Who is your Dream Team choice to beat Trump?

[matt4twinks]

You must choose one person that is currently running as President but the running mate can be anyone realistic.

I'll start it off.....My choice is Biden and Stacey Abrams.

Edited August 1, 2019 by matt4twinks

[AdamSmith]

Warren & anybody else.

[Lucky]

There is not a candidate that I support for President beyond Mayor Pete, but I think his chances are slim. I have no second choice..

[Lucky]

9 hours ago, matt4twinks said:

You must choose one person that is currently running as President but the running mate can be anyone realistic.

I'll start it off.....My choice is Biden and Stacey Abrams.

What are Stacey Abrams qualifications? I haven't studied her.

[Avalon1849]

Here is a list of the candidates

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020

[TotallyOz]

I like Pete, Castro, Warren and would love to see any of the two of them on the ticket in any order.

[matt4twinks]

8 hours ago, Lucky said:

What are Stacey Abrams qualifications? I haven't studied her.

A woman, black, progressive and from a southern state, lol.....just what an old white moderate guy needs.

[matt4twinks]

8 hours ago, Lucky said:

There is not a candidate that I support for President beyond Mayor Pete, but I think his chances are slim. I have no second choice..

In my opinion.....his best shot is as a VP for Harris.....Harris and Pete.....which is my second choice pairing.....

You might say that my pairs are not at all reasonable or even consistent but for once the democrats need to worry about WINNING and leave the policy discussion until later......Win first! 

I wouldn't mind a Biden/Harris pairing as well but Democrats unlike Republicans rarely do this with their major opponents.....

[tassojunior]

What you're asking has been polled hundreds of times to see who appeals most to independents and Republican crossovers. The answer isn't what you assume. The most Democratic-party insiders are abhorred by independents and GOP. The more independent a candidate is and seems, the more attractive to the general electorate. 

Bernie, Tulsi, and Yang poll the best with independents and crossover Republicans who hear them by a huge margin. Biden does just OK (now) as he's a DNC insider. Warren is also just OK.  

Harris, and Booker poll the worst. Almost zero crossovers. Buttigieg only gets gay independents and GOP, no others. All 3 are very DNC insiders. 

Americans detest both political parties and the further a candidate is from their party, the better. How Trump won, how Obama got in, and how Hillary lost. 

[matt4twinks]

1 hour ago, tassojunior said:

What you're asking has been polled hundreds of times to see who appeals most to independents and Republican crossovers. The answer isn't what you assume. The most Democratic-party insiders are abhorred by independents and GOP. The more independent a candidate is and seems, the more attractive to the general electorate. 

Bernie, Tulsi, and Yang poll the best with independents and crossover Republicans who hear them by a huge margin. Biden does just OK (now) as he's a DNC insider. Warren is also just OK.  

Harris, and Booker poll the worst. Almost zero crossovers. Buttigieg only gets gay independents and GOP, no others. All 3 are very DNC insiders. 

Americans detest both political parties and the further a candidate is from their party, the better. How Trump won, how Obama got in, and how Hillary lost. 

So, your saying you have no choice and will be not voting or will be voting for Trump?

[tassojunior]

51 minutes ago, matt4twinks said:

So, your saying you have no choice and will be not voting or will be voting for Trump?

It's pretty clear as an independent I would vote for Bernie, Tulsi, Yang and maybe Warren.

As an anti-war voter and independent there is no way I would ever vote for Harris, Buttigieg, Booker, Beto or Biden. 

[matt4twinks]

It's just as clear that I, as an independent, would vote for anyone who wins the democratic nomination! I just want Trump out.....in an election.....

As my bumper sticker says: Any Functioning Adult/ 2020.

I find your analysis a bit flawed....what matters is who can win the particular handful of swing states. Who can bring out the minority voters and who can move back a few particular blue collar white voters that left the democratic party for Trump IN THE SWING STATES (and the new swing states trump has created while in office).

 

[tassojunior]

2 hours ago, matt4twinks said:

It's just as clear that I, as an independent, would vote for anyone who wins the democratic nomination! I just want Trump out.....in an election.....

As my bumper sticker says: Any Functioning Adult/ 2020.

I find your analysis a bit flawed....what matters is who can win the particular handful of swing states. Who can bring out the minority voters and who can move back a few particular blue collar white voters that left the democratic party for Trump IN THE SWING STATES (and the new swing states trump has created while in office).

 

As of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

If you think getting only all 31% will win the election, you must be counting on a lot of 3rd party candidates. Whoever wins the independents, wins. 

There are some candidates that will do poorly in the "blue wall" midwest states of "deplorables" and blue collar workers who are Reagan/Nixon/Trump Democrats, much less independents. 

If murdering a million people is ok so long as you get someone you can't stand out, then we have different moral values. 

