Topic: 2020 Democrats - page 47. (Read 12658 times)
Mayor Pete is the best overall option IMO, but he will not win. Joe Biden is going to win, but has absolutely no chance at beating Trump (He's a creepy old man with dinosaur politics. Ex- not wanting to legalize marijuana which would be an obviously powerful tool for him to use).
Looks like Kamala is done.
This is probably due to the lack of fundraising. She was still fairly highly ranked in most polls, but had very poor debate performances and has no real convictions. In other words - she got Bloomberged.
Looks like Kamala is done.
This is probably due to the lack of fundraising. She was still fairly highly ranked in most polls, but had very poor debate performances and has no real convictions.
Looks like Kamala is done.
^^^ Right! As someone said in a different post, by the time impeachment process of the Donald gets moving (provided there really is one), it will be a long time after the election before Trump actually gets impeached. And by then He will be in his second term, and things will have changed drastically for the country.
There's a very good chance Trump will be impeached by mid January, maybe even before Christmas.
Possibly? The Republicans could drag it out as long as they wanted.
The only way left for sane Democrats (if there are any left) is for them to vote to impeach and NOT REACH A MAJORITY.
There is another way. They could become Republicans.
I wish trump should be back again i dont think he will be impeached , he should complete his second term
joe biden is good opponent in my opinion
joe biden is good opponent in my opinion
Ladies and gentlemen, Democratic candidate for 2020 elections, Joe Biden
Joe Biden's Insane thoughts on Hairy Legs, Roaches, and kids
Incoherent rambling, like he has dementia or something.
Joe Biden's Insane thoughts on Hairy Legs, Roaches, and kids
Incoherent rambling, like he has dementia or something.
^^^ Maybe we should use jury nullification to get rid of the income tax. I mean, if getting rid of the income tax gives more money to people who want to help the poor... there are many instances of cops stopping people from giving to the poor homeless.
Jury Nullification Thwarts Immigration Tyranny
Jury Nullification Thwarts Immigration Tyranny
The federal charge against Warren? Giving water, food, and medical treatment to immigrants who illegally entered the United States by crossing the Arizona desert.
Yes, that's the crime that the feds charged Warren with committing. Oh sure, they call it "harboring" illegal immigrants, but in reality they targeted him for helping illegal immigrants.
Their aim? To send a message, not only to Warren but to everyone else who might be contemplating doing acts of kindness for illegal immigrants: Don't even think of it because we will target you with a federal prosecution and do our best to put you into a federal hoosegow for the next several years of your life.
Enter the jury system, a system that federal officials detest, as manifested by their beloved kangaroo military tribunal system that they have established in Cuba for terrorism prosecutions. No jury trials there. Federal officials would much prefer that federal judges, many of whom are former prosecutors, or military officials decide the guilt or innocence of people they prosecute rather than regular people from the community serving as jurors.
...
What the role of the judge? He decides procedural and evidentiary issues. Before the jury begins to deliberate, the judge instructs the jury that they must follow his instructions on the law. In a “harboring” prosecution, he provides the jury with the definition of the term “harboring,” and he tells the jury that while it decides the facts in the case, it must accept his instructions with respect to the law.
What the judge does not tell the jury is that they actually have the power to judge both the facts and the law. But some juries figure that out on their own. If they conclude, as a matter of individual conscience, that the law is evil, immoral, or tyrannical, it is within their prerogative to acquit the accused even if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact commit the offense.
Yes, that's the crime that the feds charged Warren with committing. Oh sure, they call it "harboring" illegal immigrants, but in reality they targeted him for helping illegal immigrants.
Their aim? To send a message, not only to Warren but to everyone else who might be contemplating doing acts of kindness for illegal immigrants: Don't even think of it because we will target you with a federal prosecution and do our best to put you into a federal hoosegow for the next several years of your life.
Enter the jury system, a system that federal officials detest, as manifested by their beloved kangaroo military tribunal system that they have established in Cuba for terrorism prosecutions. No jury trials there. Federal officials would much prefer that federal judges, many of whom are former prosecutors, or military officials decide the guilt or innocence of people they prosecute rather than regular people from the community serving as jurors.
...
What the role of the judge? He decides procedural and evidentiary issues. Before the jury begins to deliberate, the judge instructs the jury that they must follow his instructions on the law. In a “harboring” prosecution, he provides the jury with the definition of the term “harboring,” and he tells the jury that while it decides the facts in the case, it must accept his instructions with respect to the law.
What the judge does not tell the jury is that they actually have the power to judge both the facts and the law. But some juries figure that out on their own. If they conclude, as a matter of individual conscience, that the law is evil, immoral, or tyrannical, it is within their prerogative to acquit the accused even if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he did in fact commit the offense.
Let's make all politics to be 2020 hindsight. How? By learning about jury nullification, and how we can use it on a local level to get rid all US and State laws that we don't like... locally.
Correct. There's nothing that's "Establishment friendly" that is advocating destroying substantial parts of the "Establishment."
Trump, for all the vitriol in his direction, and the hatred of him by the Deep State, is more "Establishment Friendly" than either Sanders or Biden.
Trump, for all the vitriol in his direction, and the hatred of him by the Deep State, is more "Establishment Friendly" than either Sanders or Biden.
That's a matter of which establishment you are working for.
Additional thoughts:
- Biden: He has amazing name recognition and a strong association with Obama, who people love. But people remember him with rose-tinted glasses. He's kind of outside of the Democratic mainstream at this point; he reminds me more of Bush than eg. Sanders.
- Bloomberg: His money could push him way up.
- Gabbard: The strongest anti-war candidate. Due to this, the media and establishment hate her, and she's probably doomed in the primary.
- Harris: Hillary Clinton 2.0, almost pre-selected to win by the media and establishment.
- O'Rourke: Also a media darling, though that's worn off somewhat.
- Sanders: The establishment still hates him and will try to crush him, and the far-left vote will be substantially split this time around. But he also has more name recognition now.
Who do you want to win, and who do you think will win?
- Biden: He has amazing name recognition and a strong association with Obama, who people love. But people remember him with rose-tinted glasses. He's kind of outside of the Democratic mainstream at this point; he reminds me more of Bush than eg. Sanders.
- Bloomberg: His money could push him way up.
- Gabbard: The strongest anti-war candidate. Due to this, the media and establishment hate her, and she's probably doomed in the primary.
- Harris: Hillary Clinton 2.0, almost pre-selected to win by the media and establishment.
- O'Rourke: Also a media darling, though that's worn off somewhat.
- Sanders: The establishment still hates him and will try to crush him, and the far-left vote will be substantially split this time around. But he also has more name recognition now.
Who do you want to win, and who do you think will win?
This post has a lot of accuracy with O'Rourke who failed miserably after the went hard left. The media shifted to Pete Buttigege as a rational moderate after Beto announced his assault rifle ban as if he did not try to flip the red state Texas blue. Texas dodged a bullet with respect to O'Rourke and the media fawned over him when running against Cruz.
Gabbard is too anti-establishment and she's effectively out of the race. Her poll numbers have never broken above 3 percent and her donations are down the drain. Gabbard did accomplish one thing which is obliterating Harris on a debate stage regarding her record as California Attorney General. This was during the second debate where Harris was polling at 10 percent below Biden, Warren, and Sanders. Tulsi Gabbard took down Kamala Harris's entire campaign within a 1 minute debate segment. Incredible.
Bloomberg failed miserably and this is proof that money will not buy you elections. It's about the character and personality.
Right now the progressives have a plurality of the vote and Joe Biden does not outnumber this. Combining the two top progressives, Warren and Sanders, they make up nearly 40 percent of recent polling numbers whereas Joe is near 25-30 percent. This is troubling for moderates and for democrats because Trump is leading swing states when running against progressives but losing when running against Joe Biden. This makes for quite an interesting Presidential field and the DNC has their hands tied on which candidate to support. They better hope for themselves that Joe wins this thing because it's going to be a tough campaign for democrats if a far left candidate takes the nomination.
Biden and Warren, two establishment-friendly politicians
I don't think Warren is more "establishment-friendly" than Sanders and she's definitely closer to Sanders than Biden on most policy positions. They (Warren and Sanders) mostly avoid attacking each other but don't hesitate to attack Biden.
Correct. There's nothing that's "Establishment friendly" that is advocating destroying substantial parts of the "Establishment."
Trump, for all the vitriol in his direction, and the hatred of him by the Deep State, is more "Establishment Friendly" than either Sanders or Biden.
Biden and Warren, two establishment-friendly politicians
I don't think Warren is more "establishment-friendly" than Sanders and she's definitely closer to Sanders than Biden on most policy positions. They (Warren and Sanders) mostly avoid attacking each other but don't hesitate to attack Biden.
http://emersonpolling.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2019/11/nov4-768x532.png
Here comes Bernie!!!
http://emersonpolling.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2019/11/nov1-768x532.png
So much for the "Biden is the most electable" platform. Feel the BERN!
http://emersonpolling.com/2019/11/21/november-national-poll-support-for-impeachment-declines-biden-and-sanders-lead-democratic-primary/
Here comes Bernie!!!
http://emersonpolling.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2019/11/nov1-768x532.png
So much for the "Biden is the most electable" platform. Feel the BERN!
http://emersonpolling.com/2019/11/21/november-national-poll-support-for-impeachment-declines-biden-and-sanders-lead-democratic-primary/
This is perfect actually. Sanders is the most popular candidate running Democrat, but the DNC will never let him get the nomination. Then at that point a very large percentage of Bernie supporters are going to vote Trump just to make sure their foot is broken off in the ass of the DNC who continues to disenfranchise them, giving Trump a very comfortable margin. Feel the Bern. Bern it all down.
Here comes Bernie!!!
So much for the "Biden is the most electable" platform. Feel the BERN!
http://emersonpolling.com/2019/11/21/november-national-poll-support-for-impeachment-declines-biden-and-sanders-lead-democratic-primary/
^^^ Right! As someone said in a different post, by the time impeachment process of the Donald gets moving (provided there really is one), it will be a long time after the election before Trump actually gets impeached. And by then He will be in his second term, and things will have changed drastically for the country.
There's a very good chance Trump will be impeached by mid January, maybe even before Christmas.
Possibly? The Republicans could drag it out as long as they wanted.
The only way left for sane Democrats (if there are any left) is for them to vote to impeach and NOT REACH A MAJORITY.
I think the Chief Justice will run the trial, not Mitch. I could be wrong though. It might be a combination of them both.
Mitch has made it clear he wants the trial to be quick as possible. He could be lying I guess.
Making the trial run into February primaries would help Pete and Biden and hurt Bernie and Warren. Could be wrong, but I assume the Republicans would prefer Bernie or Warren got the nomination.
^^^ Right! As someone said in a different post, by the time impeachment process of the Donald gets moving (provided there really is one), it will be a long time after the election before Trump actually gets impeached. And by then He will be in his second term, and things will have changed drastically for the country.
There's a very good chance Trump will be impeached by mid January, maybe even before Christmas.
Possibly? The Republicans could drag it out as long as they wanted.
The only way left for sane Democrats (if there are any left) is for them to vote to impeach and NOT REACH A MAJORITY.
^^^ Right! As someone said in a different post, by the time impeachment process of the Donald gets moving (provided there really is one), it will be a long time after the election before Trump actually gets impeached. And by then He will be in his second term, and things will have changed drastically for the country.
There's a very good chance Trump will be impeached by mid January, maybe even before Christmas.
Jump to: