And Warren should get out. Maybe if everyone gets out, Gabbard will win! Can't believe she's still in. She is kind of good looking...at least the best of the lot. And she is less liberal than the rest of the field.
|
|
|
|
|
And Warren should get out. Maybe if everyone gets out, Gabbard will win! Can't believe she's still in. She is kind of good looking...at least the best of the lot. And she is less liberal than the rest of the field.
Speaking of Tulsi...
Less liberal? She endorsed Bernie in 2016.Originally Posted by dawg80
The nice look and apparent desire to look nice is deceiving
Have you seen that pic above? That is not the "form" of an ugly liberal.
And any such endorsement was just an anti-Killary sentiment.
It isn’t her.
The prospect of a Biden presidency doesn't frighten me anymore. He is quite obviously senile and has a sub 100 IQ, but he will be nothing more than the face associated with the position. He is not a strong leader.
I want to see who he surrounds himself with to see what kind of policy he would attempt to push. Also, Trump has replaced progressive judges with constitutional ones, meaning any overreach can finally be met with successful challenges (oh the dems will whine loudly when they taste what they've been serving all these years).
Sanders or Warren would have been a disaster.
Makes Biden even more dangerous. Much like obummer he'd be nothing but a pawn in the hands of the puppet-masters (The Swamp).
No race card can be played. Not lesbian card (like Hillary) can be played.
It will be very interesting who Biden has for a running mate. Biden will not get to pick his running mate in reality, it will be chosen for him by the democratic establishment. The question is, do they pick a radical leftist such as one of the squad, etc. or someone who will check more boxes on the identity political spectrum. Either way, the puppet masters will have who they want.
I would pick Klobuchar.
I need to find a way to get $5-million to $10-million from Bloomberg. He doesn't seem to care about any real return now-a-days, spending $500-million to $1-billion in 3 months for nothing.
Why her? Just curious what you think she brings to the ticket. Not saying she would be a bad choice...if one wants to see Biden win, which I don't...but, well, why her?
1. Unlike all of the septuagenarian candidates, she might actually still be alive 4 years from now.
2. We need more women in positions of power.
3. She seems to garner support in some of the key swing states.
4. She is pragmatic and a centrist.
Perhaps...
but usually, often, a POTUS nominee will add a VP running mate who might deliver a key state or region. I would think the Dem, be it Bernie or Biden, will carry lib Minnysoda regardless who their VP mate is. So Amy K. adds nothing in that category.
I am always amused when someone posts (or says) something like your #2. Let's disect it.
"We need more women..." Who "needs" more women in power? We men do? Instead of just saying "We need more quality folks in power..." or "Better qualified..." "More experienced..." "Smarter!" and if any of them happen to be women, fine by me. No, instead you show your true lib leanings by playing identity politics. There is nothing stopping women from running for office, and yes, we've seen more and more doing so in recent election cycles. And women outnumber men...so we're the oppressed minority in this equation. If a woman ran and if women wanted her to win, she would most likely (odds are) win!
I would vote for a conservative woman over a more liberal man any day. Ya see, for me, and for many like me, it's not about a person's sex, race, age, etc...it's only about idealogy.
Back to Amy K. as a VP running mate for Biden. Sure, she'd be a "good" choice. She certainly wouldn't harm the ticket. But if I were advising Biden, I'd opt for a strong political figure in a battleground state, or maybe in one that the (R) usually wins, but that Trump barely carried in 2016. Try to flip that state.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
