Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

The Democrat's roster for a Trump - beater in 2020

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, swordfish said:

So this happened......

Image may contain: 1 person, text

 

Words in the constitution:

Woman - Nope

Man - Nope

Fair / Fair Share - Nope

Abortion - Nope

Healthcare - Nope

Socialism - Nope

LGBTQ - Nope

Arms - Yes

“Indians not taxed” is also mentioned. As is “three fifths of all other persons”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Gillibrand Proposes Giving Every Voter $600 To Donate to Campaigns:  https://reason.com/2019/05/01/gillibrand-proposes-giving-every-voter-600-to-donate-to-campaigns/

Quote

In her first major policy proposal of the 2020 presidential election, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–NY)—a long shot candidate for the Democratic nomination—is suggesting that every voter be given $600 to donate to federal election campaigns. Affectionately named "Democracy Dollars," she says the taxpayer-funded venture will clean up elections and "attack the corrupting influence of money at its core."

All eligible voters would qualify for the lump sum, which would then be doled out in $200 payments for each individual's House, Senate, and presidential candidate of choice.

"If you want to accomplish anything that the American people want us to accomplish — whether it's healthcare as a right, better public schools, better economy — you have to take on the greed and corruption that determine everything in Washington," she toldNBC News.

Gillibrand says she'll finance her plan by eliminating a tax loophole for CEOs—which, between the various nominees, is starting to sound like a cure-all for society's ill. Those making more than $1 million or 25 times the median salary of their employees—whichever is less—would finance Democracy Dollars with $60 billion in additional taxes over 10 years, according to Gillibrand's plan.

The Democratic senator references Seattle as her inspiration, whose Democracy Voucher program allots $100 to every eligible voter to donate in each municipal election. Yet the results of the program's pilot attempt in 2017 were that everything stayed pretty much the same: Only 3.3 percent of recipients participated, and the winning slate was dominated by incumbents and those backed by the establishment.

.....

That wouldn't stop those same candidates from seeking big money support, though: Adherents to Democracy Dollars could still solicit help from super PACs, which Gillibrand's plan does not address. Although super PACs are barred from donating directly to a particular individual or party, they often spend enormous wads of cash to indirectly fund a candidate, often via advertising blitzes. They are under no spending limit when doing so.

But perhaps the more pressing issue here is a First Amendment one, as a small group of taxpayers would be forced to fund candidates, some of whom they would inevitably object to. Yet whether they disagree with them is almost beside the point: Gillibrand's plan is a form of compelled speech.

Frankly what a stupid plan.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Oprah:  https://inpolicy.org/2019/05/morris-its-oprah/

Quote

I’m reluctant to make political prognoses because I’m so bad at them. But I’m going to ignore my misgivings and go way out on a limb, not with a prediction but a bit of whimsical speculation.

I’m thinking of a potential Democratic presidential candidate – so far professing zero interest in the job, not on anybody’s radar – who could pretty much clear the field and have the nomination just by declaring. Furthermore, the resulting general-election contest against President Donald Trump would actually be fun for the country to watch, with the outcome utterly unpredictable.

And Trump could actually lose, which I don’t think would be the case if one of the mediocre, politics-as-usual candidates already running wins the nomination.

Let’s think about that field for a moment. So far, I believe, there are 21 candidates considered “major” by all those who label such things, and more than 200 “lesser” candidates with the proper Federal Election Commission paperwork filed.

That is good news for Indiana voters.

With 40 other primaries being conducted before ours, the election historically has been all over before it even gets here. But this state mattered for Democrats in 2008, when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were still duking it out, and for Republicans in 2016, when it took losses here to finally get Ted Cruz and John Kasich out of Trump’s way.

With so many candidates on the Democratic ballot next year, it is likely there will be a number of them still around by our May primary. And if South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg should end up on the ticket, there’s a chance even the fall general election might matter here.

The big field is also good news for the country. Candidates won’t be able to stand out merely by hating Trump – they all do, after all – so they might have to get specific about what initiatives and proposals they have to offer us. Voters will have a chance to be informed. They will have choices.

The news is not so good for the Democratic Party, however. There are basically two lanes toward the nomination, the moderate one and the far-left one.

Let’s face it, even if some other candidates (such as Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota) try to sneak into that lane, it all but belongs to former Vice President and current poll front-runner Joe Biden. He will likely be one of the two candidates left standing as the process nears completion. But he has decades of baggage that Trump can and will exploit mercilessly.

The far-left lane is so overcrowded that whoever survives the vetting by the voters will have been pushed so far to the progressive fringe that it will be all but impossible to get back to most Americans’ political comfort zone.

How many times can Trump tweet “Socialism bad!”?

And let’s assume that one of the other two front-runners – Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders – will carry that banner. It seems quite possible that a Democratic Party obsessed with diversity, inclusion and intersectionality will nominate a white male for president. There is some kind of disconnect there somewhere.

So, what the party desperately needs is a candidate who can bring all the factions together, eat into the base of independents whose loyalty to Trump is not absolute and corral the enthusiasm of people who normally pay little attention to politics.

It needs, yes, Oprah Winfrey.

No, I’m not trying to be facetious or provocative. Think about it. Trump has already demonstrated that voters hunger for somebody outside the political system. I’d wager Winfrey has a TV following as loyal and large as Trump’s despite ending her network show. She is just as adept at messaging and is perceived as one thing he will never be seen as – nice. Instead of a savvy outsider outwitting lame tactics from politicians too dim to understand they no longer work, we’d have two savvy outsiders.

And I really, really hate to say this, but you know what the Democratic dream ticket would be? Oprah in the top spot with Buttigieg holding down the vice-presidential slot.

Someone I know said a couple of scary things (to me at least) recently. This is someone who voted for Trump but doesn’t really care for him. The first time, she said, “I really like Buttigieg.” The second time, she said, “I’m liking Buttigieg more and more.” Both times, she added, “Except for his positions on the issues, of course.”

How many people out there, I wonder, will decide they like him but never get to that “Except for” part?

Just imagine. Mayor Pete makes the rounds of the party faithful, outlining a wonderful progressive vision for the future. Oprah makes all of it palatable to the general public. (Have you tried to read any of the books she promotes? I swear, she can sell anything.) And they are both constantly praised by a sympathetic, uncritical press that celebrates the long-awaited return of civility to politics.

I think . . . I need . . .

I think I need to take a deep breath now and see if I can get off this ledge I’ve talked myself onto.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oprah in the top spot with Buttigieg holding down the vice-presidential slot.

Related image

BUT - It's probably not wrong.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailywire.com/news/46988/pete-over-nbc-reporter-labels-buttigieg-kind-emily-zanotti?fbclid=IwAR1umEwi7ojaBZlgL2s8VPziOpjZgwHketE6vVWcPsWk9c8cgF_kfr88j5M

The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and first openly gay contender for a presidential nomination, enjoyed an extended honeymoon period with the press, landing on the cover of TIME and featuring in high-profile fashion magazines, but in recent days, Buttigieg's star power seems to have waned, and even mainstream media commentators have been souring on "Mayor Pete."

 

"You don't meet a lot of guys like Mayor Pete who last long on a national level, because, quite frankly, he's kind of boring," Melvin said, according to the Free Beacon, after The TODAY Show aired a clip of Buttigieg speaking in South Carolina.

"We've seen this from time to time in our politics, there's a man or a woman who manages to capture our attention for and then they fizzle, they fade, they peter out," Melvin said. "What's different this time?"

The Boston Globe echoed Melvin, calling Buttigieg, "remarkably unremarkable."

Buttigieg has been particularly successful at raising money, pulling in hundreds of thousands from Silicon Valley and Hollywood fundraisers in the last week, but at the same time, voter interest in Buttigieg has waned, per Real Clear Politics' tracking polls, falling from a peak of 8%, which put him into contention with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), back down to just a little more than 6%, placing him solidly in the second string of potential Democratic nominees.

