quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
I also think that people were/are getting tired of the presidential dynasties of Bush/Clinton, because, let's face it, they are a bit slimy.

BUT they both look like choirboys (choir persons) compared to our current incumbent. ABT still works for me.

Aside to Mik: I don't understand, you thought Gary Johnson was a viable candidate?

If faced with Warren v Trump, I’d vote Johnson or the equivalent. Only because I have the luxury to do that, living in a solid blue state.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
I also think that people were/are getting tired of the presidential dynasties of Bush/Clinton, because, let's face it, they are a bit slimy.

BUT they both look like choirboys (choir persons) compared to our current incumbent. ABT still works for me.

Aside to Mik: I don't understand, you thought Gary Johnson was a viable candidate?

If faced with Warren v Trump, I’d vote Johnson or the equivalent. Only because I have the luxury to do that, living in a solid blue state.

In 2020, given what we've seen happen already, that would be a cowardly response.

I don’t think so at all.

I wouldn’t do it in a swing state.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
I don’t think so at all.

I wouldn’t do it in a swing state.

People announcing that they would do so legitimizes that behavior among others. Others who might live in swing states, and might not appreciate the nuance. Others who might say, if those people can't hold their noses and vote for a candidate they don't like, why should I?

They should because it's a national crisis. If it's a national crisis, people in blue states (or red states, for that matter) shouldn't think they have the luxury of avoiding a difficult vote.

It can the only reasonable action when the real
choice is would you prefer to be mauled by a lion or by a tiger.

I disagree that Warren has bad ideas. I think they are great ideas and they are the direction I wish this country would take. My objections to her have only to do with her style and how it would handicap her. She's a fierce voice against the corruption of the larger system. We need someone to lead that charge.

Let's assume for a moment that you hate Warren's ideas as much as jon does. Let's assume you think those ideas are as dangerous as Trump's. Or even more dangerous.

You should STILL vote for Warren.

Why? Because she'll respect historic norms and won't test the limits of Presidential power at every opportunity. Because she won't label the press "enemies of the people" and "fake news".
Because she's not a vindictive a$$hole who will seek to use the Department of Justice to punish enemies. Because she'll accept the validity of reasonable scientific conclusions. Because she'll appoint better judges. Because she'll appoint people to the various executive departments who have competence and expertise.

It isn't even a close call.

Why don't you tell that to Jon. He's the one saying he wouldn't vote for her.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Why? Because she'll respect historic norms and won't test the limits of Presidential power at every opportunity.

That one is false, (at least if you remove the trivial strawman of ‘at every opportunity’) if her earlier career and senate proposals are any indication. If fact that’s why I could never vote for her, unless I was in a swing state. Even then I’d come home and write a long apology to my grandchildren.

Why are we talking about her? She won't win the primary.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Why? Because she'll respect historic norms and won't test the limits of Presidential power at every opportunity. Because she won't label the press "enemies of the people" and "fake news".
Because she's not a vindictive a$$hole who will seek to use the Department of Justice to punish enemies. Because she'll accept the validity of reasonable scientific conclusions. Because she'll appoint better judges. Because she'll appoint people to the various executive departments who have competence and expertise.

Wow - the bar gets lower every day.

We can do better than this.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Why are we talking about her? She won't win the primary.

And Spanky will never be president.

I no longer take anything for granted.

I agree with Cindy and Steve both. Is that ok or do I have to pick one?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Miller:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Why? Because she'll respect historic norms and won't test the limits of Presidential power at every opportunity. Because she won't label the press "enemies of the people" and "fake news".
Because she's not a vindictive a$$hole who will seek to use the Department of Justice to punish enemies. Because she'll accept the validity of reasonable scientific conclusions. Because she'll appoint better judges. Because she'll appoint people to the various executive departments who have competence and expertise.

Wow - the bar gets lower every day.

We can do better than this.

Maybe. Everyone is entitled to their view, and their vote, in the primary contests.

At the end of the day, though, we all vote for the Democratic candidate. Full stop. There is no alternative.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Why? Because she'll respect historic norms and won't test the limits of Presidential power at every opportunity.

That one is false, (at least if you remove the trivial strawman of ‘at every opportunity’) if her earlier career and senate proposals are any indication. If fact that’s why I could never vote for her, unless I was in a swing state. Even then I’d come home and write a long apology to my grandchildren.

There is no basis for saying that she'd ever disrespect historic norms or test the limits of Presidential power the way Trump has. None. If you think she has, quote it and cite it. Don't just say mealymouthed things about "earlier career and senate proposals".

It appears that you are conflating various substantive proposals with the idea that she would become an authoritarian President along the lines of Trump.

You may think her proposals are ill-advised, but I am not aware of anything that suggests that she would test the limits of Presidential powers or disrespect historic norms. Again, if you are, don't talk around it. Cite the examples, specifically.