with Business and Negotiations than politics and appeasement, And lastly, ...
3. I want someone who has a greater tendency to want to fight back and respect the truth of a situation rather just settle for what sounds good.

...

Consequently I have been VERY satisfied with Donald J Trump...

---

this explains so much. I hadn't recognized how strongly the cheeto runs in this one before.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

this explains so much. I hadn't recognized how strongly the cheeto runs in this one before.

---

Please explain your reason for mocking as compared to presenting an opinion w/o an insult and what exactly 'cheeto' is supposed to mean for the rest of us who might be un-enlightened.

I try to present what I see is a valid argument and do not see this comment as responding in kind.

In a previous post you agreed to being a cynic, I personally do not see cynic's as having any legitimate value in any conversation, for if you are not able to voice your agreement/disagreement w/o insulting, then you add no value to a forward moving public discourse even if you are fast on the responses.

Take care and be well,
Ken.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kburgess:

Please explain your reason for mocking as compared to presenting an opinion ...

---

'cuz a little gentle (i guess that's in the eye of the beholder) mocking is part of public discourse. We're not a task force charged with solving the world's problems here - we're on a forum for expressing opinions.

and yes, cheeto is a mocking reference too.

on reflection, it amuses me that given your admiration for Trump, it doesn't extend to the idea of mocking people being referenced. and from him, it's not gentle...

Oh, jeeze, Ken, your sincerity is truly apparent, but your words are so misguided. Can you really NOT see the disconnect between your words and the reality of Trump and his actions?

1. I want someone who is not bound by the political establishment as in Party Politics that is generally stuck in a 20-30yr old mindset. Republicans have been stuck in a Reagan mindset since the 80s even though trickle-down economics have been definitively discredited by now. Trump's mindset still reflects that old point of view with his tax cuts for the very wealthy, primarily because they work in his favor. He is destroying the environment on behalf of big corporations. He blows a lot of hot air about standing up to autocrats and dictators, but continually backs down from his over-the-top threats and then praises them for the way they run their countries.. His imprisonment at our southern border of desperate people--children in cages, for crying out loud!-- running for their lives is terrifyingly like Germany in the late 1930s. His blatant racism and sexism run counter to everything this country used to stand for.
2. I want someone who is smarter with Business and Negotiations than politics and appeasement, And lastly, ... Trump has bankrupted nearly all his businesses and cheated many people who worked for him. Do you really support those "business practices and negotiations?" This is a big country, not a business, and even if Trump were successful in business--and he has repeatedly shown that he is not--a large diverse country is not the same thing as a business and cannot be run the same way. Additionally, his utter contempt and disregard for the checks-and-balances written into the Constitution and the failure of the Republicans to stand up to him are truly terrifying. What you see as "Business and Negotiations"" is the unraveling of our democracy as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
3. I want someone who has a greater tendency to want to fight back and respect the truth of a situation rather just settle for what sounds good. The truth of a situation? Are you kidding me?! Trump tells at least 4 provable lies a day, according to factcheck.com and politifact.com, and over 4,000 proven lies since he's been in office. His easy lies are easier for some people, like you, to swallow than the hard truths of climate change, extreme economic disparity, the collapse and corruption of our electoral system, and our steady shift from a democracy to an oligarchy.
4. No, I do not watch MSM, so don't throw that one at me. I get it that on a really visceral level people all over the world know that we (humanity) are in deep doodoo, and the natural tendency is to react tribally and stick our heads in the ground. But IMO that is exactly the opposite of what we are being called to do, which is to wake up to the reality of our situation and to begin collectively to take individual responsibility to change the way we have always lived and behaved. Those things have brought us to this point. It is not a time to cling to a devious, deluded doofus in hopes he will make all the bad things go away.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kburgess:

...

