Dems to Run American Indian Against Trump in 2020
- Thread starter GunsOfFrankEaton
- Start date
Remember how the Democrats squealed with glee at the prospects of Donald J Trump running for the Republican nomination?
That thought keeps me up at night when I think of the Senate Republicans setting her up thinking they are geniuses.
That thought keeps me up at night when I think of the Senate Republicans setting her up thinking they are geniuses.
I think Senator Warren would be a great nominee for the Democrats in 2020, especially if she was to focus on a strong liberal economic populist message and build upon the movement Sanders created in 2016. A possible Warren/Booker ticket could cause Trump (or Pence) a lot of trouble in 2020.
2020 is still a long ways off though and who knows what the political environment will look like at that time. There are other potential Democrat candidates that are attractive too and 2020 may end up being the year of a fresh face for the Democrats.
Keep an eye on the DNC Chair election next weekend. That is going to tell us a lot about where the Democratic Party is headed in terms of their messaging for 2018 and 2020.
2020 is still a long ways off though and who knows what the political environment will look like at that time. There are other potential Democrat candidates that are attractive too and 2020 may end up being the year of a fresh face for the Democrats.
Keep an eye on the DNC Chair election next weekend. That is going to tell us a lot about where the Democratic Party is headed in terms of their messaging for 2018 and 2020.
Booker has sacrificed any populist cred he may have had on his pharmaceuticals import vote. He's in the pocket of big pharma....clearly.
You mean the one that is going to shut down the white people best?
Last edited:
Pocahontas isn't even that popular in her own state. Another Hillary without Hillary's winning personality.
Please let her be the one!
Please let her be the one!
Booker wouldn't be needed for his populist cred if Warren was leading the ticket though.
Yes, that is the Democratic Party's goal. To "shut down the white people." lol
Get off breitbart and infowars. They are bad for your health.
@GL97 This DNC chair candidate thought that's exactly what the goal is. I wonder why she would've vocalized a crazy Idea like that?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...l_white_people_when_to_shut_their_mouths.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...l_white_people_when_to_shut_their_mouths.html
Nope.
If Warren is a the top of the ticket, and added Booker, it would be for other political reasons.
Yep.
"A strong liberal economic populist message and build upon the movement Sanders created in 2016" with a candidate that was critical in defeating Sanders importation amendment and was subsequently lambasted by Sanders for doing so doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
What might those "other political reasons" be?
So Breitbart and Infowars made Sally Boynton Brown say this:
"My job is to listen and be a voice and shut other white people down when they want to interrupt..."
"We have to teach them how to communicate, how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white."
I took the original comment to be speaking to shutting white people down in general, not in shutting white people down in the manner Sally Brown was attempting to articulate.
Brown should have chosen her words more carefully. I will give you that.
Last edited:
To unite the Democratic Party for the general election. To appeal to as many voters as possible come the general election.
Warren, along with Sanders, represents the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. That is but just one wing of the Party.
The only thing progressive about her is the progression of my ears bleeding listening to her shrill hyena voice.
Just another crook.
Madonna should run
Just another crook.
Madonna should run
Trump has got to get his shit together or we could end up with warren booker. All the madonnas and Ashley Judd spawns with the rest of the Hollywood idiots would be emboldened. We dodged a bullet with Hillary being epically terrible.
God help us. I wish I could just have ten minutes with trump to beat it into his head.
God help us. I wish I could just have ten minutes with trump to beat it into his head.
Don't be a dumbass .. That was a primary resource not some (hack) news site that I don't read or watch. You're the one that said wait for that person to get in place. Did you actually see the primary resource documentation? I say probably so but you just want to ignore that it ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Don't assume shit about me. I didn't vote for Trump and I sure as hell think he has been more cluster than POTUS. I sure as hell will not be put in some political corner because I do not agree with a position of any party.
That is a fascinating comment. What other wings are in the Demicratic Party? Do any of them carry any clout, have any say in the direction of the party? Who are the spokespersons for these other wings?
I would grab the door frame as moose and rocko tried to drag me out and get my point across.
I also want to know the other wing of that party and as a follow up which wing was responsible for crashing into a tree on November 8th. Look at who the dems lost to. Squint and study it real good. It's Donald j trump. The autopsy results are in and the determination is "turn left!"
You've outed yourself as a complete idiot. Anything you post past this point will be heard in Whoopie Cushion. Faaaarrrrtttttttttthhhhhhhbhbhhthhbhhthb
There is the moderate (or centrist) wing, the third way "New Democrat" wing, the progressive wing, and the libertarian wing. Some would say there is a liberal wing that isn't as far left as the progressives. Some would also argue that the centrists and third way are the same. There are other factions as well, such as pro-life Democrats, etc.
