Chicago Fanatics Message Board
http://chicagofanatics.com/

So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?
http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=108927
Page 3 of 6

Author:  Caller Bob [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

I don't understand the hangup on the abortion issue, it's like gun control, it's never going to change.

Author:  ToxicMasculinity [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

Whoever it is, they can count on most of thr CFMB vote.

Author:  SuperMario [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

What about that little sack of shit, Zuckerberg? He should be ripe to run within the next few cycles.

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

ToxicMasculinity wrote:
Whoever it is, they can count on most of thr CFMB vote.

Im sure the opposite is true on the Texas Fanatic Message Board.

Author:  pittmike [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

ToxicMasculinity wrote:
Whoever it is, they can count on most of thr CFMB vote.


This. :lol:

Author:  mrgoodkat [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

They need to pull a moderate out of their ass or watch as a person who went hard left gets picked apart by Trump, or whomever. Note that uncle Biden has been doing some less than nuanced walkbacks on the wage gap and other blatantly dishonest leftist hivemind garbage that he was spewing during the election. Trumps evisceration of anyone other than a genuine moderate liberal will make what he did to Jeb look tame.

The Democrats lost me but I will never vote for Trump no matter how far this country goes down the PC rabbit hole. So I guess it could conceivably do the protest vote or not vote, which I never thought would happen. I dont know how I could vote for a liar again, though. Or maybe we will all be dead by then.

Author:  FavreFan [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

Curious Hair wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Oprah.

This really isn't the worst idea.


You're going to mock John Kasich and endorse Oprah?

President Oprah would be an admission in the post-Trump world that the presidency is a popularity contest for people we like to watch on TV. From there, you make the most of it: so the presidency is now, while still nominally head of government, most importantly head of state, as President Oprah would make a fine mascot for America. I don't think anyone expects her to capriciously issue executive orders declaring that women can have unlimited paid days off to eat chocolate frosting right out of the container. It would mean you're trusting unelected members of the party apparatus more than ever to run the government, but at least with Oprah, your side might win.

I agree. It's gonna be a weirdo celebrity again, not a politician.

Author:  ZephMarshack [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

mrgoodkat wrote:
They need to pull a moderate out of their ass or watch as a person who went hard left gets picked apart by Trump, or whomever. Note that uncle Biden has been doing some less than nuanced walkbacks on the wage gap and other blatantly dishonest leftist hivemind garbage that he was spewing during the election. Trumps evisceration of anyone other than a genuine moderate liberal will make what he did to Jeb look tame.

This is astoundingly wrong. Trump beat a genuine moderate liberal in the last election precisely because he was able to run to the left of where she had historically been on economic issues and most people who would be sympathetic to what she was campaigning on didn't believe her anyway.

Author:  Hussra [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

Harris is the early favorite at some off-shore books to win the Dem's nod.

I like Libby Schaaf, who might be blocked from doing an Obama and jumping from a local/state level politico to a more national office (US Sentate) and then 1600 Pennsylvania since 85 year old Diane Feinstein is apparently signaling that she's running for reelection next year. She'd be 92 at the end of her term.

Tho Obama's relatively slender pre-POTUS CV (in terms of national politics) and Trump's complete political neophyte status suggests voters aren't overly concerned about such things.

I doubt both Harris and Schaaf run. Either one or the other. And it looks like Harris at this point. Schaaf's pretty cool tho. Told Truimp off after he dissed Oakland as the most dangerous place in America ["Most dangerous place in America is Donald Trump's mouth"] and told the Raiders owners that while she would love them to stay in Oakland and would provide what support her office could, she wouldn't authorize a single taxpayer dime for a new pro sports stadium. Oakland's still paying the $90 million tab from rehabbing the Coliseum to lure the Raiders back from LA 20+ years ago.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/art ... 037475.php

Author:  Hussra [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

ZephMarshack wrote:
mrgoodkat wrote:
They need to pull a moderate out of their ass or watch as a person who went hard left gets picked apart by Trump, or whomever. Note that uncle Biden has been doing some less than nuanced walkbacks on the wage gap and other blatantly dishonest leftist hivemind garbage that he was spewing during the election. Trumps evisceration of anyone other than a genuine moderate liberal will make what he did to Jeb look tame.

This is astoundingly wrong. Trump beat a genuine moderate liberal in the last election precisely because he was able to run to the left of where she had historically been on economic issues and most people who would be sympathetic to what she was campaigning on didn't believe her anyway.



Is Trump even the favorite to be the Republican standard bearer in 2020? I would think President Pence would be the odds-on favorite, unless he Gerald Ford's himself and pardons Trump and his family/friends.

Author:  Curious Hair [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

Trump is 71 years old, under a great deal of stress, seems to subsist on McDoubles, and believes exercise makes you die sooner. Like he'll live to run again.

Author:  newper [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

I think it might be a unique opportunity for Al Franken to run. He's got both the TV appeal, and the years of government experience, and he is just 66 years old, so age shouldn't be an issue. He's a great public speaker, and if he wanted to run, I think he would have a legit shot.

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

FavreFan wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Curious Hair wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Oprah.

This really isn't the worst idea.


You're going to mock John Kasich and endorse Oprah?

President Oprah would be an admission in the post-Trump world that the presidency is a popularity contest for people we like to watch on TV. From there, you make the most of it: so the presidency is now, while still nominally head of government, most importantly head of state, as President Oprah would make a fine mascot for America. I don't think anyone expects her to capriciously issue executive orders declaring that women can have unlimited paid days off to eat chocolate frosting right out of the container. It would mean you're trusting unelected members of the party apparatus more than ever to run the government, but at least with Oprah, your side might win.

I agree. It's gonna be a weirdo celebrity again, not a politician.

and perhaps then and only then the people of this country will realize we have given the Presidency (and government in general) too much power.

Author:  312player [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

Bernie Motherfuckin Sanders

Author:  Douchebag [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

mrgoodkat wrote:
They need to pull a moderate out of their ass or watch as a person who went hard left gets picked apart by Trump, or whomever. Note that uncle Biden has been doing some less than nuanced walkbacks on the wage gap and other blatantly dishonest leftist hivemind garbage that he was spewing during the election. Trumps evisceration of anyone other than a genuine moderate liberal will make what he did to Jeb look tame.

The Democrats lost me but I will never vote for Trump no matter how far this country goes down the PC rabbit hole. So I guess it could conceivably do the protest vote or not vote, which I never thought would happen. I dont know how I could vote for a liar again, though. Or maybe we will all be dead by then.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Hillary is more of a Republican than Trump.

Author:  FrankDrebin [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

Tulsi Gabbard

Author:  Ogie Oglethorpe [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

FrankDrebin wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard

We'll go from one Putin apologist conspiracy theorist to another!

Author:  Hussra [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

FrankDrebin wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard


First I've heard her mentioned as a potential Prez candidate. Interesting. "Repubs favorite Democrat"


Quote:
Gabbard is also a pretty reliably progressive voice in the House on a host of domestic issues. As far back as 2012, she was calling for restoring Glass-Steagall. She opposed any cuts to Medicare or Social Security under the Obama-backed Simpson-Bowles proposal. She believes Obamacare didn’t go far enough and supports universal health care. She’s against nuclear energy, pushed to curb the NSA’s bulk collection of data, and personally protested the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Yet the starry-eyed anointment of Gabbard has obscured the more unsavory aspects of her politics — so unsavory, in fact, that White House adviser Steve Bannon has reportedly spoken well of her. From her vigorous opposition to the Iran nuclear deal to her obsession with “radical Islam” to her love for the far-right Indian leader Narendra Modi, Gabbard is far from the progressive hero many assume her to be.


Quote:
Despite her progressive image today, Gabbard has conservative roots. Her father is Mike Gabbard, a former Honolulu city councilman, state senator, and high profile anti-gay activist who led a campaign against same-sex marriage in Hawaii in the 1990s. He founded the educational nonprofit Stop Promoting Homosexuality and bought himself a show on a local radio station to denounce LGBT people.

Early in her career, Gabbard took after her father. She opposed abortion and supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. After Honolulu Magazine emailed her father to ask about his former ties to a conservative Hare Krishna splinter group for a 2004 profile, it was Gabbard who replied angrily, accusing the magazine of “acting as a conduit for The Honolulu Weekly and other homosexual extremist supporters of Ed Case [her father’s opponent].” The same year, she used her platform as a state representative to testify against civil unions, calling the claim that they were different from same-sex marriage “dishonest, cowardly, and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” who had voted in favor of Constitutional Amendment 2 in 1998, empowering the legislature to withhold marriage from same-sex couples.

“As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists,” she said at the time.



https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tuls ... atic-party

Author:  FrankDrebin [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

Hussra wrote:
FrankDrebin wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard


First I've heard her mentioned as a potential Prez candidate. Interesting. "Repubs favorite Democrat"


Quote:
Gabbard is also a pretty reliably progressive voice in the House on a host of domestic issues. As far back as 2012, she was calling for restoring Glass-Steagall. She opposed any cuts to Medicare or Social Security under the Obama-backed Simpson-Bowles proposal. She believes Obamacare didn’t go far enough and supports universal health care. She’s against nuclear energy, pushed to curb the NSA’s bulk collection of data, and personally protested the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Yet the starry-eyed anointment of Gabbard has obscured the more unsavory aspects of her politics — so unsavory, in fact, that White House adviser Steve Bannon has reportedly spoken well of her. From her vigorous opposition to the Iran nuclear deal to her obsession with “radical Islam” to her love for the far-right Indian leader Narendra Modi, Gabbard is far from the progressive hero many assume her to be.


Quote:
Despite her progressive image today, Gabbard has conservative roots. Her father is Mike Gabbard, a former Honolulu city councilman, state senator, and high profile anti-gay activist who led a campaign against same-sex marriage in Hawaii in the 1990s. He founded the educational nonprofit Stop Promoting Homosexuality and bought himself a show on a local radio station to denounce LGBT people.

Early in her career, Gabbard took after her father. She opposed abortion and supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. After Honolulu Magazine emailed her father to ask about his former ties to a conservative Hare Krishna splinter group for a 2004 profile, it was Gabbard who replied angrily, accusing the magazine of “acting as a conduit for The Honolulu Weekly and other homosexual extremist supporters of Ed Case [her father’s opponent].” The same year, she used her platform as a state representative to testify against civil unions, calling the claim that they were different from same-sex marriage “dishonest, cowardly, and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” who had voted in favor of Constitutional Amendment 2 in 1998, empowering the legislature to withhold marriage from same-sex couples.

“As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists,” she said at the time.



https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tuls ... atic-party


That's why I said her- A female military veteran who shares some of the same moderate views with some voters who went with Trump instead of Hillary. If the Democrats want to win in 2020, they have to go with a more moderate candidate.

Author:  ToxicMasculinity [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

A transsexual polyamorist with xher pronouns.

Author:  Curious Hair [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

FrankDrebin wrote:
If the Democrats want to win in 2020, they have to go with a more moderate candidate.

More moderate than Hillary "breaking up banks won't end sexism" Clinton? What a stupid post.

Author:  Hussra [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

While I agree that in terms of general political ideology Hillary runs moderate; the fact is that when she took any action she was liberal, liberal, liberal in comparison to (i) other politicians and (ii) the electorate. I imagine the reason we don't have truly progressive/left wing/"liberal" politicians (with apologies to Eugene V Debs & Cynthia Mckinney) is that we as an electorate start somewhere very slightly left of center and then tack right the rest of the way.

Hopefully Nate and Company get this one right:

Image

Author:  Sneakers O'Toole [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

FrankDrebin wrote:
Hussra wrote:
FrankDrebin wrote:
Tulsi Gabbard


First I've heard her mentioned as a potential Prez candidate. Interesting. "Repubs favorite Democrat"


Quote:
Gabbard is also a pretty reliably progressive voice in the House on a host of domestic issues. As far back as 2012, she was calling for restoring Glass-Steagall. She opposed any cuts to Medicare or Social Security under the Obama-backed Simpson-Bowles proposal. She believes Obamacare didn’t go far enough and supports universal health care. She’s against nuclear energy, pushed to curb the NSA’s bulk collection of data, and personally protested the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Yet the starry-eyed anointment of Gabbard has obscured the more unsavory aspects of her politics — so unsavory, in fact, that White House adviser Steve Bannon has reportedly spoken well of her. From her vigorous opposition to the Iran nuclear deal to her obsession with “radical Islam” to her love for the far-right Indian leader Narendra Modi, Gabbard is far from the progressive hero many assume her to be.


Quote:
Despite her progressive image today, Gabbard has conservative roots. Her father is Mike Gabbard, a former Honolulu city councilman, state senator, and high profile anti-gay activist who led a campaign against same-sex marriage in Hawaii in the 1990s. He founded the educational nonprofit Stop Promoting Homosexuality and bought himself a show on a local radio station to denounce LGBT people.

Early in her career, Gabbard took after her father. She opposed abortion and supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. After Honolulu Magazine emailed her father to ask about his former ties to a conservative Hare Krishna splinter group for a 2004 profile, it was Gabbard who replied angrily, accusing the magazine of “acting as a conduit for The Honolulu Weekly and other homosexual extremist supporters of Ed Case [her father’s opponent].” The same year, she used her platform as a state representative to testify against civil unions, calling the claim that they were different from same-sex marriage “dishonest, cowardly, and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii,” who had voted in favor of Constitutional Amendment 2 in 1998, empowering the legislature to withhold marriage from same-sex couples.

“As Democrats, we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists,” she said at the time.



https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tuls ... atic-party


That's why I said her- A female military veteran who shares some of the same moderate views with some voters who went with Trump instead of Hillary. If the Democrats want to win in 2020, they have to go with a more moderate candidate.

I'm not sure I'd classify her as a moderate. I'd say she may be able to appeal to libertarians with her views on criminal justice reform and foreign policy, but she's pretty far left on everything else. She's actually pretty much in lockstep with Sanders on almost everything, but they focus on different issues.

In 2004 she was like 23 years old, and she's done a fairly believable (imo of course) 180 on LGBT stuff since she got back from her service and has been consistent since then. She's all about the aloha and giving Hawai'i its deserved apostrophe.

Author:  Peoria Matt [ Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

Maddon. Get him the hell out of here.

Author:  Tall Midget [ Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

312player wrote:
Bernie Motherfuckin Sanders


312player wrote:

More weird jews..smh

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

George Clooney/Duane Johnson

Author:  Panther pislA [ Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

rogers park bryan wrote:
George Clooney/Duane Johnson

I wonder how many people - of both sexes - Clooney has gribbity-grabbed.

Author:  TurdFerguson [ Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

The right answer is whomever Obama would enthusiastically endorse. Especially against a rematch with Trump.

Author:  SuperMario [ Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

TurdFerguson wrote:
The right answer is whomever Obama would enthusiastically endorse. Especially against a rematch with Trump.


Former president endorsements don't carry that much weight. Clinton endorsed Gore. That didn't work. Bush endorsed Jeb. Obama endorsed Hillary.

Author:  rogers park bryan [ Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: So who do the Dems have to run against Trump?

SuperMario wrote:
TurdFerguson wrote:
The right answer is whomever Obama would enthusiastically endorse. Especially against a rematch with Trump.


Former president endorsements don't carry that much weight. Clinton endorsed Gore. That didn't work. Bush endorsed Jeb. Obama endorsed Hillary.

Gore distanced himself from Clinton. Obama clearly was forced and Bush had no juice after that that second term.

Page 3 of 6 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/