I've always been in favor of having an independent candidate.
Not this time.
Not this time.
So, what do we all think about Howard Schultz potentially running as an Independent?
Consensus seems to be that nobody wants it, that it will siphon votes away from the Democratic nominee, dilute the anti-Trump vote, and get the clown re-elected. I think I agree.
The president has also claimed to guests, without evidence, that his private dining room off the Oval Office was in “rough shape” and had a hole in the wall when he came into the West Wing and that President Barack Obama used it to watch sports, according to two White House officials and two other people who have heard him discuss the dining room. “He just sat in here and watched basketball all day,” Trump told a recent group, before saying he upgraded Obama’s smaller TV to a sprawling, flat-screen one, the four people said.
So, what do we all think about Howard Schultz potentially running as an Independent?
Here’s the thing
We’re on the same side. Clinton’s point was that any time a supporter or her, or herself came out and made a claim, you had hundreds of Bernie supporters to rip her/them to shreds.
My second tweeted post was to state that we will never find a pure candidate. There will be SOMETHING from the past that is dug up, or a statement that isn’t 100% progressive enough for some.
This is does the Democratic Party no good. Why can’t we get behind a candidate that supports 85% of what we want? Why does it have to be all or nothing ? Why does the person even have to be “likable” ?
Harris’ donations and the stuff you posted about her time as a prosecutor should be vetted. But is it possible that she’s changed since moving into congress ? Are we going to say she’s the same as Trump or whatever the GOP has become today ?
We will see the same song and dance in 2020 with the social media trolls, the bickering, and it’ll give Trump the White House again.
Can’t we all just get along?
She’s so salty. Legit, all of her interviews have been her complaining about 2016. She has every right to do so but she’s gotta know people don’t really want to hear it.
THIS.What Sanders supporters never bring up is the oodles of opposition research he would have faced, including the accusations of being a communist.
Yes, I know. Socialism isn't communism. I know that. I'm not who you have to convince. You have to convince an electorate who voted for a broke con man because he was portrayed as being a successful business titan on TV that socialism isn't communism.
One thing I’ll agree with is that the Democrats are way too hesitant/scared when it comes to pushing progressive ideas.
Maybe Obama is a little more progressive if he didn’t have to spend the first year or two of his presidency cleaning up Dubya’s financial mess (and the wars).
I’ll give Bernie this, he did push a more progressive agenda. Forced Clinton to adapt a little bit.
Warren seems to have some of the same ideas, at least in regards to regulating Wall St (which she has tried to pass actual legislation), healthcare, and taxes on the Uber wealthy / corporations
hope so!There won't be another shutdown.
Right now the best exit strategy for Trump is to not come to a deal because any deal he comes to will not satisfy his base. So he can't agree with Nancy "Nancy" and declares a national emergency. This will fail in the courts immediately based on precedent and plain common sense but the court battles will take a while, there will be many appeals all the while nothing is being built (nevermind land being expropriated via eminent domain). And that's how the wall will die a quiet and slow death, never to be spoken of again.
And the next time a white kid takes his parents’ assault weapons and shreds another classroom of first graders into hamburger because that’s what the NRA wants, President Harris can declare a state of emergency and confiscate all the high powered weaponry owned by white men everywhere from sea to shiny sea.
Although, we’ll absolutely have SEVERAL more school shootings before November 2020, lol.
As a 17-year Starbucks employee, I have so many thoughts. None of them good. If he runs, I'll lose pretty much all my respect for him.
He's doing a book signing at HQ soon. I wish I had the ovaries to go up there with a sign that says "PLEASE DON'T DO THIS."
Instead, I will stay far away from the event. (I already have signed copies of his first two books anyway.)
I would hardly call a town hall an endorsement.
in spite of my recent criticism of kamala harris, all the women you listed would be preferable to all the men you listed.
Policy-wise I like Warren the best. She just gets it, the ins and outs of legislation and she has a very good way of explaining things to make them clear. But while she'd be the best professor you had, it doesn't translate into great television and heaven knows that's all that matters these days.
Wait, whatswrong w Cori Booker, anitram?
Yeah, i think he might be a bit too coporatist but not sure, and maybe a bit too trying to understand the trump voters.
Of them i am of 2 minds-
yes, trying understand and talk them out of their fears ( the many who are ie racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-muslim, anti-semitic etc ) bit by bit- yet knowing how difficult that could be. I'm not going to put much engery in my hat, got my own challenges to deal with.
Forget 'em - they're getting what they deserve.
Except the the rest of us don't want, don't deserve all this )
coribookerstem?
He’s basically a republican if current republicans weren’t animals.
I think this is far too reductive.
I get that he is too supportive of charter schools/vouchers for the tastes of many on the left, and that he's taken a good deal of money from Wall Street, and that he hasn't given as full-throated an endorsement of medicare-for-all as many would like, but that does not make him 'basically a republican'.
He supports regulations to combat man-made climate change, he's pro-choice, he supports all the basic more-background-checks gun-control stuff, he supports Obamacare and wants to expand it, he supports same-sex marriage, and he is pro-immigration and pro-amnesty. Sure sounds like a Republican to me.
I'm not saying he's my first choice(he's not), I'm not trying to be a cheerleader for him, but it just really rubs me the wrong way to label a Democrat "basically a republican" as soon as they aren't as far left as you want them to be on everything. I'm not just talking about Booker, but about anyone in the field. It's the kind of thing so many Bernie Bros said about Hilary in 2015/16. It's way too simplistic and it foments division within the party when we should be looking to unify. Criticize certain positions all you want, but don't resort to labels like "basically a republican".
I don't mean to go off on you, but that just annoyed me.
You basically just described what a republican should be.
Which is what I said.
Come on. It doesn't matter what a republican should be, it matters what a republican is. Most republicans have been pro-life, at least for the last 40 years. They fought viciously against same-sex-marriage for decades. In my lifetime(1984), I don't recall them ever really lifting a finger to do anything about guns, and for at least the last 20 years they've refused to acknowledge climate change let alone do anything about it.
I get the he's too centrist within the party for a lot of people, but I cannot agree with calling him a republican. Again, there's probably at least three or four candidates or potential candidates I'd want before him, but I'm just not comfortable with this instant writing off of certain candidates.
So yeah, Cory Booker. Not a bad guy. Not ready or able to fight for the people who have been disenfranchised, not ready to represent the many groups of social or economic minorities who have taken a step back since Donald Trump was elected president. Hard. Pass.