That egoistic billionaire is trying to hand the other egoistic billionaire his second term for nothing but a narcissistical satisfaction. Just hit him where it hurts the most.
It's too early to make any predictions but I am assuming we are going to pick a younger more liberal candidate. The big question for me is how many Dem and independent voters would find a more liberal candidate less acceptable. I agree that if you can believe polls Bernie may have beaten Trump. But it is hard to know how much a Schultz or even a Bush as a third or 4th party candidate would capture of the more conservative Dem, the more liberal Republican or independent vote. I certainly don't think a Schultz would help any Dem candidate and may be popular enough to hurt them. Is it worth the risk??? Would a Biden or Beto candidate fair any better or worse with a Howard Schultz.
I guess my point is, Schultz is just noise. The Dems complaining about his is just noise. The last time an independent ran in a presidential election was Perot in 1992 and Clinton won rather easily. Despite what party affiliation Schultz has or may have have been means nothing. Just listen to the words that come out of his mouth. The only way he would be a threat to Dems would be if the Dems nominate a centrist candidate or one further to the right of Schultz, which is possible, but (barring specious shenanigans) VERY, VERY unlikely based on the candidates currently in the field.
The establishment will try very hard to push a "centrist" candidate like Biden, Beto, or Bloomberg while demonizing the liberal candidates. That's America for you. I just believe that the liberal candidates in the field have figured out by now how to get around the BS.
Elections are 1000 times more based on emotion than logic. Bernie's message was a 10. But, the voters took off points for his looks (mad scientist), his religion (Jewish - although in practice he's atheist, which amounted to even more points taken away), delivery (mad scientist), and age (70 - although same as Trump, he looked older). It's sad that these things hold any value whatsoever in elections, but they do.
OTOH, Tulsi Gabbard has the same agenda as Bernie, but has an attractive appearance, young (37 - may be considered too young although qualified), soft-spoken, yet assertive, and a military veteran who has been on the battlefield. This is why there is an all out assault to demonize her because she is the biggest threat to the establishment (of both Republican and Democratic Parties).
"It's too early to make any predictions but I am assuming we are going to pick a younger more liberal candidate"
Of course. The dems run an incredibly high risk of their rabid identity politics base nominating an absolute loon who cannot win a general election. There's no way in the world they nominate a white male, no point in one even trying to run. The more checked boxes of whatever is in over the next year the better for that person, but in so doing they are going to push away a lot of their base, too. I don't actually believe the majority of democrats are as demented as the prevailing views of the democratic leadership would currently indicate (70 or 90% tax rate, walls immoral, rampant anti-white racism, etc.).
This election will be an absolute sh*tshow, even worse than the last one. This country is beginning to circle the drain at rates faster than I could have imagined a few years ago.
@shock. If you don’t mind me asking? Can you see yourself voting for Howard Schultz as an independent?
@babyjocko. I understand what you are saying. But i still have this burning question as to how many Dems, or potential Dem voters think like @Shock. It would be great if more Trump voters gravitate to Schultz.]
@Shock, you have a myopic perception of the Democratic Party. Not unusual these days from Fox News viewers. BTW, in case you didn't know, Fox News is brain poison. But, I digress.
As for white male candidates, if and when deBlasio enters the race, he will get my vote and become a frontrunner.
With reference to 70% (or more) and taxes, it's not intended to be an income tax rate. Instead, it would be a marginal tax rate, meaning that it kicks in after a set amount has been taxed at the appropriate tax rate. That set amount is $10M. Anyone who makes $10M or more would be taxed at their normal rate up to $10M. Income beyond $10M would be taxed at the higher rate. Somehow you figure this to be unfair? If you really want to MAGA, then that's the way it used to be. In fact, it used to be 90%.
Walls ARE immoral. Moreover, THIS wall is unnecessary. Once again, it's Fox News leading you astray as to what the REAL issues are. Reality suggests, building a wall for illegal immigration is NOT one of them.
@SCCRENDO, based on shock's comments, it should be obvious he is not a Dem voter, nor would Dems care for him to be one.
Asset tax proposed by some liberals is a good alternative. Something like 2% for asset above $500 million is very fair. Middle class people did not realize they are already paying something like that even with their meager assets. House they own and live in is usally major part of their assets. In many states you're already paying that much property taxes if not more. Whereas wealthy people have only small portion of their assets in real estate and pay practically nothing. Whatever we do rich people will always be ahead. They will still be able to keep at least that $500 million none of us will ever have.
Some might want to argue people should keep everything they've earned. That is pure BS. No one has earned everhtihg without help of the entire society. My house increased in value and my mutual found gave me a good return only because of the economy contributed by everyone. Any billionaire or multi-millionaire you think deserves everything he earns let's put him/her in a remote desert and see how much he deserves.
I guess the place where we have different opinions is whether one needs disaffected Republicans, independents and conservative Dems to get our candidate elected. You think we don't. I believe we do. I am not suggesting they soften their platform. But that is where Schultz could become the spoiler.
An Emerson College Poll reported in the Daily Wire (yes, right wing bias) has Trump winning (Iowa?) if Schultz is in the race. On the other hand, Trump beat Clinton by 10 points in 2016.
Of course, it's too early to tell and the article is more than vague about who was polled. Looks like sample was limited to Iowa voters. Nonetheless, at this stage of the game, looks like Schultz helps Trump in Iowa.
On the positive side, looks like Trump will have a much harder time in Iowa this go-'round.
@sabbia. That is my concern. But I agree we need to see what happens nationwide particularly in the swing states like Florida, Ohio, Michigan etc
If the state of the union in November 2020 is like today, who is doing to vote for change ?
