Do the Democrats have a viable 2020 nominee?

[vraiblonde]

I'm still laughing that they're ignoring their best bet, which is Tulsi Gabbard.

So who else do they have that would be palatable to moderates? They keep saying "Joe Biden" but he's such a gootz you'd have to be clinically retarded in order to want that bonehead in the top seat.

Bloomberg is jumping in, but man is that touchy. He's so dirty and Trump knows it. And yeesh, all Trump would have to do is point to NYC and what Bloomberg has done to that shithole. His biggest success was "Stop and Frisk" and Democrats hate that more than anything.

Hillary is done. Like, done done. Kwillia steak done.

They're talking Gavin Newsom but unfortunately for him he has California to point to as an example of his "leadership".

I still think they should dust off Martin O'Malley. He could go on a talk show and play the guitar and all the progkiddies would swoon.

 

[Gilligan]

Michelle...she's their only hope now. ;-p

 

[Kyle]

 

[Grumpy]

Like, done done. Kwillia steak done.

 

[officeguy]

They dont. And deep down in their shallow minds, they know it.

 

[vraiblonde]

They dont. And deep down in their shallow minds, they know it.

But they should. Instead they have these nuts running around trying to convince us how great it would be to live in a Socialist nightmare. The Bernie and Allie Show just takes your breath away it's so creepy. Americans aren't going to vote for that.

 

[PsyOps]

They dont. And deep down in their shallow minds, they know it.

I'm not so sure about that. I think democrats have become so myopic in their ideology that they have become unable to see themselves as radically left, and completely out of touch with mainstream voters. And, their hatred for Trump further blinds them. They've encased themselves in a little bubble that only reflects back in on themselves.

My only worry is, if the young voters (you know... the ones who have been brainwashed by our "higher education" institutions) get out in large numbers, then there is a good chance Bernie or Warren can beat Trump.

 

[Ken King]

It's all part of the grand scheme, no clear leader going to convention resulting in a brokered convention and then the super-delegates pick the candidate (Hillary).

 

[SamSpade]

I'm not so sure about that. I think democrats have become so myopic in their ideology that they have become unable to see themselves as radically left, and completely out of touch with mainstream voters.

That, and the fact that they cannot have them all disagreeing with one another.
This is the problem with their ideology -
For liberals, tolerance and peace comes when everyone agrees.
For conservatives, it comes when you allow others to disagree without losing your mind over it.

Like a hive mind - they can't disagree. So when one person says Medicare for All, they all have to.

 

[Kyle]

But they should. Instead they have these nuts running around trying to convince us how great it would be to live in a Socialist nightmare. The Bernie and Allie Show just takes your breath away it's so creepy. Americans aren't going to vote for that.

If you listen to the -30s for a while you'll see why it's on the radar. They've all been indoctrinated, by the public de-education system and leftist college professors, to believe it's the perfect society.

 

[SamSpade]

I'm still laughing that they're ignoring their best bet, which is Tulsi Gabbard.

I'm still laughing at the fact that they trot out TWO DOZEN OR MORE of their best and brightest - and no one really wants ANY of them.
Kind of makes you wonder how they got elected to their CURRENT job.

 

[SamSpade]

If you listen to the -30s for a while you'll see why it's on the radar. They've all been indoctrinated, by the public de-education system and leftist college professors, to believe it's the perfect society.

Ideologically - it's not wrong. Wouldn't it be great if we were all altruistic and worked together for the best good for everyone?

I like to mention that this even happened in the Bible - that the newly formed church all lived together and gave to any as had need,
and there was no lack for anything among them. But - it didn't last. Before long you had racial prejudice, people lying about what they had,
people doing nothing and expecting to be cared for, people pigging out at common meals - you just can't depend on people to always be out for
everyone else. And that's just what's IN the Bible.

Socialism ideologically ignores basic human behavior - that people are still selfish even with the best of intentions, there will always be ambitious people who want more if they work harder, that you can't reward mediocrity and expect the best from people. Socialism in PRACTICE is always worse; as it's been observed - it's shared misery. The surest way to get excellence is to give bigger rewards. In PRACTICE, there will always need to be someone in charge, and they will eventually become corrupt. No one is that virtuous.

