Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/27/2019 12:36:00 PM (view original):
I don't get the 'Warren is Hillary 2.0' argument. Hillary was a moderate. If anything, Biden is Hillary 2.0.

Optics matter. Warren is not even viewed favorable here in MA. She is viewed as a liar just like HRC but she will win the Blue states. IDK if she wins the swing states. At least HRC had the Clinton name and Clinton supporters. Warren doesn't carry cache like that IMO.

I will respect whomever the country elects. If the country wants to move far left with open borders, men using women's locker rooms, taxing the rich at 70% and vilifying our police force then so be it. Frankly my life didn't really change from Bush to Obama to Trump.

tbh, your life as a banker probably gets worse as a Warren or Sanders gets elected. Millions of people's lives get better

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 8/27/2019 11:27:00 AM (view original):
I take no issues with the labels as you have termed it. Nor do I really care about labels. Liberal is NOT a dirty word to this Independent.

IF the only real progressives are Warren and Sanders and either of them win the dem. nomination you are ensuring Trump's re-election. The heartland will NOT vote for a shrill Progressive, NOR a Socialist Democrat. You might win the popular vote (again) but you will LOSE the Electoral college.

The BIGGEST question of the 2020 election is whether or NOT the dems. learned anything at all from the HRC defeat. Obviously BC learned nothing.

CCCP wants to pretend like he'd vote for Gabbard. He wouldn't. Neither would all the other 8chan retards. There's a reason they (and Trump) are pushing for her to get the Nomination.

And you want to pretend that a Sanders-supporting, progressive, Hindu from Hawaii is the key to white, working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan. That's nuts.

The mistake of 2016 was the DOJ not going public with the Trump investigation while going public with the Clinton investigation. That was probably enough to tilt the tiny margin of victory in PA, MI, and WI to Trump and give him the presidency. If you're afraid of an unelectable candidate getting the nomination, you should not be supporting Gabbard.

I would vote for her.

In terms of your tiny margin:

HRC won the following by slim margins as well:

Colorado, Maine (20k votes), Minny, Nevada (~25k), NH (~3k), New Mexico

If you run HRC 2.0 in Warren or the scientist from Back to Future I believe Trump wins again. My vote doesn't count but my parents will be Florida residents. Their votes will count. Sometimes the moderate candidate is the best candidate. For both sides.

What is your favorite Gabbard policy position?

She is anti interventionist. She uses terms like radical Islam. She actually served overseas. She supports immigration reform.

From an intangible POV, she is direct, well spoken and charismatic. Which separates her from every other Democrat candidate in my POV.

At the moment, I'm talking about policy only. We can discuss electability later.

So, of all of her policy positions, her anti-foreign intervention position is your favorite, how does her position differ from Trump's, in your opinion?

Cannot say for sure. To me Trump seems to be anti-interventionist too but he is certainly an agitator. I believe she would be less so. What troubles you about her policies exactly? She for UH, she is for free college tuition for those who are not rich, she is for higher taxes on corporate america, she is for Wall St. oversight?

Trump isn't anti-interventionist. If he was, he wouldn't have hired John Bolton.

Posted by tangplay on 8/27/2019 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/27/2019 12:36:00 PM (view original):
I don't get the 'Warren is Hillary 2.0' argument. Hillary was a moderate. If anything, Biden is Hillary 2.0.

Optics matter. Warren is not even viewed favorable here in MA. She is viewed as a liar just like HRC but she will win the Blue states. IDK if she wins the swing states. At least HRC had the Clinton name and Clinton supporters. Warren doesn't carry cache like that IMO.

I will respect whomever the country elects. If the country wants to move far left with open borders, men using women's locker rooms, taxing the rich at 70% and vilifying our police force then so be it. Frankly my life didn't really change from Bush to Obama to Trump.

tbh, your life as a banker probably gets worse as a Warren or Sanders gets elected. Millions of people's lives get better

May be easier as a parent that has to put two kids through college? IDK. It wasn't terrible under BHO.

Posted by tangplay on 8/27/2019 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 12:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 8/27/2019 11:27:00 AM (view original):
I take no issues with the labels as you have termed it. Nor do I really care about labels. Liberal is NOT a dirty word to this Independent.

IF the only real progressives are Warren and Sanders and either of them win the dem. nomination you are ensuring Trump's re-election. The heartland will NOT vote for a shrill Progressive, NOR a Socialist Democrat. You might win the popular vote (again) but you will LOSE the Electoral college.

