• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Election 2020 The 2020 Candidates: Right, Left and Center!

Status
Not open for further replies.
A continuing issue/source of conflict for the Democrats is the fact that the most energized section of their base (the progressives, Sanders supporters etc) are demanding an end to the massive infusions of money in politics (from the health insurance, pharmaceutical, and fossil fuel industries, among others)...but the DNC/"establishment Democrats" are unwilling/unable to wean themselves off the donor money, as that defeats their whole business model.
 
JGrimez said:
My #1 pick would be Gabbard.
Click to expand...
mal3volent said:
I love Tulsi. She'd make a great prez.
Click to expand...
cduggles said:
Realistically, a second-tier candidate might surge or hope to get on the ticket as VP. The field needs winnowing down as it is.

I don’t see a candidate who wasn’t on the debate stage having much of a chance, but you never know.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I missed what reasoning was behind leaving her off the debate. I heard something about polling, but it really felt more like a DNC snapback for the way Tulsi tore down Kamala. I think, at this point, Gabbard has been sidelined (like Sanders was by Hillary), and wouldn't be able to make up the needed ground. But if she had been left in it, I think she'd be one of the more threatening candidates to Trump.
 
There were two well-established thresholds to to be in the debate.

Have 130,000 donors, with more than 400 donors in at least 20 states, and polling at 2 percent or more in four DNC-approved polls

Anyone who can’t do one of those is no threat to anyone politically, particularly an incumbent president.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
Honestly, I missed what reasoning was behind leaving her off the debate. I heard something about polling, but it really felt more like a DNC snapback for the way Tulsi tore down Kamala. I think, at this point, Gabbard has been sidelined (like Sanders was by Hillary), and wouldn't be able to make up the needed ground. But if she had been left in it, I think she'd be one of the more threatening candidates to Trump.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed her takedown of the cop-who-would-be-president (Harris) too. She got smeared as a Russian troll shortly after that incident lol
 
cduggles said:
There were two well-established thresholds to to be in the debate.

Have 130,000 donors, with more than 400 donors in at least 20 states, and polling at 2 percent or more in four DNC-approved polls

Anyone who can’t do one of those is no threat to anyone politically, particularly an incumbent president.
Click to expand...

Key words...DNC approved. It's fixed.
 
I have no great love for the DNC, but Gabbard didn’t make a cutoff. A lot of candidates didn’t. There are still too many left actually, which will shake out soon.

Whether the best candidates are left is subjective, but the situation of a ridiculous number of candidates on a debate stage occurred in response to what happened to Sanders.

Imo, Sanders got screwed, but this time, Gabbard simply didn’t make the cut. These rules weren’t made in response to her knee-capping Harris; she just doesn’t rate. ??‍♀️
 
"but she didn't make the cut off!"

"they're private companies they can do what they want!"

Many liberals today have no principles or backbone. "DNC approved polls" my ass. They're corrupt. Their polls are BS. Same DNC that hasn't reformed one iota since they screwed Sanders.

They fucked Gabbard because she's anti war and the Dems only want another useless corporate shill.
 
Yeah, they really screwed her by announcing a cutoff way in advance that anyone should be able to make for a nationally televised debate for the presidential nomination! It was all about Gabbard! Everyone else who felt screwed is just part of the conspiracy! 8(

It’s Bernie all over again! Oh the humanity!
 
They choose the polls. They rig the polls. They have a proven history of this type of behavior. Gabbard was much more popular than they admitted. This is all obvious.
 
I agreed with you. It was obvious from the jump that Gabbard was totally the target and the fake media fake polls blah blah blah because corporate America and the deep state. Screw the collateral damage! Oh the humanity! 8(
 
Tulsi is a youthful strong female, a female of color, and a war veteran. She's an amazing communicator but they never gave her a chance to speak. Media focused on Harris and Mayor Pete even when they were in the single digits. DNC decides which polls are qualified and which aren't.

Idk about anyone else, but I was really hoping she'd make it because I wanted to see a young female veteran PoC debate Trump one on one.
 
Last edited:
@mal3volent I agree she has an interesting background and it would have been interesting to have heard more from her.

But I don’t think the DNC intentionally created guidelines beforehand and then rigged polls specifically to exclude her because she isn’t a warmongering corporate shill (which is not an opinion that came from you).
 
cduggles said:
@mal3volent I agree she has an interesting background and it would have been interesting to have heard more from her.

But I don’t think the DNC intentionally created guidelines beforehand and then rigged polls specifically to exclude her because she isn’t a warmongering corporate shill (which is not an opinion that came from you).
Click to expand...

Yes they did. Same reason everytime she's interviewed on liberal media all they do is mention "ASSAD ASSAD ASSAD" "WHY did you meet with Assad??" - it's painfully obvious that they were collectively trying to smear and discredit her, all for wanting to find out the truth regarding the Syrian conflict.

So yes, the DNC want their warmongering corporate shill and people like yourself will just eat it up because that's the direction your tribe is going and you won't stick up for what's right or expose corruption.
 
JGrimez said:
Yes they did. Same reason everytime she's interviewed on liberal media all they do is mention "ASSAD ASSAD ASSAD" "WHY did you meet with Assad??" - it's painfully obvious that they were collectively trying to smear and discredit her, all for wanting to find out the truth regarding the Syrian conflict.
Click to expand...

I agree they did her no favors, and the way she's been handled both in debates and by media shows a biased intent to NOT have her represent the party. I think the DNC did play some games in poll selection. However, you have to concede to CD's statements that the rules were available from the beginning, and applied to ALL candidates. She had as much chance as anyone else to get the votes, donations, and poll support - but you are also right in that the DNC had a strong hand in who got votes, donations, and which polls they used.

So yes, the DNC want their warmongering corporate shill and people like yourself will just eat it up because that's the direction your tribe is going and you won't stick up for what's right or expose corruption.
Click to expand...

You seem to be projecting quite a bit here as I doubt CD would lay back and accept something that isn't right or hides corruption. Your terms are spreading to label a large group of people, but do you honestly put CD in that group of people like that? If so, you don't know her that well, which is surprising given how much time the two of you have spent in this forum over the years. There are a LOT of left leaning folks who hate corruption, but the people at the top are corrupt...while being 'elected leaders' they don't necessarily represent all the members.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
You seem to be projecting quite a bit here as I doubt CD would lay back and accept something that isn't right or hides corruption. Your terms are spreading to label a large group of people, but do you honestly put CD in that group of people like that? If so, you don't know her that well, which is surprising given how much time the two of you have spent in this forum over the years. There are a LOT of left leaning folks who hate corruption, but the people at the top are corrupt...while being 'elected leaders' they don't necessarily represent all the members.
Click to expand...
Yes I've had many exchanges with her and I do not find her honest, forthcoming or possessing integrity or principles. This isn't a personal attack against her, as many people are guilty of this when they align with certain political parties. I found it infuriating that Democrats didn't demand reform after it was blatantly exposed that the DNC was not acting impartially and after they basically defrauded Sanders' donors (and then DNC lawyers argued in court that they had a right to do so). Why weren't Dems livid about that? If they demanded reform then and cleaned up their party, then travesties like excluding Gabbard wouldn't have happened and they might've actually have been able to select a candidate to beat Donald Trump. But it's evident that the Dems care more about corporatism and continuing the wars than beating Trump.

I find this to be relevant here:
Why Smart People Are Vulnerable to Putting Tribe Before Truth
blogs.scientificamerican.com

Why Smart People Are Vulnerable to Putting Tribe Before Truth

Science literacy is important, but without the parallel trait of "science curiosity," it can lead us astray
blogs.scientificamerican.com blogs.scientificamerican.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top