2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[ABV 8.3%]

Ok, so I have to ask--who is your candidate of choice, Doc?

Well, let me be blunt and say that there are some good candidates among the Democrats, but no great ones. There are no Bill Clintons or Barack Obamas in the crowd.

And none of them really pass the “Beer Test” with flying colors ... that is, Americans usually elect as president the candidate with whom they most prefer to share a beer.

Having said that, I think women, millennials, Latinos, Asian Americans, African Americans, urbanites, suburbanites, and educated Americans will prefer having a beer with Kamala Harris over Donald Trump. That’s a winning coalition.

So ... Senator Kamala Harris has my support. But I will vote for any Democrat over Donald Trump in the general election.

DocBarrister

Bill Clinton great? Just wow. And, doubt you thought Obama was in August of 2007. Willing to bet you barely knew who he was.

You are the king pretend, DOC. 13th amendment slaves putting out YOUR wildfires, only won't get hired while on parole. (do all prisoners get parole when released? ) Gated (trumps wall) community organizer.

No wonder you support this PRETEND liberal

https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/conservation-camps/

ANd the MSM liberal bent media ain't happy. Harris is DONE.



https://www.aclu.org/blog/prisoners-rig ... -wildfires

https://time.com/5457637/inmate-firefig ... ies-death/

‘They don’t pay attention to our needs’
Mathew Trattner, a 22-year-old who spent 17 months of his five-and-a-half year juvenile prison sentence working in the fire camps of the Conservation Camp Program in California, says he wasn’t surprised by the number of injuries among adult inmate firefighters. “Because we’re at a prison camp, they don’t necessarily pay attention to our physical needs as much as they do actual firefighters,” he says.

[ABV 8.3%]

Kamala Harris is DONE. Tulsi Gabbard called her out on extending prisoners time to fight fires. Easy to do, because the ONLY benefit they get for fighting fires is reduced sentences, but, somehow they "stayed on the job"

Did the same to endentured servants. No no, you started in 1706, NOT 1704....you have two more years to serve.

Isn't BUZZFEED liberal media

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ad ... world-burn

and

https://www.latimes.com/local/political ... story.html

Most of those prisoners now work as groundskeepers, janitors and in prison kitchens, with wages that range from 8 cents to 37 cents per hour. Lawyers for Attorney General Kamala Harris had argued in court that if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool.

You support Harris, you support scum.

[jhu72]

Geezuz H, 72, that's a mighty tall order, particularly when given to one who doesn't pay all that much attention to the whole mess. Without google I'd have a hard time listing more than a few of our Presidential hopefuls from the D side. I view the whole lot (politicians in general) pretty much as I do magicians. One lot does sleight of hand, the other sleight of tounge. Ultimately I'd agree with a fan, lot of trickery and words but all in all everything remains the same, and what's wrong was the other letter's fault.

Policies (shmolicies) aside, likeability factor (it's only fall ball at this point) only.

Biden...just not seeing it, comes across to me as a deflating balloon. Joe should be put out to pasture.
Kamala...angry person, sharp tounge. She might to be able to stand up to Trump but he might be able to get her so riled up she loses it.
Tulsi...very likeable and sharp. Think she could stand up to Trump just fine too. Could get interesting if Spurz goes down the "your service in Iraq was just chickensh*t stuff and you're no hero" path with her.
Warren...see tech37. HRC, the sequil.

That's a start, will get back to the list later.
Oh, and you really need to up the bar in people whose opinion you value.

Thanks, I realized at the time it was a tall order. I was trying to get a feel for your thought process. I am really intrigued by your take on Warren. It seems like it really is a case of just not liking smart, articulate women who are assertive. She is not Hillary Clinton. She does not have the baggage. Why do you see her like HRC?? What is it specifically? I can see the similarities, but not liking her because she is smart, articulate and assertive, when running for the Presidency seems irrational when at the same time everyone decries the lack of candidates who posses desirable qualities. At the same time you like Tulsi Gabbard. She possesses many of the same qualities, smart, articulate, somewhat less assertive and you like her, oh and much better looking. The real difference between Gabbard and Warren is Warren has clearly thought about a much broader range of issues and talks about them easily - Gabbard not so much.