The BIGGEST question of the 2020 election is whether or NOT the dems. learned anything at all from the HRC defeat. Obviously BC learned nothing.

CCCP wants to pretend like he'd vote for Gabbard. He wouldn't. Neither would all the other 8chan retards. There's a reason they (and Trump) are pushing for her to get the Nomination.

And you want to pretend that a Sanders-supporting, progressive, Hindu from Hawaii is the key to white, working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan. That's nuts.

The mistake of 2016 was the DOJ not going public with the Trump investigation while going public with the Clinton investigation. That was probably enough to tilt the tiny margin of victory in PA, MI, and WI to Trump and give him the presidency. If you're afraid of an unelectable candidate getting the nomination, you should not be supporting Gabbard.

I would vote for her.

In terms of your tiny margin:

HRC won the following by slim margins as well:

Colorado, Maine (20k votes), Minny, Nevada (~25k), NH (~3k), New Mexico

If you run HRC 2.0 in Warren or the scientist from Back to Future I believe Trump wins again. My vote doesn't count but my parents will be Florida residents. Their votes will count. Sometimes the moderate candidate is the best candidate. For both sides.

What is your favorite Gabbard policy position?

She is anti interventionist. She uses terms like radical Islam. She actually served overseas. She supports immigration reform.

From an intangible POV, she is direct, well spoken and charismatic. Which separates her from every other Democrat candidate in my POV.

At the moment, I'm talking about policy only. We can discuss electability later.

So, of all of her policy positions, her anti-foreign intervention position is your favorite, how does her position differ from Trump's, in your opinion?

Cannot say for sure. To me Trump seems to be anti-interventionist too but he is certainly an agitator. I believe she would be less so. What troubles you about her policies exactly? She for UH, she is for free college tuition for those who are not rich, she is for higher taxes on corporate america, she is for Wall St. oversight?

Trump isn't anti-interventionist. If he was, he wouldn't have hired John Bolton.

I think he is as he wants to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and keeps preaching that the UN must pay its fair share but he is an agitator for sure. I am honestly not 100% certain on his foreign policy stance.

What is this "UN must pay its fair share stuff?" It doesn't make any sense.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 8/27/2019 11:27:00 AM (view original):
I take no issues with the labels as you have termed it. Nor do I really care about labels. Liberal is NOT a dirty word to this Independent.

IF the only real progressives are Warren and Sanders and either of them win the dem. nomination you are ensuring Trump's re-election. The heartland will NOT vote for a shrill Progressive, NOR a Socialist Democrat. You might win the popular vote (again) but you will LOSE the Electoral college.

The BIGGEST question of the 2020 election is whether or NOT the dems. learned anything at all from the HRC defeat. Obviously BC learned nothing.

CCCP wants to pretend like he'd vote for Gabbard. He wouldn't. Neither would all the other 8chan retards. There's a reason they (and Trump) are pushing for her to get the Nomination.

And you want to pretend that a Sanders-supporting, progressive, Hindu from Hawaii is the key to white, working-class voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan. That's nuts.

The mistake of 2016 was the DOJ not going public with the Trump investigation while going public with the Clinton investigation. That was probably enough to tilt the tiny margin of victory in PA, MI, and WI to Trump and give him the presidency. If you're afraid of an unelectable candidate getting the nomination, you should not be supporting Gabbard.

TY for an actual legitimate response!

Take a look at the electoral college results for 2016.
Trump won by garnering 306 votes. 2 Texas electoral voters refused to cast their votes for him so he actually ended up winning with 304 Electoral College votes.

Eliminating Pennsylvania (which Trump won and got 20 electoral college votes) for this argument. (Even though I believe, and most agree, that Pennsylvania is a "purple" state for 2020 with nearly any dem. candidate. (excepting Sanders and Warren, who may be too far left in Penn.)
Even Biden puts Pennsylvania squarely Purple for 2020. But forget that, for this moment.

Michigan has 16 electoral votes. Trump won them in 2016.
I believe ANY Dem. candidate beats Trump in 2020. Effectively Trump has already lost Michigan I'm quite confidant. UNLESS, the dems run Warren or Sanders!
Now, Minnesota. Minnesota is squarely purple with anyone and likely BLUE with anyone but Sanders/Warren. Gabbard definitely makes Minnesota winnable! Trump won Minnesota in 2016---- 10 electoral votes.
Last state. Wisconsin. Unless the dems run Sanders or Warren, Wisconsin is definitely Purple for 2020 and with Gabbard I think it's Blue! Trump got Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes in 2016)

Do the Math!
306 less 36 (16 +10 + 10) equals 270!

There was 1 congressional district (in Maine I think) that went Trump and whose electoral college voter cast the ballot for Trump.
I'd bet Gabbard can win that district.

In addition, there are a number of other states that were extremely close and a myriad of combinations of state vote results (in 2020) that could result in a Dem. candidate compiling 270 electoral college votes vs. Trump. IF it's a GOOD candidate. IF it's a Sanders or a Warren at the top of the ticket every ONE of those states that could be in play (that lay within the heartland) go Rep. Every one of them! The margin for ANY dem. candidate in that scenario is very very slim IN THE ELECTORAL College!

Only a candidate like Tulsi even has a chance in that slim scenario. Sanders or Warren lose to Trump, even IF they win the popular vote. Democrat voters need to wake up. Supporting hand outs and socialist appearing "programs" are NOT gonna win.
Besides, I don't get why some claim Warren is a likeable Sanders. Really??? Sanders has some likeable moments. And I'm sure Warren must be nice in reality, but the term that MOST comes to mind with Warren is shrill or whiny.

Tulsi 2020

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:01:00 PM (view original):
She has several very progressive positions, which is why I'm so confused about your support for her. Seems like all those things would be a problem for you.

I am willing to compromise as the country is trending toward being more progressive. I won't compromise on men stating they are women and playing sports and using the same locker rooms as actual women. I also won't compromise on the blatant pro BDS stance. I am also for strong immigration reform, not open borders. Other than that I could live with Democrat policies. But those three are NON STARTERS FOR ME. And Tulsi seems to be in line with me on them.

Zero dem candidates are for open borders.

Posted by tangplay on 8/27/2019 1:20:00 PM (view original):
Zero dem candidates are for open borders.

Yet all raised their hands to provide health insurance to illegals, vilify our border patrol agents, all sanctuary cities are Democrat run and they refuse to change any immigration legislation. To me actions speak louder than words. Tulsi is for immigration reform and admits the system is broken. She is the only candidate of the ~20 that is publicly on record. Again just my opinion.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:16:00 PM (view original):
What is this "UN must pay its fair share stuff?" It doesn't make any sense.

?

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:16:00 PM (view original):
What is this "UN must pay its fair share stuff?" It doesn't make any sense.

?

Are you asking my opinion? I am quoting Trump. So out of all the topics I covered you choose this one? Honestly, I'd rather converse with Tang.

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 2:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:16:00 PM (view original):
What is this "UN must pay its fair share stuff?" It doesn't make any sense.

?

Are you asking my opinion? I am quoting Trump. So out of all the topics I covered you choose this one? Honestly, I'd rather converse with Tang.

I'm asking what you think this is. You mentioned it about Trump and his ideas on intervention.

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 2:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:16:00 PM (view original):
What is this "UN must pay its fair share stuff?" It doesn't make any sense.

?

Are you asking my opinion? I am quoting Trump. So out of all the topics I covered you choose this one? Honestly, I'd rather converse with Tang.

I'm asking what you think this is. You mentioned it about Trump and his ideas on intervention.

He believes the US is paying too much for having troops overseas and protecting other nations. Hence he either wants the other UN members to pay more or he will pull our troops back. All part of the America 1st mantra. Whether I think he is right or wrong, I honestly never gave it much thought. I could look into it and opine more intelligently if you like.

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 2:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 2:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/27/2019 2:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:16:00 PM (view original):
What is this "UN must pay its fair share stuff?" It doesn't make any sense.

?

Are you asking my opinion? I am quoting Trump. So out of all the topics I covered you choose this one? Honestly, I'd rather converse with Tang.

I'm asking what you think this is. You mentioned it about Trump and his ideas on intervention.

He believes the US is paying too much for having troops overseas and protecting other nations. Hence he either wants the other UN members to pay more or he will pull our troops back. All part of the America 1st mantra. Whether I think he is right or wrong, I honestly never gave it much thought. I could look into it and opine more intelligently if you like.

Pay more to who???

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 1:16:00 PM (view original):
What is this "UN must pay its fair share stuff?" It doesn't make any sense.

?

Never trust a man who quotes himself.