 

[Kyle]

Socialism ideologically ignores basic human behavior

Boiled down.

 

[PsyOps]

That, and the fact that they cannot have them all disagreeing with one another.
This is the problem with their ideology -
For liberals, tolerance and peace comes when everyone agrees.
For conservatives, it comes when you allow others to disagree without losing your mind over it.

Like a hive mind - they can't disagree. So when one person says Medicare for All, they all have to.

It makes me think about the human condition and how each of us, seemingly, finds our own course in thinking. We're all born pretty-much the same - completely ignorant to any sort of thought processes or analytical abilities. We're sponges absorbing everything we see, at a very basic level.

We struggle through trying figure out what causes one person to become minister, while another person - in similar conditions - becomes a murderer. What caused SamSpade to become a rational-minded person, while someone like Trans is so hateful and full of contempt?

What causes someone like Elizabeth Warren, who enjoys a very comfortable (reportedly) $12 million in wealth, on the backs of the capitalism in this country, to become a far left socialist, willing to even tax herself into lower-middle class. Yet, someone like me, who works my ass off just to stay in middle class, demands a government stay out of my life and stop dictating to me what I should or shouldn't be worth financially or what market I should participate?

Worse yet, what has caused these people that scream tolerance, while exercising intolerance and would have me put in prison for saying something that doesn't comply with their ideology? That these people would give up all of their liberties - and that of everyone else - to have a government that would dictate a singular ideology?

If it wasn't so disturbing to watch what's happening in this country, I would find it more fascinating.

 

[vraiblonde]

What causes someone like Elizabeth Warren, who enjoys a very comfortable (reportedly) $12 million in wealth, on the backs of the capitalism in this country, to become a far left socialist, willing to even tax herself into lower-middle class.

Ah, but that's not how it works. Socialist dictators only want you to be poor. They and their elite cronies will be keeping their wealth, thank you very much. If these people really believed what they preach, they'd voluntarily give up at least a portion of their millions and dole it out to the less fortunate. Note that they don't do that.

Bernie Sanders has like three houses, and many Americans have no house. But does he give one away or turn it into a homeless shelter? No. No, he doesn't.

And yet the progs fall for this crap time and time again.

 

[Kyle]

Ah, but that's not how it works. Socialist dictators only want you to be poor. They and their elite cronies will be keeping their wealth, thank you very much. If these people really believed what they preach, they'd voluntarily give up at least a portion of their millions and dole it out to the less fortunate. Note that they don't do that.

Bernie Sanders has like three houses, and many Americans have no house. But does he give one away or turn it into a homeless shelter? No. No, he doesn't.

And yet the progs fall for this crap time and time again.

If it weren't for double-standards, they'd have no standards at all.

 

[vraiblonde]

If it weren't for double-standards, they'd have no standards at all.

I'm trying to remember who it was....

A super rich society lady was going to visit the slums and give out trinkets and food boxes to the poor. She dressed to the nines, jewels, fur coat, the whole shebang, and one of her aides was like, "Do you think it's wise to be so expensively dressed while giving out bags of dried beans to starving children?" And she replied, "They want to see their betters well turned out." And she was right - the kids and their parents were in awe of such luxury and didn't think she was awful at all.

At some point the who/what/when/where of this story will come back to me....

Anyway, the point is that extreme lower classes aren't smart enough to go, "Hey....wait a minute..." They seem to understand that it's their lot in life to live in a ghetto scrounging for food, while idolizing the extraordinarily wealthy who claim to "care" and visit them once a year with a bag of lentils.

 

[jrt_ms1995]

Ideologically - it's not wrong. Wouldn't it be great if we were all altruistic and worked together for the best good for everyone?

Any form of government would work perfectly, if we only had perfect people.

 

[nutz]

Michelle...she's their only hope now. ;-p

What happened to the true savior - Oprah?

 

[kom526]

It's all part of the grand scheme, no clear leader going to convention resulting in a brokered convention and then the super-delegates pick the candidate (Hillary).

THIS is some high level deep state stuff here. Yet completely believable. Gabbard and Delaney would be the most palatable choice out of the clown car.