And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[Karl Henning]

     Let me try to have an opinion and feelings, see how it goes:

     

 

     

Warren outnumbers Bernie 19 to 9? That doesn't sound like Bernie is awash in resources, not to me...

[71 dB]

What if you are mistaken, and Warren is a superior nominee to Bernie?

Superior in what way? Warren is not as progressive as Bernie. Bernie is 1000 % behind medicare for all, Warren is 80 %. Bernie wants to elimininate all student loan debt, Warren wants to eliminate some of it and so on.

As for who wins I don't know, but if the US wants real change it better be Bernie.

[Florestan]

What if you are mistaken...?

You kidding? How could a disciple of Kyle Kulinski ever be mistaken?

[71 dB]

You kidding? How could a disciple of Kyle Kulinski ever be mistaken?

In 2016 I didn't follow US politics and I didn't listen to Kyle Kulinski. That's why I didn't believe Trump could win. Had I listened to him I would have learned before Trump won Republican nomination (and even a lot of Republicans didn't believe in Trump's chances) that Trump CAN not only win the Republican nomination but ALSO become the president! Kyle Kulinski knew that and warned people about it. How did he knew? He analysed the facts as he always does.

[Madiel]

Superior in what way? Warren is not as progressive as Bernie. Bernie is 1000 % behind medicare for all, Warren is 80 %. Bernie wants to elimininate all student loan debt, Warren wants to eliminate some of it and so on.

As for who wins I don't know, but if the US wants real change it better be Bernie.

See, all your comparisons are about wanting rather than about RESULTS.

Ever heard the phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good"? You are currently sounding like the kind of person who would reject, say, the partial elimination of student debt because it isn't total elimination of student debt, and end up getting no elimination of student debt at all.

Politics is the art of the possible. We are talking about a system where the President doesn't get to just achieve whatever they want. So if you want a possible reason Warren is superior (and I'm not deciding this, just raising it with you), it could be along the lines of wanting change that is achievable rather than wanting "real change" that will be too much for some.

[drogulus]

Superior in what way?

     In any way, like the ability to produce more change than change talk. My goal is not to get the most ideologically compatible person nominated. It's not that simple. I want to see someone nominated that will be able to effect desirable change if elected. In some countries with a parliamentary system you can support the party and know what you'll get. Our system isn't like that. We may only have unified government for 2 years and time for one big change, like OCare.

[71 dB]

If you are a right-winger, the lefties attack you online
If you are a lefty, the right-wingers attack you online
If you are ignorant, smart people attack you online
If you are smart, ignorant people attack you online
No matter who or what you are, someone will attack you online

Don't want to be attacked? Just get offline... 

[71 dB]

See, all your comparisons are about wanting rather than about RESULTS.

Ever heard the phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good"? You are currently sounding like the kind of person who would reject, say, the partial elimination of student debt because it isn't total elimination of student debt, and end up getting no elimination of student debt at all.

Politics is the art of the possible. We are talking about a system where the President doesn't get to just achieve whatever they want. So if you want a possible reason Warren is superior (and I'm not deciding this, just raising it with you), it could be along the lines of wanting change that is achievable rather than wanting "real change" that will be too much for some.

Republicans don't come to your side. If you start from half-point you get nothing. You have to start from the furthest left position. Bernie has the plan, how to remove money from politics and restore democracy, how to have grassroot movement, people on street to demand change.

[JBS]

Republicans don't come to your side. If you start from half-point you get nothing. You have to start from the furthest left position. Bernie has the plan, how to remove money from politics and restore democracy, how to have grassroot movement, people on street to demand change.

But Bernie would lose to Trump. Thereby rendering all that irrelevant.

[Todd]

You have to start from the furthest left position.

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all disagree with you.

[71 dB]

     In any way, like the ability to produce more change than change talk. My goal is not to get the most ideologically compatible person nominated. It's not that simple. I want to see someone nominated that will be able to effect desirable change if elected. In some countries with a parliamentary system you can support the party and know what you'll get. Our system isn't like that. We may only have unified government for 2 years and time for one big change, like OCare.