[matt4twinks]

16 hours ago, tassojunior said:

As of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

If you think getting only all 31% will win the election, you must be counting on a lot of 3rd party candidates. Whoever wins the independents, wins. 

There are some candidates that will do poorly in the "blue wall" midwest states of "deplorables" and blue collar workers who are Reagan/Nixon/Trump Democrats, much less independents. 

If murdering a million people is ok so long as you get someone you can't stand out, then we have different moral values. 

Wow, you turned me into a genocidal maniac and someone without morals very fast, hahahahahaha. It always amazes me how these become personal quickly.

Trump won by only 77,000 votes in 3 states....and enough African Americans stayed home in those States to more than help him win along with, of course, some Russian help.

I guess the difference is that I believe Trump is so dangerous in so many areas he, in my opinion, can and should be replaced with anyone else who is running on the Democratic side. Well, let me think about the nut-job Williamson before I say ALL.....okay, ALL. 

You should know a few things about me I guess. I supported Bernie during his entire campaign in 2016 and this includes donations to his campaign. I could not vote for him due to my State not allowing independents to vote. Also, I believe so much that the USA is going down the toilet and dangerously that I moved out of the country over a decade ago. I came back a couple years ago to attend to my aging parent but I will get out just as soon as possible again after I'm done here. As George Carlin has said; "I don't have a dog in this fight". I do have other passports however, lol.

Yes, most if not all US Presidents are war criminals and the US will likely collapse for a host of reasons....probably economic.

Edited August 2, 2019 by matt4twinks

[AdamSmith]

On 8/1/2019 at 8:41 PM, tassojunior said:

Americans detest both political parties and the further a candidate is from their party, the better. How Trump won, how Obama got in, and how Hillary lost. 

And also to some extent how Bill Clinton cinched it.

[TotallyOz]

I do not detest the Democratic Party. Many do not. Same for Republicans. There are huge numbers of vote the party people around.

[tassojunior]

10 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

I do not detest the Democratic Party. Many do not. Same for Republicans. There are huge numbers of vote the party people around.

Those numbers are diminishing rapidly as the above breakdown shows. And the banners on top of Kos show only 30% of Americans approve of the GOP, and only 38% of the Democratic party. The parties are relics that still de facto control our government. 

[tassojunior]

23 hours ago, matt4twinks said:

Wow, you turned me into a genocidal maniac and someone without morals very fast, hahahahahaha. It always amazes me how these become personal quickly.

Trump won by only 77,000 votes in 3 states....and enough African Americans stayed home in those States to more than help him win along with, of course, some Russian help.

I guess the difference is that I believe Trump is so dangerous in so many areas he, in my opinion, can and should be replaced with anyone else who is running on the Democratic side. Well, let me think about the nut-job Williamson before I say ALL.....okay, ALL. 

You should know a few things about me I guess. I supported Bernie during his entire campaign in 2016 and this includes donations to his campaign. I could not vote for him due to my State not allowing independents to vote. Also, I believe so much that the USA is going down the toilet and dangerously that I moved out of the country over a decade ago. I came back a couple years ago to attend to my aging parent but I will get out just as soon as possible again after I'm done here. As George Carlin has said; "I don't have a dog in this fight". I do have other passports however, lol.

Yes, most if not all US Presidents are war criminals and the US will likely collapse for a host of reasons....probably economic.

To me, how many people a candidate will likely kill, especially when we're talking huge numbers, is the most important issue way over any other. I can't comprehend it being just another factor to a person. 

[matt4twinks]

7 hours ago, tassojunior said:

To me, how many people a candidate will likely kill, especially when we're talking huge numbers, is the most important issue way over any other. I can't comprehend it being just another factor to a person. 

Please list for me each candidate and how many they "will likely kill".....I'm fascinated? 

[AdamSmith]

1 hour ago, matt4twinks said:

Please list for me each candidate and how many they "will likely kill".....I'm fascinated? 

Is it not obvious? Warrren & Bernie & Butiegeg & 1 or 2 others will ‘likely kill’ that orange horror.

[matt4twinks]

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 11:10 PM, matt4twinks said:

Please list for me each candidate and how many they "will likely kill".....I'm fascinated? 

Waiting for your "kill List" Tasso......

Also, include how many Trump has and will likely kill as he is a candidate as well.....Thanks.

[tassojunior]

On 8/4/2019 at 2:10 AM, matt4twinks said:

Please list for me each candidate and how many they "will likely kill".....I'm fascinated? 

Do you really not understand that the Neo-libs who want foreign interventions and wars kill more people than those who are against foreign interventions and invasions? That those who supported the Iraq invasion killed more than those who opposed it? That was one million Iraqis we killed. Granted they had brown skin but they still count as people. 

