Qutzupalotl
Qutzupalotl's JournalWe have a ton of great candidates.
And I could be enthusiastic for almost any of them. I have always loved Warren, so many good ideas. I like Bernie’s message. Harris is likeable and effective. I was very impressed with Beto in his Senate campaign, so inspiring. This cycle, I started out a Biden supporter because I know he can win, and his elevation would signal our allies that we’re still with them. Then I saw Inslee on Maddow and was blown away. He’d be a great advocate for any of our causes. A skilled persuader.
When I first heard about Buttigieg, I thought he was just a spoiler, no way could a gay man win in this hate-filled country. But he speaks to our values as a nation better than just about anyone since Obama, and is a Rhodes Scholar like Bill.
Pete will tell you that as mayor, he has more executive experience than Trump. That may be a better barometer of capability than holding a higher office, because local government has to be more visible and responsive to constituents in a crisis. He has more military experience than any president since GHWB. He speaks eight languages, learning Arabic during deployment, and Norwegian just because he liked an author.
There is something about his brilliance that sets him apart from the other great candidates. He has the skills to turn questions about his experience into a positive. He can win back a sizeable chunk of the religious vote, speaking easily about how his faith informs his values of taking care of the poor, the sick and the stranger. I realize that will make atheists cringe, but he is “one of the good ones” — not trying to deny your rights but expand them, not trying to proselytize you, but just showing decency by example. He has a good riff on Pence too.
To listen to Pete for any length of time is to understand what he believes, and eventually you realize you agree with him and maybe always have. That’s why he has come out of nowhere to suddenly be tied for third in the polls, and I think will rise to the top and be an outstanding, unifying president.
(Edited to say 8 languages, not 5, and president rather than candidate. Thanks, everyone!)
I think that is a fair asessment. Your point will probably get lost here
or perhaps buried in the outrage.
People want to exaggerate any cricism of HRC’s messaging into somehow being an attack on her candidacy. That’s not what it was for; Pete wants us to improve our messaging, and is saying that particular message sounds like glossing over of America’s problems. What we need more than everyone jumping on a bandwagon is people questioning how that bandwagon is steered.
America both is and is not great. Fantastic in some ways, but mired with longstanding problems like cyclical economic depressions and a history of deep racial division to put it mildly.
The voter hears we’re supposed to say America is Already Great and thinks: but what about my shitty wages? Why can’t I afford healthcare? Why are cops shooting our kids?
To gloss over all that with a soundbite that is in the end a reaction to Trump’s rhetoric is a misstep and tone deaf. Pete is right to call it out.
And yes, it’s first name Pete and first name Hillary. Everyone knows who we’re talking about and it’s not a sign of disrespect, so people should chill about that. And listen to all the candidates explain themselves rather than write people off based on other DUers’ spin about who is worthy.
She flew to Syria without telling anyone, to show support for Assad
while trashing our allies in the region, upending U.S. foreign policy, shortly after Trump took office:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/tulsi-gabbard-bashar-al-assad-syria-democrats
Russia wants Syria as an oil pipeline route to the sea and views Assad as an ally.
Recall that Gabbard quit the DNC in a public spat with DWS at a critical juncture in the Sanders/Clinton battle, playing up the favoritism the DNC appeared to show Clinton. That drove a wedge between two factions of Democrats and prolonged the bitterness and distrust, helping to depress enthusiasm for Democrats in the general, which again happens to be what Putin wanted.
Now couple that with Russia boosting Gabbard, like they did with Jill Stein, and a picture starts to emerge.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261
Gabbard has a fine background and appearance but acts as though she were an asset of Russia. Certainly the Russians defend her like one.
Thsnks for this.
I am of two minds on this issue. It makes economic sense to free up capital that is more or less stagnated in less active investments, provided the benefits go to low- and middle-income people. They in turn will spend and thus stimulate the economy more directly, creating demand and fueling growth.
Politically, this will be a tougher sell. This will be seen as goverment “taking” or “confiscating” wealth — which it is — and spun as “punishing success.” We will have to counter that the move is intended to punish hoarding wealth and provide balance to a system that disproportionately benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who are currently getting exploited.
Good on Warren for having the courage to take a bold stand. If anyone can articulate the merits of this proposal and counter the objections, it’s her.
Convince ... or convict.
If Mitch and a few of his colleagues go down for, say, knowingly accepting Russian money, we could have a very different Senate. Two-thirds of the remainder would then be a more attainable goal than at present. To see even a few of their colleagues face prison would make remaining Republican Senators more inclined to take a stand against the conspirators.
But as you say, the public must be introduced to the conspiracy narrative in a credible way, and Mueller seems likely to do that by speaking through indictments. If the extent of corruption is horrific enough, public opinion could move significantly away from Trump. I hope our country can hold together and Mueller’s actions not be seen as too partisan, particularly since his case if all about the RNC; but the Right is already poisoning the well.
The Helsinki Surrender.
That was his most obvious low point. It polled terribly.
Trump took Putin’s word over American intelligence agencies, who all said Russia interfered in our election. Putin even admitted he helped Trump get elected, while they were both standing there. Trump refused to press Putin not to attack us again. He displayed cowardice. Then the next day, when he saw that people were disgusted, he lied about his statement and pretended that he forgot to say “not!”
He always praises fascist dictators, calling them “strong.” He disses our allies, calling them weak. Donald Trump is an enemy of freedom.
If that doesn’t work, remind them that Trump passed code-level intelligence secrets to two Russian operatives in the Oval Office when he thought no one was looking, endangering embedded allies.
If none of that works, remind them he promised that Mexico would pay for the wall, now he wants you and me to pay for it.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 14,340