You can vote for anyone you want. I have my FAVORITE ok?. I can't even vote so my opinion is harmless to rich Americans.

[71 dB]

Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama all disagree with you.

So? The US needs a real progressive instead of a corporate centrist. Trump is a desperate symptom of that.

[Todd]

So?

They won.  They know US politics.  You are an ignorant non-American beholden to irrelevant and foolish ideas.

[71 dB]

They won.  They know US politics.  You are an ignorant non-American beholden to irrelevant and foolish ideas.

They won? Yes, but it didn't help regular americans at all. It helped the top 1 %.

[Todd]

They won? Yes, but it didn't help regular americans at all. It helped the top 1 %.

Incorrect.

[JBS]

So? The US needs a real progressive instead of a corporate centrist. Trump is a desperate symptom of that.

Which is preferable? A progressive who would implement radical change but has no real chance of being elected, or a centrist who will implement smaller changes but has a good chance of being elected?

[71 dB]

Incorrect.

So why did Trump win? Why would people vote for an "outsider" for an desparate attempt to have change if corporate centrists govern so well? Wouldn't corporate centrist Hillary Clinton have been a much "safer" option? Kind of the same as Obama, only a woman. Maybe people hated Hillary because they are sick and tired of the corruption and they were disappointed to Obama who wasn't lefty enough (Obama campaigned as a lefty, but governed as a centrist and couldn't do even public option with super majority, instead did Republican healthcare plan to secure the interests of insurance companies).

Why has the salaries stagnated for 40 years? Why does the richest people have lower tax rate than middle class? Why do millions of people lack healthcare coverage and be underinsured? Why does half of American make $30.000 or less in the richest country in the world? Perhaps these are the reasons why Trump's fake populism resonated with the voters?

[71 dB]

Which is preferable? A progressive who would implement radical change but has no real chance of being elected, or a centrist who will implement smaller changes but has a good chance of being elected?

The top three at the moment includes two progressives and one centrist. Could it be a sign of the frustration people have for incrementalism? If people preferred smaller changes surely candidates like Kamala Harris would poll much higher? Only the former VP is high in the polls and even he is in danger of losing support when people realize how bad candidate he is.

[Todd]

So why did Trump win? Why would people vote for an "outsider" for an desparate attempt to have change if corporate centrists govern so well? Wouldn't corporate centrist Hillary Clinton have been a much "safer" option? Kind of the same as Obama, only a woman. Maybe people hated Hillary because they are sick and tired of the corruption and they were disappointed to Obama who wasn't lefty enough (Obama campaigned as a lefty, but governed as a centrist and couldn't do even public option with super majority, instead did Republican healthcare plan to secure the interests of insurance companies).

Why has the salaries stagnated for 40 years? Why does the richest people have lower tax rate than middle class? Why do millions of people lack healthcare coverage and be underinsured? Why does half of American make $30.000 or less in the richest country in the world? Perhaps these are the reasons why Trump's fake populism resonated with the voters?

You do not see and cannot understand that this list of irrelevant though supposedly thoughtful questions does not obscure the fact that your prior assertion was completely, factually wrong.  Also, this question begging reinforces the obvious reality that you know nothing about US politics, despite your protests to the contrary.

[71 dB]

You do not see and cannot understand that this list of irrelevant though supposedly thoughtful questions does not obscure the fact that your prior assertion was completely, factually wrong.  Also, this question begging reinforces the obvious reality that you know nothing about US politics, despite your protests to the contrary.

You can say 1000 times I don't know anything, but you can still be wrong. Let's see who is right in this election. I follow Kyle Kulinski (he is American so you can't call him a non-american ignoramus) and I am confident I get good insight. You don't follow him. You follow more corporate sources. Let's see which one of us knows better!