1. I want someone who is not bound by the political establishment as in Party Politics that is generally stuck in a 20-30yr old mindset.
2. I want someone who is smarter with Business and Negotiations than politics and appeasement, And lastly, ...
3. I want someone who has a greater tendency to want to fight back and respect the truth of a situation rather just settle for what sounds good.

...

---

Just the facts about Trump's presidency.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...logo152x23.gif

83 Environmental Rules Being
Rolled Back Under Trump
By NADJA POPOVICH, LIVIA ALBECK-RIPKA and KENDRA PIERRE-LOUIS UPDATED June 7, 2019

President Trump has made eliminating federal regulations a priority. His administration, with help from Republicans in Congress, has often targeted environmental rules it sees as burdensome to the fossil fuel industry and other big businesses.

A New York Times analysis, based on research from Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School and other sources, counts more than 80 environmental rules and regulations on the way out under Mr. Trump.

Our list represents two types of policy changes: rules that were officially reversed and rollbacks still in progress. The Trump administration has released an aggressive schedule to try to finalize many of these rollbacks this year.

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_12-43-11.png

Article continues here

---

More info here


Deregulation of all Industries. Polluters given free reign

Gutting the EPA. Mass firings and censoring of climate scientists.

Major tax cuts to the super rich.

Scary war like proclamations and threats to Iran, Venezuela and other nations.

He filed bankruptcy six times for failed businesses. Won't release tax returns as he promised.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

'cuz a little gentle (i guess that's in the eye of the beholder) mocking is part of public discourse. We're not a task force charged with solving the world's problems here - we're on a forum for expressing opinions.

and yes, cheeto is a mocking reference too.

on reflection, it amuses me that given your admiration for Trump, it doesn't extend to the idea of mocking people being referenced. and from him, it's not gentle...

---

I have no doubt that you see value in mocking, but for me it only comes out when either you do not have facts to back up an argument, or when the recipient does not listen to the facts and the mock is the vehicle of last resort. Either way it stops the flow of genuine dialogue and progress and degrades into a vehicle for entertainment.

Sobeit, I like ideas and progress done within a venue of mutual respect and consideration. Maybe just the way I have been raised and preference to have civil discourse or desire not to appeal to the non-beneficial side of the conversation. Your choice, My choice.
Be well,
Ken.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by wisewomn:

Oh, jeeze, Ken, your sincerity is truly apparent, but your words are so misguided. Can you really NOT see the disconnect between your words and the reality of Trump and his actions?

...
It is not a time to cling to a devious, deluded doofus in hopes he will make all the bad things go away.

---

It was not a multi-party choice in 2016, and HRC was not an option as another 4+yrs of Obama. More crime done by both of them never reported and pursued than anything DJT could ever concoct, starting with all of the global appeasement, payments to Iran, Uranium One, email servers, bank bailouts, campaign spying, Russia collusion hoax and more. We all know the drone.

It was a binary choice and all of those issues are/were real as well as a deeper systemic pollution that goes way beyond both parties of R/D. I do not agree with a lot of the Rep's as a bunch of spineless old fools, and yet disagree a lot more with the Dem's as being a party that had turned into more radical extremism with no effective forward looking agenda other than 'Destroy-Trump'!

Thus I do not see any forward momentum with either side of the political establishment.

I did not see DJT as a Republican candidate, but more of an independent who the Republican party was forced to endorse because he appealed to the people and knocked everyone else off the stage. They were forced into he and had no other choice. It has taken him 2 years to turn a few of the older heads of congress to some level of support, but it has been all the average folks of the country that are forcing the change.

I am not going to elaborate on each of the points as I have other things to do, but I would welcome a better minded 'doofus' if there is one available to choose from. So far I see absolutely none, and no he is not perfect, but for trying to unravel the root of what I see as the problem of a globalist minded agenda and unsustainable banking system cabal, there was no other choice. I have other things to deal with in life, so yes I do have to boil the decisions down to big picture basics and he was it.

Thanks for your thoughts and input,
Ken.