As for the clout of each group, mainly since 1992 the New Democrats have been able control the party. Bill Clinton was a New Democrat. Obama campaigned like a progressive, but governed like a New Democrat. In 2016, you saw a major battle unfold between the progressives (Sanders) and the New Democrats (Clinton).
The question now is will the progressives take control of the party or will the New Democrats find a leader that can extend their control of the party heading into 2020.
Last edited:
As a 50+ year a practicing libertarian I am unaware of any libertarian influence in the Democratic Party. Quite the opposite, in fact. A libertarian's primary political objective (indeed, some would say ONLY political objective) is the advancement of individual liberty. The Democratic Party is the embodiment of identity politics - putting people in boxes based on their race, gender, sexuality, etc. - the exact opposite of individualism. Who are some of these libertarians of which you speak? Exactly what influence do they bring to the DP table?
Secondly, you mention pro-life Democrats. That's news to me. I thought pro-lifers had been driven from the DP many years ago. At least in regards to having any say in the DP agenda.
I see your point in identifying two factions, the left and the far left. I would argue against your claim that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama represent the mild version of the leftist vision. But I agree that the Bernie Sanders "wing" of the party is fighting tooth and nail for control. For me that is a terrifying possibility, as that wing of the party seems to be gaining momentum, and it most certainly is diometrically the opposite of libertarianism.
P.S. I apologize for any misspellings. My finger is larger than the keypad on this phone.
The only people who think the cradle-to-grave nanny state with tax rates around 40-50% is a "populist" economic message are naïve morons in their 20s. Most of whom are not in the labor force. Fools.
Last edited:
Not to mention -- you can't have open borders and a welfare state. The math required for rationing is instantly wrecked.
This is why many European countries (in only a few years) have completely doomed themselves forever.
For countries like Sweden and Germany, their only long-term options are to become a police state, civil war to purge themselves of refugees (through turning off welfare to foreigners), or to become Muslim.
These are their options.
Sure there is a libertarian influence. There is no official libertarian Democratic congressional group such as the CPC, the Blue Dogs, and the NDC, but there is the Democratic Freedom Caucus. Ever heard of Mike Gravel? He is a Democrat but he sought the Libertarian Party's nomination for President in 2008.
Nope. There are many pro-life Democrats. Check out Democrats for Life. That group claims 1 in 3 Democrats are pro-life. Of course the national platform is pro-choice but that doesn't mean there aren't pro-life Democrats. Just like all Republicans are not pro-life.
The Clintons are not progressive Democrats. They came to power during the second Third Way movement and Clinton built his power base through the Democratic Leadership Council. There is a reason Sanders challenged Clinton for the nomination.
Obama was more of a progressive than the Clintons, I will give you that. But still, Obama was more aligned with the New Democrats than he was with the progressive wing of the party.
If a true progressive was elected President, those on the right would quickly see the differences between that progressive and the Clintons.
No worries. This is just a message board, not an English class.
Sure there is a libertarian influence. There is no official libertarian Democratic congressional group such as the CPC, the Blue Dogs, and the NDC, but there is the Democratic Freedom Caucus. Ever heard of Mike Gravel? He is a Democrat but he sought the Libertarian Party's nomination for President in 2008.
Nope. There are many pro-life Democrats. Check out Democrats for Life. That group claims 1 in 3 Democrats are pro-life. Of course the national platform is pro-choice but that doesn't mean there aren't pro-life Democrats. Just like all Republicans are not pro-life.
The Clintons are not progressive Democrats. They came to power during the second Third Way movement and Clinton built his power base through the Democratic Leadership Council. There is a reason Sanders challenged Clinton for the nomination.
Obama was more of a progressive than the Clintons, I will give you that. But still, Obama was more aligned with the New Democrats than he was with the progressive wing of the party.
If a true progressive was elected President, those on the right would quickly see the differences between that progressive and the Clintons.
No worries. This is just a message board, not an English class.
"progressive"= Socialist
What form of socialism are you referencing? Democratic socialism, utopian socialism, Marxist-Leninist, etc.?
Also, many progressives are actually social democrats, not socialists.
I think there is very little chance Warren would hold up well in the spotlight of a Presidential run. I think she is popular amongst a very limited set of voters and would do poorly in a broad general election. I believe Booker would have a much greater chance of success than Warren. I'm biased though because I believe Warren to be a total idiot.
You may have a point, however, I wouldn't underestimate Warren. Especially if Trump continues to bomb.
While I would support Warren for the nomination, I'd personally like to see a fresh face emerge in 2020. Keep an eye on Chris Murphy, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris. Also, a wildcard would be Mark Cuban.