Kamala and Buttgieg are clearly unquestioning puppets of AIPAC eager to kill as many dark skins as AIPAC wants. Biden is not only an AIPAC puppet but also a Chinese puppet, although the Chinese aren't currently on the genocide fad. Yet. Any of these three would have been willing to have an extra 1 million dead in Syria to help AIPAC and Israel. And these three are the most likely to actually go to war with Iran an advanced country of 80 million whose destruction would require killing maybe 10 million people. ( and thousands of American deaths, but not a single Saudi or Israeli death even though that war would be fought for them at their insistence). To some people killing 10 million people is bad, even if they are brown. They still count as people. 

Bernie, Tulsi, Yang and pretty much Warren are anti-war and foreign invasions and I don't see them ever converting to pro-war/invasions. All the others are more pro-war but are minor candidates. 

I wouldn't have been for Hitler even though he was great on social security or Mussolini even though he made the trains work well. But today killing millions of people is just another factor we consider along with other issues. 

So, Kamala, Buttigieg or Biden probably mean 1 to ten million more people we kill over Bernie, Yang, Warren or Tulsi. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by tassojunior

[matt4twinks]

1 hour ago, tassojunior said:

Do you really not understand that the Neo-libs who want foreign interventions and wars kill more people than those who are against foreign interventions and invasions? That those who supported the Iraq invasion killed more than those who opposed it? That was one million Iraqis we killed. Granted they had brown skin but they still count as people. 

Kamala and Buttgieg are clearly unquestioning puppets of AIPAC eager to kill as many dark skins as AIPAC wants. Biden is not only an AIPAC puppet but also a Chinese puppet, although the Chinese aren't currently on the genocide fad. Yet. Any of these three would have been willing to have an extra 1 million dead in Syria to help AIPAC and Israel. And these three are the most likely to actually go to war with Iran an advanced country of 80 million whose destruction would require killing maybe 10 million people. ( and thousands of American deaths, but not a single Saudi or Israeli death even though that war would be fought for them at their insistence). To some people killing 10 million people is bad, even if they are brown. They still count as people. 

Bernie, Tulsi, Yang and pretty much Warren are anti-war and foreign invasions and I don't see them ever converting to pro-war/invasions. All the others are more pro-war but are minor candidates. 

I wouldn't have been for Hitler even though he was great on social security or Mussolini even though he made the trains work well. But today killing millions of people is just another factor we consider along with other issues. 

So, Kamala, Buttigieg or Biden probably mean 1 to ten million more people we kill over Bernie, Yang, Warren or Tulsi. 

So, you missed your analysis of Trumps killings.....Pray tell?

[tassojunior]

10 hours ago, matt4twinks said:

So, you missed your analysis of Trumps killings.....Pray tell?

Because we really don't have to speculate on Big Dummy, we see his foreign policy every day. He did oppose Iraq after seeming to vaguely support it beforehand. He has hired Bolton, Pompeo and even criminal Abrams to appease the neo-cons and neo-libs and maybe scare other countries with their daily threats. So far this hasn't escalated into hot war (even though we killed 200 Russians one day in Syria) and Hillary probably would have killed many more people in Syria. But Trump continues the Obama support for Saudi genocide in Yemen and has even escalated it.  The threats and bullying Trump does in Iran is dangerous as it could easily turn into hot war with a mistaken move. But for now Trump seems to have a policy of killing people in Iran and Venezuela through escalating economic embargoes and blockades of food and medicine. (Obama did too). Those are legally acts of war but we get away with them all the time. (And of course, these fail because it makes the people there hate us more.)

Ultimately though, much of Trump's family is right-wing Orthodox Jewish and Trump has streets named after him in Israel. The GOP has always coveted getting American Jews away from the Dems (in the UK Jews are mostly Conservatives). And the right wing that controls Israel and AIPAC is adamant that they want an American invasion of Iran and war with Russia in Syria. Trump has been bluffing them off with things like the symbolic move of the embassy and increasing the Israeli subsidy from the US. But Israel has lurched far far to the right recently and the most racist and violent faction looks to be ascending to power rapidly. They may well start an invasion to force the US to support it. And if a Neo-Lib is the Democratic nominee in the US, that nominee may try to out-AIPAC Trump forcing him to take military action.

But for now at least, Trump seems to think that an expensive foreign hot war would be very unpopular, as Iraq became, and it's more effective to defeat countries economically with blockades. He's still killing many people, especially children, in Iran and Venezuela with embargoes. So he would fit in between the Neo-lib crowd of the Dems and the anti-war crowd of the Dems in how many he's now killing. But if a mistake happens his threats and embargo policy could turn into a real war the same as with the neo-lib Dems, although Trump seems less inclined to war with Russia than the neo-libs are.      

[tassojunior]

of course some people think Trump has gotten on an inevitable war on Iran: