Neither term is a pejorative. The problem, as usual, is our monolithic two-party system that forces disparate groups to be lumped under the same corrupt umbrellas. It is such a stupid dichotomy.

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.

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.

I agree with Bob and that rarely happens. I owe Tulsi my vote. She served this country in Afghanistan and on the front lines. I don't agree with all her stances but I do with many.

If Warren or Sanders wins the nomination, Trump will win the popular vote as well as the College.

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?

I don't get the 'Warren is Hillary 2.0' argument. Hillary was a moderate. If anything, Biden is Hillary 2.0.

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.

Yep.

Warren is a likable Sanders.

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.

Wow, insulting Buttigieg right there

Posted by bad_luck on 8/27/2019 12:40:00 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.

Yep.

Warren is a likable Sanders.

*Sanders is a likable Sanders

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.

Posted by tangplay on 8/27/2019 12:43:00 PM (view original):
Wow, insulting Buttigieg right there

I don't think Pete is charismatic and his service is not the same as hers as she was on the front lines and he was in intelligence. Again, one man's POV.

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?

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?

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.