The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[ArcadiaGP]

Pete Buttigieg: Trump 'clinging' to outdated attacks on socialism

Indiana's candidate also running as Socialist, apparently.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yes, but the direct translation of her campaign slogan is “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”

Precisely. I knew it sounded familiar. Except I think today one could realistically replace "need" with "want" and still be accurate, and perhaps even moreso. People "want" free ****. (Education, healthcare, housing, income.) People don't "need" free ****.

 

[actaeon277]

Pete Buttigieg: Trump 'clinging' to outdated attacks on socialism

Indiana's candidate also running as Socialist, apparently.

Cause that's all they can come up with.
Socialism hasn't been "done right" yet.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm pretty sure the "America that works for everyone" is a rehash of some Dem rhetoric going back a long time.

As I think about it, I think even some GOPers have used variations of it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Amy Klobuchar announced her candidacy yesterday.

 

[Mongo59]

OK, I think I will uncork this on here. It's time for a little "hate Mongo" time.

This one even makes me unpopular at my church, so my expectations are to get flamed to well done.

I can only speak to my understanding of the way things are in the world. I try to see things from all sides and just trying to do so will leave your butt hanging out for everyone to take a bite. But applying Christian value to what most Americans have come to hold as one of the pillars of their faith they have in our country...

If we are to get past our herd instincts and truly become the great people most of us think we already are, we need to be sensitive to both sides of the double edged sword which is truth.

One of the first is: for us all to have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" will always require us to take away either/or someone else's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Think about it. Mind you I am not tempering this with "right or wrong" or "good or bad", just an open statement of cause and effect to something we all hold dear and I include myself when using the word "all".

Even in the early Biblical times their way of thinking was that God placed "enough" of everything on the surface of the planet for everyone to exist and have "one". And it was understood for anyone to have more than one would mean someone or someones would be doing without. But even as early as in the book of Job it makes mention of people going down into the earth on ropes in search of more. The ancient version of the American concept of "work hard to make more and get ahead".

How much of what we see wrong in the world today grows out of our not considering the difference between "want" and "need"? Then with this impaired vision we set terms of application to our pillar buy suggesting "your right for pursuit of happiness ends right where it starts to infringe on my right" to where we become so myopic and introverted we no longer even consider the needs of those other than those we claim as "us". Our "freedom" is still to restrained for our liking due to the over crowded conditions of the our perceived "us" so we start a "keep and cull" of the ones who are most like us and on and on until what are we left with?

How long can we think that we all have this innate ability to discern others for inclusion or exclusion until we find ourselves sitting all alone? And despite the add campaign, what strength is there to be found in an army of one. And for those folks out there who served in the military to defend our country and it's beliefs, they all had to surrender their liberties and freedoms to become an organized fighting force and some went on to even surrender their lives. Which brings us right back to my original statement.

I do not submit this idea to get the response of "it's a conundrum without an answer", it isn't and should not be that easy. I put this forward to apply all these discerning minds on the task of "what should be" rather than "what already is". One of the fallacies of thought is to think you know what someone is going to say before they say it. If we don't want to fall into that trap we not only want to allow them to say it but also provide an unrestricted venue for the further exchange of opinion. Just saying.

My use of the Bible should not be taken as my attempt to force anything on anyone, it is just the best and most familiar benchmark I have come to know. But my experiences tell me that where people are, whoever we think we are or no matter what we call ourselves, the same characteristics show up. Are we going to be big enough for the task? Are we going to be big enough to play by the rules? Use your liberties and freedom wisely...

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I'm pretty sure the "America that works for everyone" is a rehash of some Dem rhetoric going back a long time.

As I think about it, I think even some GOPers have used variations of it.

Oh I know what she probably meant, but that's not what it's come to mean. She probably meant that America "as a system" should work for everyone, but it's come to mean productive Americans work to support the unproductive, ie. "America" (some of its people) is working (doing work) for a subset of "everyone". That subset making up about 47% of the population last I heard.

 

[T.Lex]

Oh I know what she probably meant, but that's not what it's come to mean. She probably meant that America "as a system" should work for everyone, but it's come to mean productive Americans work to support the unproductive, ie. "America" (some of its people) is working (doing work) for a subset of "everyone". That subset making up about 47% of the population last I heard.

Oh yeah - it is an absolutely terrible way to construct and deliver the idea. As a public speaker, Warren sucks. She's probably a better professor, where she gets to deflect any word choice issues with "Well, you just don't understand yet." She won't be able to do that as a candidate.

Trump will completely devastate her if they ever go head to head.

I really don't think Warren will end up with the nomination. Too old school. Too detached.

 

[Leadeye]

Pete Buttigieg: Trump 'clinging' to outdated attacks on socialism

Indiana's candidate also running as Socialist, apparently.

Strange considering the big money outfits he worked for before politics.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Amy Klobuchar announced her candidacy yesterday.

Looks like another world-class ***** has thrown her hat in the ring. Reports are she has been known to abuse her staff.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-staff-harry-reid_us_5c5db1ece4b03afe8d674530

 

[spec4]

Klobuchar trounced her opposition when she ran for the Senate. Of course that is Minnesota, remember they gave Al Franken enough votes that he only had to steal a few hundred to win up there. Also, our LTC is no good in MN.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Looks like Warren went official, as well... odd, given the whole Indian nonsense. Pretty sure she can't win. There has to be a strategy to flooding the race with losers like this..

 

[printcraft]

Hitlary will look normal by comparison.

 

[T.Lex]

There has to be a strategy to flooding the race with losers like this..

... Said a bunch of Republicans in 2015.

 

[Libertarian01]

Too many democratic candidates and they could wind up just like the republicans in 2016, letting someone who should never represent them get to the top due to all of the infighting.

Plus, it'll leave a helluva lot of blood in the water way before the real campaign begins, thus undermining whomever does win the nomination.

The DNC better be as transparent as they can be after undermining Bernie in 2016 or yet again they'll see a low turnout of voters who don't believe in the system.

Regards,

Doug

 

[BugI02]

There has to be a strategy to flooding the race with losers like this..

... Said a bunch of Republicans in 2015.

And they were right, except for the part where they thought everybody else was a loser except themselves

 

[jamil]

Oh yeah - it is an absolutely terrible way to construct and deliver the idea. As a public speaker, Warren sucks. She's probably a better professor, where she gets to deflect any word choice issues with "Well, you just don't understand yet." She won't be able to do that as a candidate.

Trump will completely devastate her if they ever go head to head.

I really don't think Warren will end up with the nomination. Too old school. Too detached.

I don’t know about how she is as a professor either. But she doesn’t strike me as thinking through things very deeply. And that’s not exactly a trait required to be president. Apparently. But it’s a pretty important feature to be a law professor I would think.

 

[jamil]

Klobuchar trounced her opposition when she ran for the Senate. Of course that is Minnesota, remember they gave Al Franken enough votes that he only had to steal a few hundred to win up there. Also, our LTC is no good in MN.

Apparently Minnesotans like world class *****es at the polls. Hillary, and this one.

 

[jamil]

... Said a bunch of Republicans in 2015.

It’s not like either party said, hey, you, you, you, and you run for the presidency. Some potential candidates may be approached by the party but I think these decisions to run are a bit more individual. I doubt the Republican Party asked Trump to run. The Democatic party behind closed doors is likely cringing at some of the names thrown in the hat, along with a few facepalms.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

how about a cringe thread.

Kamala Harris claims to have smoked pot in college while listening to Tupac and Snoop.

Tupac's first album came out in 1991.
Snoop's first album came out in 1993.

Kamala Harris graduated college in 1986.

A prosecutor locking people up for getting high, while she was getting high.