So the question becomes, if it is Warren running against Trump, what do you do?

[HooDat]

And none of them really pass the “Beer Test” with flying colors ... that is, Americans usually elect as president the candidate with whom they most prefer to share a beer.

Having said that, I think women, millennials, Latinos, Asian Americans, African Americans, urbanites, suburbanites, and educated Americans will prefer having a beer with Kamala Harris over Donald Trump. That’s a winning coalition.

My take is that when all is said and done Trump ends up edging Kamala on the beer test. She get's 100% of the millenials but fewer of the suburbanites and educated Americans than most of us would like to think. The really interesting part would be the Latino and black communities. Those are the people she has a public track record of putting in jail for their kids skipping school and forcing into labor once she has them in jail.... She is very, very vulnerable.


Dmac is spot on with his assessment.

Biden...just not seeing it, comes across to me as a deflating balloon. Joe should be put out to pasture.
Kamala...angry person, sharp tounge. She might to be able to stand up to Trump but he might be able to get her so riled up she loses it.
Tulsi...very likeable and sharp. Think she could stand up to Trump just fine too. Could get interesting if Spurz goes down the "your service in Iraq was just chickensh*t stuff and you're no hero" path with her.
Warren...see tech37. HRC, the sequil.

I don't know why, but it seems to me that the DNC is NOT going to let Tulsi get the nomination.

I qualified my comments on Bernie for a reason, and I think his time is past - he had a window of popular support that is gone - and it is gone because the DNC did not want him.


I think you are joking, but I bet you she is plotting to make this happen.....

Hillaryous is waiting in the wings. October surprise.

[DMac]

Geezuz H, 72, that's a mighty tall order, particularly when given to one who doesn't pay all that much attention to the whole mess. Without google I'd have a hard time listing more than a few of our Presidential hopefuls from the D side. I view the whole lot (politicians in general) pretty much as I do magicians. One lot does sleight of hand, the other sleight of tounge. Ultimately I'd agree with a fan, lot of trickery and words but all in all everything remains the same, and what's wrong was the other letter's fault.

Policies (shmolicies) aside, likeability factor (it's only fall ball at this point) only.

Biden...just not seeing it, comes across to me as a deflating balloon. Joe should be put out to pasture.
Kamala...angry person, sharp tounge. She might to be able to stand up to Trump but he might be able to get her so riled up she loses it.
Tulsi...very likeable and sharp. Think she could stand up to Trump just fine too. Could get interesting if Spurz goes down the "your service in Iraq was just chickensh*t stuff and you're no hero" path with her.
Warren...see tech37. HRC, the sequil.

That's a start, will get back to the list later.
Oh, and you really need to up the bar in people whose opinion you value.

Thanks, I realized at the time it was a tall order. I was trying to get a feel for your thought process. I am really intrigued by your take on Warren. It seems like it really is a case of just not liking smart, articulate women who are assertive. She is not Hillary Clinton. She does not have the baggage. Why do you see her like HRC?? What is it specifically? I can see the similarities, but not liking her because she is smart, articulate and assertive, when running for the Presidency seems irrational when at the same time everyone decries the lack of candidates who posses desirable qualities. At the same time you like Tulsi Gabbard. She possesses many of the same qualities, smart, articulate, somewhat less assertive and you like her, oh and much better looking. The real difference between Gabbard and Warren is Warren has clearly thought about a much broader range of issues and talks about them easily - Gabbard not so much.

So the question becomes, if it is Warren running against Trump, what do you do?

The answer to the question is easy, Warren. I really don't like having a revolting, dispicable, shallow, (the Prez is no deep thinker) rude and crude snake oil salesman as the face of our country.

As noted, I haven't really tuned into these people all that much. Of course I've seen them here and there and listened to them a little bit, but I'm far from having made up my mind. Your analysis of my not liking smart assertive women is not at all accurate though. My dislike for HRC goes way back to Slick's days in office, I just think she's a lying, conniving, cover up artist and don't trust her.
Warren just rubs me the wrong way, which is not to say I wouldn't give her a fair shot at winning my vote if I end up liking what I hear from her and read it as being something other than the usual line of BS we get from most of the rest of our politicians. Her, "let's have a beer" ad really turned me off, just felt like a real phony move to me.