Newspapers have also begun questioning why Buttigieg is getting national attention, when his campaign is, by the numbers, still well behind those of more established candidates. On Thursday, The New York Times questioned why Buttigieg was appearing on magazine covers and scoring key interviews when Kamala Harris, who has long been a front-runner for the 2020 Democratic nomination, and who outraised Buttigieg by millions in the first quarter, is being almost completely ignored.

It also appears that a signal has gone out authorizing mainstream media outlets — who, just last week, were writing glowing stories about Buttigieg's attractive family and one-eyed rescue dog — to criticize Buttigieg's campaignNBC News, for example, published a hit piece Thursday morning, taking Buttigieg to task for having a "comprehensive" health care plan (which is scant on details) that would offer health care even to illegal immigrants, but failing to offer his own staffers a paid health care option.

 

Buttigieg seems to have noticed. Just this week, he began taking more aggressive positions on the campaign trail, at one point even suggesting that God would be more apt to support a Buttigieg presidency than a Trump re-election — a barb aimed directly at Evangelicals who support Trump despite his history of marital infidelities, something Buttigieg, no doubt, considers hypocritical.

He's also noticed that his base, while energized, is not exactly "diverse." At a townhall in South Carolina this week, he begged supporters to help him court minority voters, ABC News reports, especially in states like South Carolina where a diverse base of support is key to winning delegates.

If Buttigieg has had one success, though, it is getting Beto O'Rourke out of the race for the Democratic nomination. After a brief dalliance with the limelight, it appears O'Rourke, heavily overshadowed by Buttigieg, may not make the first Democratic primary debate stage.

 

Quite frankly, he let the party put him in this place - the gay candidate.  He served his purpose, showing diversity in the party, now they want him out of the race.  

The other surprise is Bernie's drop in the polls......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woop - There it is!!

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/joe-biden-backs-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants-says-we-have-an-obligation-to-provide-it?fbclid=IwAR2BF2zVJa_bn_rCfL7cwFshlKm5MfwWhIoA9F47PeO321RTfqvdH4PoIos

Leading 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden said this week that the U.S. must provide health care to everyone in the country, “regardless of whether they are documented or undocumented.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SF's post in memes on April 15.  Found it very funny when the Mayor said he had to google it.  "It's a generational thing"......

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANNND - Here is MAD's response:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/13/pete-buttigieg-had-to-google-alfred-e-neuman-after/

Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg was mocked by Mad magazine over the weekend after he admitted he “had to Google” President Trump’s new nickname for him.

During an interview with Politico on Friday, Mr. Trump compared the South Bend mayor to Alfred E. Neuman, the freckled, red-haired fictitious mascot who has graced the pages of Mad magazine for decades.

“Alfred E. Neuman cannot become president of the United States,” the president said.

Asked what he thought of the new nickname, Mr. Buttigieg took a shot at Mr. Trump’s age while admitting he “had to Google” the reference.

“I’ll be honest. I had to Google that,” the 37-year-old mayor told Politico. “I guess it’s just a generational thing. I didn’t get the reference. It’s kind of funny, I guess. But he’s also the president of the United States and I’m surprised he’s not spending more time trying to salvage this China deal.”

 
 
1370.jpg?mode=stretch&connatiximg=true&scale=both&height=338&width=600

Mad magazine, which has pilloried Mr. Trump many times in the past, set its sights on Mr. Buttigieg this time, asking on Twitter, “Who’s Pete Buttigieg? Must be a generational thing.”

“MAD Magazine is for all generations!” another tweet read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swordfish said:

SF's post in memes on April 15.  Found it very funny when the Mayor said he had to google it.  "It's a generational thing"......

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling

Perhaps it is a generational thing, but I find it odd an American male doesn't know who Alfred E. Neuman is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Perhaps it is a generational thing, but I find it odd an American male doesn't know who Alfred E. Neuman is. 

At 37, Mayor Pete's on the cusp, but I'd wager money that a majority of American males under the age of 30 don't know who Alfred E. Neuman is (or didn't know before this incident.) They may have recognized his image as something they've seen before, but they wouldn't have put known his name. The advent of the digital era too greatly fractured and siloed media markets, and Mad Magazine's "bandwith" has been awfully narrow for a few decades now.  

Indded, as my brother noted to me the other day in speaking about his sons, and their male friends, who are in the mid- to late-20s demographic: "These kids had no idea what it meant when I asked where they stood in the 'Mary Ann versus Ginger' debate!"

If this generation is ignorant of something as seemingly culturally bedrock as a "Gilligan's Island" reference, how can we possibly expect them to know of Alfred E. Neuman? 

In any event, I'm guessing this was not gospel truth for Mayor Pete -- I mean, come on, the dude will read Norwegian novels in Norwegian, he's got to have glanced at a Mad Magazine or two in his time --  but was a "retort" gauged to (again) emphasize to millennials that Trump's a really old guy, and he isn't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Indded, as my brother noted to me the other day in speaking about his sons, and their male friends, who are in the mid- to late-20s demographic: "These kids had no idea what it meant when I asked where they stood in the 'Mary Ann versus Ginger' debate!"

Mary Ann.  The only real answer.

What about Kirk versus Picard?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Mary Ann.  The only real answer.

What about Kirk versus Picard?

 

Kirk....saw the other day, Will Wheaton is now the age Patrick Stewart was when TNG started. 😳

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

At 37, Mayor Pete's on the cusp, but I'd wager money that a majority of American males under the age of 30 don't know who Alfred E. Neuman is (or didn't know before this incident.) They may have recognized his image as something they've seen before, but they wouldn't have put known his name. The advent of the digital era too greatly fractured and siloed media markets, and Mad Magazine's "bandwith" has been awfully narrow for a few decades now.  

Indded, as my brother noted to me the other day in speaking about his sons, and their male friends, who are in the mid- to late-20s demographic: "These kids had no idea what it meant when I asked where they stood in the 'Mary Ann versus Ginger' debate!"

If this generation is ignorant of something as seemingly culturally bedrock as a "Gilligan's Island" reference, how can we possibly expect them to know of Alfred E. Neuman? 

In any event, I'm guessing this was not gospel truth for Mayor Pete -- I mean, come on, the dude will read Norwegian novels in Norwegian, he's got to have glanced at a Mad Magazine or two in his time --  but was a "retort" gauged to (again) emphasize to millennials that Trump's a really old guy, and he isn't.  

I agree W - my comment was referring to Mayor Pete's "generational" comment because I immediately felt he most likely knew or at least one of his staff knew the reference and his attempt was to distinguish the ages.  I think it may have backfired, though since he had to admit something he didn't know.......I still think the reference is pretty funny though.  Mayor Pete should have run with it somehow and tried to get a little mileage. (IMHO).  Again, as I have said before, he's incredibly smart, but I have been disappointed in his campaign so far.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

At 37, Mayor Pete's on the cusp, but I'd wager money that a majority of American males under the age of 30 don't know who Alfred E. Neuman is (or didn't know before this incident.) They may have recognized his image as something they've seen before, but they wouldn't have put known his name. The advent of the digital era too greatly fractured and siloed media markets, and Mad Magazine's "bandwith" has been awfully narrow for a few decades now.  

Indded, as my brother noted to me the other day in speaking about his sons, and their male friends, who are in the mid- to late-20s demographic: "These kids had no idea what it meant when I asked where they stood in the 'Mary Ann versus Ginger' debate!"

If this generation is ignorant of something as seemingly culturally bedrock as a "Gilligan's Island" reference, how can we possibly expect them to know of Alfred E. Neuman? 

In any event, I'm guessing this was not gospel truth for Mayor Pete -- I mean, come on, the dude will read Norwegian novels in Norwegian, he's got to have glanced at a Mad Magazine or two in his time --  but was a "retort" gauged to (again) emphasize to millennials that Trump's a really old guy, and he isn't.  

Poor parenting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...