Democrats will need to continue to "pray" for the economy to crash... The last government shutdown, longest in this country history (over the refusal to allocate 5 billion for border security.. when we give more to pakistan every year) was a ploy to hurt our country to in turn hurt the presidency. It was not effective.... Ok, we still dont have a secure border, so good job on the democrats, but our economy is still strong.
Side note. we spend like 50 billion a year in afganistan (for over a decade). Rep and Dem voted to continue the spending there, but refuse to allocate 5 billion for our own border security.
The wall is cheap and effective. This is why over 80% of the California border is protected by a wall/barrier/fence
This is also why Obama, Clinton, etc.. advocated for it... until it became a Trump election promise to voters.
@sschaem, you have no grasp on reality if you believe what you post.
No Democrat is against border security. No Democrat is against barriers where they make sense.
As to rooting for failure, you need to look in the mirror, circa January 2009, and read McConnell's statements about that new President.
You also need to read McConnell's statements regarding refusing to bring hearings for a SCOTUS nominee lawfully (and constitutionally required) brought to the Senate in 2016.
The GOP is the party of "if you can't win, cheat. If you can't cheat, change the rules. If you can't change the rules, whine about the brown menace."
"@sschaem, you have no grasp on reality if you believe what you post"
I was about to suggest he was incredibly stupid. But, that would have been rude.
If the wall were to cost $5, Dems would have and should have STILL voted it down. Cost of the wall is not the issue, The idea of the wall itself is the issue. It is just an unnecessary solution for a problem that does not exist.
Moreover, NEVER should anyone deal with an extortionist - "give me what I want or else..." It may work the way in Trump's mobster world, but no in politics.
What did you guys think about Stacey Abrams last night? I thought she gave a great speeh
I voted for Stacey Abrams. She is exceptionally well educated and has life experiences that relate well with humanity.
I have to think people who like the wall also like conferate monuments. They have no idea what racist undertone they represent. Or maybe they do.
This post is out of place in this TESLA forum
@9114s. Thanks for your smart insights. I don’t know how we managed without you.
I have a new favorite 2020 candidate. She is atop my list of favorite candidates. I have come to know each of the candidates and what they stand for. Simply go to their websites and see what they have to say from their mouth before listening to "news" or "information" from external sources. You'd think you would trust a news article from NBC. Yet, they ran an article that fraudulently claimed Russia was behind Tulsi Gabbard's campaign. Perhaps the fact that NBC is owned by Comcast, a major GOP contributor has something to do with it. Nonetheless, if you were to go to Tulsi's website and see where she stands on the issues, it should be obvious that the claims against here were ludicrous. Knowledge is the best defense against propaganda.
1. Marianne Williamson
2. Bill de Blasio (has not officially announced his candidacy)
3. Tulsi Gabbard
4. Bernie Sanders
When voting the primary, vote for the person who's views best align with yours. Never attempt to calculate the "electability" of a candidate. Consider what FDR said about the presidency. He said the presidency is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership - that executive duty is secondary.
Unfortunately most politicians in both parties lack moral leadership. The ability to run the country, avoid war and the protection of it's citizens should be their top priority.
It stinks that the country is so divided. I wish one politician would win by a landslide but they are just puppets of their donors and large corporations. I thought both parties would unite if Trump got in and had crazy ideas in order to keep the country in check, but it seems like the same old story. Nothing getting done for the next 2 years due to a divided House and Senate that just does what their party bosses tell them.
But its better than living in a dictatorship or a country ruled by religious fanatics.
In 2016 TRUMP won 304-227. In 2020, ANY democrap won't have a chance!!
SkyMASTER? @skymaster also shows themselves to be masters of history, logic and critical thinking. In 1988 George H. W. Bush won 426 to 111. Even won the popular vote by about 8 points. Tell us @sky, what happened in 1992.
@Tesla2018, each one of the candidates I listed has moral leadership as their primary purpose in politics, especially Marianne Williamson. Her entire career to date has been based on moral leadership. Additionally, each one of these candidates (and there are others) has declared that they will not take PAC money.
This is why you need to research the candidates. There is one or more candidates that will fulfill your requirements for your vote.
What the Dem leadership did to Rep Ilhan Omar today is why a Dem candidate won't win the presidency unless they are progressive and publicly funded. A politician governs by those who fund them. Anyone who denounces a PAC or the interest they serve will be attacked in the media. And, even though anyone with half a brain should easily realize this attack was over BS, the problem is most Americans don't have half a brain.
@babyjocko, what the Dem leadership did to Omar today is what needed to be said to her.
She's since apologized (and I take her at her word), and more correctly stated the issue is lobbyists in general.
@rxlawdude, have you read her tweets regarding this issue? If so, then perhaps you are fine with AIPAC and PAC money in general. I'm not. Most Americans are not. All you have to do is read her tweets. As I said, anyone with half a brain would realize the attack on her was BS.
@babyjocko. I think the issue is the anti-semitic nature of her remarks. It is no different from anti-Muslim, anti-Black and misogynist comments. While in degree it is not the same as the white supremacists I believe the Democratic party should be above that. She may be correct in addressing corporate interests but there is no excuse for stereotypical bigoted comments. I feel the same about the Governer and possible the Attorney General in Virginia. While they may have changed their attitudes the Governer's continued excuses make things seem worse. I believe that they should put party above their personal well being. As regards the Lieutenant Governer he is innocent until proven guilty. But it is concerning that 2 women have come forward. Unfortunately if all 3 resign we end up with a Trumpist Republican.