The first pol who says it's time we stand up to Big Pharma and stop pushing pills on damn near the entire population, time we stand up to the insurance industry, and oh, time we end the war on drugs, get marijuana off of Sched 1 and legitimize the business (huge tax dollars being lost there) will get my attention for sure. The one who doesn't mention race, gender, and sexual preference will get my attention too.

[ggait]

A guy like this should be able to compete with Trump just fine. Progressive but practical, reasonable, normal. Basically Biden but younger and smarter.

But how do you break through a field of 20 to get the nomination? Especially if you're not checking off diversity boxes?

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/xgykxi/th ... 819_tds_94

[HooDat]

I don't know why, but it seems to me that the DNC is NOT going to let Tulsi get the nomination.

I just read something that made me realize why - the Military Industrial Complex wont let her out of the primaries because of he stance against war..... duh!

[foreverlax]

Kamala Harris is DONE. Tulsi Gabbard called her out on extending prisoners time to fight fires. Easy to do, because the ONLY benefit they get for fighting fires is reduced sentences, but, somehow they "stayed on the job"

Did the same to endentured servants. No no, you started in 1706, NOT 1704....you have two more years to serve.

Isn't BUZZFEED liberal media

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ad ... world-burn

and

https://www.latimes.com/local/political ... story.html

Most of those prisoners now work as groundskeepers, janitors and in prison kitchens, with wages that range from 8 cents to 37 cents per hour. Lawyers for Attorney General Kamala Harris had argued in court that if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool.

You support Harris, you support scum.

More then some are getting paid nothing....and get charged for using the required video conferencing system vs actual in person visitations.

Should prisoners get paid while in jail?

IF not, isn't akin to "forced labor", i.e. slavery?

Should they get minimum wage?

Boy talk about a can of worms...they must do the time for the crime, but we have to find ways to make the business of jails more about recidivism vs making money.

[LandM]

Just read the last few pages - funny yet sad;
Out here in the home on wheels - I have seen thousands of Trump2020 flags and that is no B/S. Way back in the day going to PSU football games saw thousands of Trump signs; couple for Johnson; and a few for Hillary, "lock her up or jail". IMHO the democrats are gonna do the same stupid thing and you got 4 more years. None of them have a shot on the energy level and they all have ethics or politician issues - mince meat. next person up.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Kamala Harris is DONE. Tulsi Gabbard called her out on extending prisoners time to fight fires. Easy to do, because the ONLY benefit they get for fighting fires is reduced sentences, but, somehow they "stayed on the job"

Did the same to endentured servants. No no, you started in 1706, NOT 1704....you have two more years to serve.

Isn't BUZZFEED liberal media

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ad ... world-burn

and

https://www.latimes.com/local/political ... story.html

Most of those prisoners now work as groundskeepers, janitors and in prison kitchens, with wages that range from 8 cents to 37 cents per hour. Lawyers for Attorney General Kamala Harris had argued in court that if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool.

You support Harris, you support scum.

More then some are getting paid nothing....and get charged for using the required video conferencing system vs actual in person visitations.

Should prisoners get paid while in jail?

IF not, isn't akin to "forced labor", i.e. slavery?

Should they get minimum wage?

Boy talk about a can of worms...they must do the time for the crime, but we have to find ways to make the business of jails more about recidivism vs making money.

“ Penal labor in the United States, including a form of slavery or involuntary servitude, is explicitly allowed by the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This form of legal slavery is only allowed when used as punishment for committing a crime.”

[foreverlax]

Kamala Harris is DONE. Tulsi Gabbard called her out on extending prisoners time to fight fires. Easy to do, because the ONLY benefit they get for fighting fires is reduced sentences, but, somehow they "stayed on the job"

Did the same to endentured servants. No no, you started in 1706, NOT 1704....you have two more years to serve.

Isn't BUZZFEED liberal media

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ad ... world-burn

and

https://www.latimes.com/local/political ... story.html

Most of those prisoners now work as groundskeepers, janitors and in prison kitchens, with wages that range from 8 cents to 37 cents per hour. Lawyers for Attorney General Kamala Harris had argued in court that if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool.

You support Harris, you support scum.

More then some are getting paid nothing....and get charged for using the required video conferencing system vs actual in person visitations.

Should prisoners get paid while in jail?

IF not, isn't akin to "forced labor", i.e. slavery?

Should they get minimum wage?

Boy talk about a can of worms...they must do the time for the crime, but we have to find ways to make the business of jails more about recidivism vs making money.

“ Penal labor in the United States, including a form of slavery or involuntary servitude, is explicitly allowed by the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This form of legal slavery is only allowed when used as punishment for committing a crime.”

When was the last time a judge said, "____ years of hard labor"?

[jhu72]

Geezuz H, 72, that's a mighty tall order, particularly when given to one who doesn't pay all that much attention to the whole mess. Without google I'd have a hard time listing more than a few of our Presidential hopefuls from the D side. I view the whole lot (politicians in general) pretty much as I do magicians. One lot does sleight of hand, the other sleight of tounge. Ultimately I'd agree with a fan, lot of trickery and words but all in all everything remains the same, and what's wrong was the other letter's fault.

Policies (shmolicies) aside, likeability factor (it's only fall ball at this point) only.

Biden...just not seeing it, comes across to me as a deflating balloon. Joe should be put out to pasture.
Kamala...angry person, sharp tounge. She might to be able to stand up to Trump but he might be able to get her so riled up she loses it.
Tulsi...very likeable and sharp. Think she could stand up to Trump just fine too. Could get interesting if Spurz goes down the "your service in Iraq was just chickensh*t stuff and you're no hero" path with her.
Warren...see tech37. HRC, the sequil.

That's a start, will get back to the list later.
Oh, and you really need to up the bar in people whose opinion you value.

Thanks, I realized at the time it was a tall order. I was trying to get a feel for your thought process. I am really intrigued by your take on Warren. It seems like it really is a case of just not liking smart, articulate women who are assertive. She is not Hillary Clinton. She does not have the baggage. Why do you see her like HRC?? What is it specifically? I can see the similarities, but not liking her because she is smart, articulate and assertive, when running for the Presidency seems irrational when at the same time everyone decries the lack of candidates who posses desirable qualities. At the same time you like Tulsi Gabbard. She possesses many of the same qualities, smart, articulate, somewhat less assertive and you like her, oh and much better looking. The real difference between Gabbard and Warren is Warren has clearly thought about a much broader range of issues and talks about them easily - Gabbard not so much.

So the question becomes, if it is Warren running against Trump, what do you do?

The answer to the question is easy, Warren. I really don't like having a revolting, dispicable, shallow, (the Prez is no deep thinker) rude and crude snake oil salesman as the face of our country. -- I knew this before I asked, just making sure I wasn't missing something.

As noted, I haven't really tuned into these people all that much. Of course I've seen them here and there and listened to them a little bit, but I'm far from having made up my mind. Your analysis of my not liking smart assertive women is not at all accurate though. My dislike for HRC goes way back to Slick's days in office, I just think she's a lying, conniving, cover up artist and don't trust her.
Warren just rubs me the wrong way, -- I had pretty much figured this out, that you don't really have an articulable reason, it is just a feeling which is not to say I wouldn't give her a fair shot at winning my vote if I end up liking what I hear from her and read it as being something other than the usual line of BS we get from most of the rest of our politicians. Her, "let's have a beer" ad really turned me off, just felt like a real phony move to me.

The first pol who says it's time we stand up to Big Pharma and stop pushing pills on damn near the entire population, time we stand up to the insurance industry, and oh, time we end the war on drugs, get marijuana off of Sched 1 and legitimize the business (huge tax dollars being lost there) will get my attention for sure. The one who doesn't mention race, gender, and sexual preference will get my attention too.

Last election, did you vote for Hillary or stay home? I can't recall, you may have said -- I am betting you stayed home. Sorry, if this is too personnal you are free to tell me to go f..k myself - no harm no foul.

[jhu72]

A guy like this should be able to compete with Trump just fine. Progressive but practical, reasonable, normal. Basically Biden but younger and smarter.

But how do you break through a field of 20 to get the nomination? Especially if you're not checking off diversity boxes?

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/xgykxi/th ... 819_tds_94

Agreed. I have been surprised he has not gotten more traction. The Montana governor impresses me the same way, the little I have seen of him. Inslee and some of the others if given a chance I think the same. The problem is, most of these folks come in looking like one trick ponies - they have one issue and that's it. Of course that is not true, it is the process. I don't think any of this is by design of the DNC, I think it is just the nature of the beast.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Kamala Harris is DONE. Tulsi Gabbard called her out on extending prisoners time to fight fires. Easy to do, because the ONLY benefit they get for fighting fires is reduced sentences, but, somehow they "stayed on the job"

Did the same to endentured servants. No no, you started in 1706, NOT 1704....you have two more years to serve.

Isn't BUZZFEED liberal media

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ad ... world-burn

and

https://www.latimes.com/local/political ... story.html

Most of those prisoners now work as groundskeepers, janitors and in prison kitchens, with wages that range from 8 cents to 37 cents per hour. Lawyers for Attorney General Kamala Harris had argued in court that if forced to release these inmates early, prisons would lose an important labor pool.

You support Harris, you support scum.

More then some are getting paid nothing....and get charged for using the required video conferencing system vs actual in person visitations.

Should prisoners get paid while in jail?

IF not, isn't akin to "forced labor", i.e. slavery?

Should they get minimum wage?

Boy talk about a can of worms...they must do the time for the crime, but we have to find ways to make the business of jails more about recidivism vs making money.

“ Penal labor in the United States, including a form of slavery or involuntary servitude, is explicitly allowed by the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This form of legal slavery is only allowed when used as punishment for committing a crime.”

When was the last time a judge said, "____ years of hard labor"?

Not sure. I was just pointing out that it’s still legal. There is a pretty good documentary called “ Slavery by Another Name”. I caught it on PBS a few years ago. Slavery lasted well into the 1940s and maybe early 50’s. I can’t remember. It was interesting. Roosevelt didn’t realize how widespread it was but economic interest in the north tied his hands. Not sure why that constitutional exemption still exists but my guess is that it isn’t an accident. Someone that studies ConLaw can speak on it.

EDIT: found this

[jhu72]

Why is Warren more likely to lose worse than HRC?

because Warren has all of HRC's personality shortcomings without the shiv hidden in her sleeve.

She is a smart woman and Trump country doesn't like smart woman. Got that. Same as Hillary. So how does she lose worse than Hillary? Numbers don't add up that I can see. She is not ignoring the midwest states and is saying things the working class in those states should like to hear. She also will not have the stay at home problem that Hillary had among the democratic base - she motivates them - or Trump does.

Is South Carolina Trump country? How in the world DID they ever elect a brown INDIAN WOMAN.

She predates Trump take over of the party. She won't run as a Trumpnista.

[DMac]

Geezuz H, 72, that's a mighty tall order, particularly when given to one who doesn't pay all that much attention to the whole mess. Without google I'd have a hard time listing more than a few of our Presidential hopefuls from the D side. I view the whole lot (politicians in general) pretty much as I do magicians. One lot does sleight of hand, the other sleight of tounge. Ultimately I'd agree with a fan, lot of trickery and words but all in all everything remains the same, and what's wrong was the other letter's fault.

Policies (shmolicies) aside, likeability factor (it's only fall ball at this point) only.

Biden...just not seeing it, comes across to me as a deflating balloon. Joe should be put out to pasture.
Kamala...angry person, sharp tounge. She might to be able to stand up to Trump but he might be able to get her so riled up she loses it.
Tulsi...very likeable and sharp. Think she could stand up to Trump just fine too. Could get interesting if Spurz goes down the "your service in Iraq was just chickensh*t stuff and you're no hero" path with her.
Warren...see tech37. HRC, the sequil.

That's a start, will get back to the list later.
Oh, and you really need to up the bar in people whose opinion you value.

Thanks, I realized at the time it was a tall order. I was trying to get a feel for your thought process. I am really intrigued by your take on Warren. It seems like it really is a case of just not liking smart, articulate women who are assertive. She is not Hillary Clinton. She does not have the baggage. Why do you see her like HRC?? What is it specifically? I can see the similarities, but not liking her because she is smart, articulate and assertive, when running for the Presidency seems irrational when at the same time everyone decries the lack of candidates who posses desirable qualities. At the same time you like Tulsi Gabbard. She possesses many of the same qualities, smart, articulate, somewhat less assertive and you like her, oh and much better looking. The real difference between Gabbard and Warren is Warren has clearly thought about a much broader range of issues and talks about them easily - Gabbard not so much.

So the question becomes, if it is Warren running against Trump, what do you do?

The answer to the question is easy, Warren. I really don't like having a revolting, dispicable, shallow, (the Prez is no deep thinker) rude and crude snake oil salesman as the face of our country. -- I knew this before I asked, just making sure I wasn't missing something.

As noted, I haven't really tuned into these people all that much. Of course I've seen them here and there and listened to them a little bit, but I'm far from having made up my mind. Your analysis of my not liking smart assertive women is not at all accurate though. My dislike for HRC goes way back to Slick's days in office, I just think she's a lying, conniving, cover up artist and don't trust her.
Warren just rubs me the wrong way, -- I had pretty much figured this out, that you don't really have an articulable reason, it is just a feeling which is not to say I wouldn't give her a fair shot at winning my vote if I end up liking what I hear from her and read it as being something other than the usual line of BS we get from most of the rest of our politicians. Her, "let's have a beer" ad really turned me off, just felt like a real phony move to me.

The first pol who says it's time we stand up to Big Pharma and stop pushing pills on damn near the entire population, time we stand up to the insurance industry, and oh, time we end the war on drugs, get marijuana off of Sched 1 and legitimize the business (huge tax dollars being lost there) will get my attention for sure. The one who doesn't mention race, gender, and sexual preference will get my attention too.

Last election, did you vote for Hillary or stay home? I can't recall, you may have said -- I am betting you stayed home. Sorry, if this is too personnal you are free to tell me to go f..k myself - no harm no foul.

Ding-ding, ding-ding, you win the grand prize. Trump and the clown show were phukt, no way he was winning and I sure as hell didn't want to vote for Her Holiness so there was no need for me to vote. Then again, maybe there was. I listened to the polls, ggait, and DocB...was a done deal like Tyson beating Douglas.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Geezuz H, 72, that's a mighty tall order, particularly when given to one who doesn't pay all that much attention to the whole mess. Without google I'd have a hard time listing more than a few of our Presidential hopefuls from the D side. I view the whole lot (politicians in general) pretty much as I do magicians. One lot does sleight of hand, the other sleight of tounge. Ultimately I'd agree with a fan, lot of trickery and words but all in all everything remains the same, and what's wrong was the other letter's fault.

Policies (shmolicies) aside, likeability factor (it's only fall ball at this point) only.

Biden...just not seeing it, comes across to me as a deflating balloon. Joe should be put out to pasture.
Kamala...angry person, sharp tounge. She might to be able to stand up to Trump but he might be able to get her so riled up she loses it.
Tulsi...very likeable and sharp. Think she could stand up to Trump just fine too. Could get interesting if Spurz goes down the "your service in Iraq was just chickensh*t stuff and you're no hero" path with her.
Warren...see tech37. HRC, the sequil.

That's a start, will get back to the list later.
Oh, and you really need to up the bar in people whose opinion you value.

Thanks, I realized at the time it was a tall order. I was trying to get a feel for your thought process. I am really intrigued by your take on Warren. It seems like it really is a case of just not liking smart, articulate women who are assertive. She is not Hillary Clinton. She does not have the baggage. Why do you see her like HRC?? What is it specifically? I can see the similarities, but not liking her because she is smart, articulate and assertive, when running for the Presidency seems irrational when at the same time everyone decries the lack of candidates who posses desirable qualities. At the same time you like Tulsi Gabbard. She possesses many of the same qualities, smart, articulate, somewhat less assertive and you like her, oh and much better looking. The real difference between Gabbard and Warren is Warren has clearly thought about a much broader range of issues and talks about them easily - Gabbard not so much.

So the question becomes, if it is Warren running against Trump, what do you do?

The answer to the question is easy, Warren. I really don't like having a revolting, dispicable, shallow, (the Prez is no deep thinker) rude and crude snake oil salesman as the face of our country. -- I knew this before I asked, just making sure I wasn't missing something.

As noted, I haven't really tuned into these people all that much. Of course I've seen them here and there and listened to them a little bit, but I'm far from having made up my mind. Your analysis of my not liking smart assertive women is not at all accurate though. My dislike for HRC goes way back to Slick's days in office, I just think she's a lying, conniving, cover up artist and don't trust her.
Warren just rubs me the wrong way, -- I had pretty much figured this out, that you don't really have an articulable reason, it is just a feeling which is not to say I wouldn't give her a fair shot at winning my vote if I end up liking what I hear from her and read it as being something other than the usual line of BS we get from most of the rest of our politicians. Her, "let's have a beer" ad really turned me off, just felt like a real phony move to me.

The first pol who says it's time we stand up to Big Pharma and stop pushing pills on damn near the entire population, time we stand up to the insurance industry, and oh, time we end the war on drugs, get marijuana off of Sched 1 and legitimize the business (huge tax dollars being lost there) will get my attention for sure. The one who doesn't mention race, gender, and sexual preference will get my attention too.

Last election, did you vote for Hillary or stay home? I can't recall, you may have said -- I am betting you stayed home. Sorry, if this is too personnal you are free to tell me to go f..k myself - no harm no foul.

Ding-ding, ding-ding, you win the grand prize. Trump and the clown show were phukt, no way he was winning and I sure as hell didn't want to vote for Her Holiness so there was no need for me to vote. Then again, maybe there was. I listened to the polls, ggait, and DocB...was a done deal like Tyson beating Douglas.

Trump was always within the margin or error. When margin of error widened, bad news about Clinton broke. I watched it and made note of it. It wasn’t Tyson vs Douglass. More like Leonard vs Hagler. ( I felt Hagler won).

[jhu72]

And none of them really pass the “Beer Test” with flying colors ... that is, Americans usually elect as president the candidate with whom they most prefer to share a beer.

Having said that, I think women, millennials, Latinos, Asian Americans, African Americans, urbanites, suburbanites, and educated Americans will prefer having a beer with Kamala Harris over Donald Trump. That’s a winning coalition.

My take is that when all is said and done Trump ends up edging Kamala on the beer test. She get's 100% of the millenials but fewer of the suburbanites and educated Americans than most of us would like to think. The really interesting part would be the Latino and black communities. Those are the people she has a public track record of putting in jail for their kids skipping school and forcing into labor once she has them in jail.... She is very, very vulnerable.


Dmac is spot on with his assessment.

Biden...just not seeing it, comes across to me as a deflating balloon. Joe should be put out to pasture.
Kamala...angry person, sharp tounge. She might to be able to stand up to Trump but he might be able to get her so riled up she loses it.
Tulsi...very likeable and sharp. Think she could stand up to Trump just fine too. Could get interesting if Spurz goes down the "your service in Iraq was just chickensh*t stuff and you're no hero" path with her.
Warren...see tech37. HRC, the sequil.

I don't know why, but it seems to me that the DNC is NOT going to let Tulsi get the nomination.

I qualified my comments on Bernie for a reason, and I think his time is past - he had a window of popular support that is gone - and it is gone because the DNC did not want him.


I think you are joking, but I bet you she is plotting to make this happen.....

Hillaryous is waiting in the wings. October surprise.

What evidence do you have that the DNC is not going to let Tulsi get the nomination? This is the same DNC that is not letting Bernie get the nomination. I think you are see things that aren't there. Bernie's problem is not the DNC. Bernie's problem is he is not the only candidate with his positions, he is not running against HRC, there are younger Bernie's running. He is also arguably the farthest left candidate. He also has the problem that he does share the blame for Hillary's loss in the minds of a great many people. Some in the DNC may feel this way but that is DWARFED by the rank and file democrats who feel this way. Bernie's problem is Bernie.

[HooDat]

What evidence do you have that the DNC is not going to let Tulsi get the nomination?

since I specifically wrote "it seems to me" and "I do not know why" I would have thought you might understand that I have no evidence. I thought my words made it very clear that I was stating an opinion.

What evidence do you have that they will? ....... see other people can ask stupid questions too!

[jhu72]

Geezuz H, 72, that's a mighty tall order, particularly when given to one who doesn't pay all that much attention to the whole mess. Without google I'd have a hard time listing more than a few of our Presidential hopefuls from the D side. I view the whole lot (politicians in general) pretty much as I do magicians. One lot does sleight of hand, the other sleight of tounge. Ultimately I'd agree with a fan, lot of trickery and words but all in all everything remains the same, and what's wrong was the other letter's fault.

Policies (shmolicies) aside, likeability factor (it's only fall ball at this point) only.

Biden...just not seeing it, comes across to me as a deflating balloon. Joe should be put out to pasture.
Kamala...angry person, sharp tounge. She might to be able to stand up to Trump but he might be able to get her so riled up she loses it.
Tulsi...very likeable and sharp. Think she could stand up to Trump just fine too. Could get interesting if Spurz goes down the "your service in Iraq was just chickensh*t stuff and you're no hero" path with her.
Warren...see tech37. HRC, the sequil.

That's a start, will get back to the list later.
Oh, and you really need to up the bar in people whose opinion you value.

Thanks, I realized at the time it was a tall order. I was trying to get a feel for your thought process. I am really intrigued by your take on Warren. It seems like it really is a case of just not liking smart, articulate women who are assertive. She is not Hillary Clinton. She does not have the baggage. Why do you see her like HRC?? What is it specifically? I can see the similarities, but not liking her because she is smart, articulate and assertive, when running for the Presidency seems irrational when at the same time everyone decries the lack of candidates who posses desirable qualities. At the same time you like Tulsi Gabbard. She possesses many of the same qualities, smart, articulate, somewhat less assertive and you like her, oh and much better looking. The real difference between Gabbard and Warren is Warren has clearly thought about a much broader range of issues and talks about them easily - Gabbard not so much.

So the question becomes, if it is Warren running against Trump, what do you do?

The answer to the question is easy, Warren. I really don't like having a revolting, dispicable, shallow, (the Prez is no deep thinker) rude and crude snake oil salesman as the face of our country. -- I knew this before I asked, just making sure I wasn't missing something.

As noted, I haven't really tuned into these people all that much. Of course I've seen them here and there and listened to them a little bit, but I'm far from having made up my mind. Your analysis of my not liking smart assertive women is not at all accurate though. My dislike for HRC goes way back to Slick's days in office, I just think she's a lying, conniving, cover up artist and don't trust her.
Warren just rubs me the wrong way, -- I had pretty much figured this out, that you don't really have an articulable reason, it is just a feeling which is not to say I wouldn't give her a fair shot at winning my vote if I end up liking what I hear from her and read it as being something other than the usual line of BS we get from most of the rest of our politicians. Her, "let's have a beer" ad really turned me off, just felt like a real phony move to me.

The first pol who says it's time we stand up to Big Pharma and stop pushing pills on damn near the entire population, time we stand up to the insurance industry, and oh, time we end the war on drugs, get marijuana off of Sched 1 and legitimize the business (huge tax dollars being lost there) will get my attention for sure. The one who doesn't mention race, gender, and sexual preference will get my attention too.

Last election, did you vote for Hillary or stay home? I can't recall, you may have said -- I am betting you stayed home. Sorry, if this is too personnal you are free to tell me to go f..k myself - no harm no foul.

Ding-ding, ding-ding, you win the grand prize. Trump and the clown show were phukt, no way he was winning and I sure as hell didn't want to vote for Her Holiness so there was no need for me to vote. Then again, maybe there was. I listened to the polls, ggait, and DocB...was a done deal like Tyson beating Douglas.

… and this is EXACTLY MY POINT! I do not see why there is some certainty that Warren can't win, that she will be blown away in some Nixon vs McGovern blow out while running against Trump. Trump has a high floor and very low ceiling.

Hillary lost it, Trump didn't win it in 2016. He won by the slimmest of margins. Now Warren is not a strong candidate (neither is Trump), she has like-ability problems, she is not the most popular girl in school, I am sure she never was. But she is not as dislike-able as Hillary or Trump! The 2016 was a base turnout election. The democratic base, elements of it didn't turn out in some states that mattered - Trump squeaked by.

2020 is going to be a different kind of race, the Trump base is smaller than the number of people who disapprove of Trump by a significant margin, and they will vote this time around. The nose holding factor works in the democrat's favor this time round. It is very likely to be close no matter who the democratic candidate is.