• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democratic Voters only poll: Who should win the Democratic nomination?

Who would you pick for question 1?

  • Biden

    Votes: 9 32.1%

  • Sanders

    Votes: 4 14.3%

  • Warren

    Votes: 15 53.6%
  • Total voters
    28
Answer to question 1 - Whoever the super-delegates like will be the winner, and, at this point in time, it sounds like Biden.

Answer to question 2 - I don't really care much for any of them nor their policies, but I'll post up who I respect more than the others

1. Tulsi Gabbard - served in the military and understands our enemies better than anyone else in this field, and doesn't come across an Establishment insider
2. Marianne Williams - as weird as she may be, she not only represents the mind set of the Left well, but she had some statements about the Democrat candidates and the folly of their agenda that are true
3. Andrew "Chicken Little" Yang - even though he's weak and timid, he, at least, understands business and is willing to talk to others on the other side
 
Taylor said:
Yes, Biden is a bit of an embarrassment.
Click to expand...

it's unfortunate that he has the best chance of winning. however, i'll be voting for whoever is running against the orange lump of ****.
 
I've strongly disliked Biden since the Thomas hearings when he and Arlen Specter savaged the women giving testimony. His vote favoring banks over consumers. His vote for going to war in Iraq. I'd rather have Hillary. In this case, I think Warren can win and is the best choice. Still, Biden better than Trump. Trump is glowing nuclear waste.
 
Herkamer63 said:
Answer to question 1 - Whoever the super-delegates like will be the winner, and, at this point in time, it sounds like Biden.

Answer to question 2 - I don't really care much for any of them nor their policies, but I'll post up who I respect more than the others

1. Tulsi Gabbard - served in the military and understands our enemies better than anyone else in this field, and doesn't come across an Establishment insider
2. Marianne Williams - as weird as she may be, she not only represents the mind set of the Left well, but she had some statements about the Democrat candidates and the folly of their agenda that are true
3. Andrew "Chicken Little" Yang - even though he's weak and timid, he, at least, understands business and is willing to talk to others on the other side
Click to expand...
:lamo
 
BrotherFease said:
I will do one for the GOP side, but I want to hear from people who are registered Democrats and/or people who plan on voting in the Democratic primaries.

QUESTION ONE: If the vote came down to either Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren, which one would you choose?

QUESTION TWO: Pick three of the candidates listed below, and rank them from best to worst. 1 being your favorite, 3 being your "worst" favorite.

Joe Biden, former Vice President & former Delaware U.S Senator

Cory Booker, New Jersey U.S Senator & former Mayor of Newark

Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend Indiana & U.S Navy Lieutenant

Julian Castro, former HUD Secretary & former Mayor of San Antonio

Tulsi Gabbard, Member of the Hawaii House of Representatives & Major in the U.S Army

Kamala Harris, California U.S Senator & former California Attorney General

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota U.S Senator & former County Attorney of Hennepin County

Beto O'Rourke, former U.S House of Representative for Texas & former El Paso City Council member

Bernie Sanders, Vermont U.S Senator & former Mayor of Burlington

Tom Steyer, Impeach Trump Advocate

Elizabeth Warren, Mass U.S Senator & former Advisor for the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau

Marianne Williamson, The Power Crystal Lady

Andrew Yang, Universal Basic Income Salesman
Click to expand...

QUESTION ONE: Warren. She is also a twenty-year professor, which means she is less likely to be trapped within simple ideologies and very well open to the notion that life holds many perspectives to the same issues. This is important when it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy with allies and enemies. And for you Conservatives who feel that Mr. Jesus leads the way, she also taught Sunday School for years. Anyway...

QUESTION TWO: I don't care enough about any of the rest.


***If the Democrats are serious about getting the seated idiot out of the White House, then they have to show that they deserve the Office, not that he does not. In other words, running on political platforms that center around how socioeconomically unfair life is and how stupid Trump is, is no where near good enough. And they have to win big enough that Conservatives and the GOP can't get away with pulling their Third-World (or "****-hole") attitude of trying to de-legitimize American democracy for the whole world to see, like they tried to do with 2008 and again with 2016 (even after wining!).
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
QUESTION ONE: Warren. She is also a twenty-year professor, which means she is less likely to be trapped within simple ideologies and very well open to the notion that life holds many perspectives to the same issues. This is important when it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy with allies and enemies. And for you Conservatives who feel that Mr. Jesus leads the way, she also taught Sunday School for years. Anyway...

QUESTION TWO: I don't care enough about any of the rest.


***If the Democrats are serious about getting the seated idiot out of the White House, then they have to show that they deserve the Office, not that he does not. In other words, running on political platforms that center around how socioeconomically unfair life is and how stupid Trump is, is no where near good enough.
Click to expand...

And in what way have you seen evidence of that with Liz Warren?
 
bubbabgone said:
And in what way have you seen evidence of that with Liz Warren?
Click to expand...

One does not embrace education and teach at university for twenty years and maintain the mind of a simplistic moron. "Enemy, evil...us, good" is not a factor.

And what she makes obvious is how partisan and irrational Conservatives have become. One only needs to review her Wikipedia page to see her history of being a Republican and her concerns for the free market to recognize that she is more of a Conservative than Republicans are. Um..and she taught Sunday school for years? Other than clinging to partisan nonsense, Conservatives have no real complaints to voice of her. Even their desperate Trump-inspired "Pocahontas" trash was proven a bust.
 
Last edited:
Herkamer63 said:
Answer to question 1 - Whoever the super-delegates like will be the winner, and, at this point in time, it sounds like Biden.

Answer to question 2 - I don't really care much for any of them nor their policies, but I'll post up who I respect more than the others

1. Tulsi Gabbard - served in the military and understands our enemies better than anyone else in this field, and doesn't come across an Establishment insider
2. Marianne Williams - as weird as she may be, she not only represents the mind set of the Left well, but she had some statements about the Democrat candidates and the folly of their agenda that are true
3. Andrew "Chicken Little" Yang - even though he's weak and timid, he, at least, understands business and is willing to talk to others on the other side
Click to expand...

Superdelegates don’t vote on the first ballot. They can vote on subsequent ballots, which I believe will happen. The trolling from trumpeople should be through that glass roof when that happens.
 
Linc said:
Superdelegates don’t vote on the first ballot. They can vote on subsequent ballots, which I believe will happen. The trolling from trumpeople should be through that glass roof when that happens.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Hilary Clinton would have won the nomination without the superdelegates. She won 55.2% of the votes in the 2016 Democrat primary and won 34 out of the 57 contests.
 
MSgt said:
One does not embrace education and teach at university for twenty years and maintain the mind of a simplistic moron. "Enemy, evil...us, good" is not a factor.

And what she makes obvious is how partisan and irrational Conservatives have become. One only needs to review her Wikipedia page to see her history of being a Republican and her concerns for the free market to recognize that she is more of a Conservative than Republicans are. Um..and she taught Sunday school for years? Other than clinging to partisan nonsense, Conservatives have no real complaints to voice of her. Even their desperate Trump-inspired "Pocahontas" trash was proven a bust.
Click to expand...

I asked for evidence. That means examples that demonstrate she's not ideological. Teaching at Harvard and other places aren't. I didn't ask for her resume.
If you have come up empty you could have said that. I guess as someone said, it "was proven a bust".
 
I chose Joe Biden. In 2016 I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary and for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Now I think that Sanders and Warren are too supportive of stands that are favored by Democrat activists, but likely to cause problems in the 2020 general election against Donald Trump. Specifically, they want to let more criminals out of prison, and they want to let more immigrants into the United States.

I am an angry leftist of the old school. I am not a guilt stricken white liberal. For me the main issue is taxes. I want the rich to be heavily taxed. How heavily? As heavily as politically possible. And let's plug up the loop holes while we are at it.
 
I prefer Warren, but ultimately, come November 2020 I'll vote whoever wins the Primary.
 
BrotherFease said:
I will do one for the GOP side, but I want to hear from people who are registered Democrats and/or people who plan on voting in the Democratic primaries.

QUESTION ONE: If the vote came down to either Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren, which one would you choose?

QUESTION TWO: Pick three of the candidates listed below, and rank them from best to worst. 1 being your favorite, 3 being your "worst" favorite.

Joe Biden, former Vice President & former Delaware U.S Senator

Cory Booker, New Jersey U.S Senator & former Mayor of Newark

Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend Indiana & U.S Navy Lieutenant

Julian Castro, former HUD Secretary & former Mayor of San Antonio

Tulsi Gabbard, Member of the Hawaii House of Representatives & Major in the U.S Army

Kamala Harris, California U.S Senator & former California Attorney General

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota U.S Senator & former County Attorney of Hennepin County

Beto O'Rourke, former U.S House of Representative for Texas & former El Paso City Council member

Bernie Sanders, Vermont U.S Senator & former Mayor of Burlington

Tom Steyer, Impeach Trump Advocate

Elizabeth Warren, Mass U.S Senator & former Advisor for the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau

Marianne Williamson, The Power Crystal Lady

Andrew Yang, Universal Basic Income Salesman
Click to expand...

I have stated on this site that I won't be voting for Trump in 2020. But that doesn't automatically mean I'll vote Democratic. That depends on whom they nominate. I voted against both Trump and Clinton in 2016 and might do so again depending who is the Democratic nominee. My first choice has withdrawn, Hickenlooper. He would have had my whole support.

Question one - Biden hands down.

Question two. Any one of these three I would vote for against Trump. The first two with enthusiasm, the third with a lot less.
1. Amy Klobuchar
2. Joe Biden
3. Tulsi Gabbard

Any of the rest on the list is a third-party vote, although I’m undecided on Buttigieg. He's a flip of a coin right now against Trump. For me candidates matter. I may not like Trump, but I'm unwilling to replace him with someone else I don't like. When I dislike both major party candidates, I have no qualms voting against both by casting a ballot for a third party candidate. This way I have a say in the down ballot offices.
 
SmartCat said:
I chose Joe Biden. In 2016 I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary and for Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Now I think that Sanders and Warren are too supportive of stands that are favored by Democrat activists, but likely to cause problems in the 2020 general election against Donald Trump. Specifically, they want to let more criminals out of prison, and they want to let more immigrants into the United States.

I am an angry leftist of the old school. I am not a guilt stricken white liberal. For me the main issue is taxes. I want the rich to be heavily taxed. How heavily? As heavily as politically possible. And let's plug up the loop holes while we are at it.
Click to expand...

Yes I also believe that increased taxation of the wealthy is the only way to stop the growth of wealth inequality and corporatism. With every tax cut the problem has gotten worse. It is time we stopped digging. I would like to see Warren as VP with the stipulation that she would run as President in 2024. We need Biden to save us from Trump. There can be no mistake about that.
 
bubbabgone said:
I asked for evidence. That means examples that demonstrate she's not ideological. Teaching at Harvard and other places aren't. I didn't ask for her resume.
If you have come up empty you could have said that. I guess as someone said, it "was proven a bust".
Click to expand...

You asked for an excuse to glorify an obtuse behavior. Don't confuse ideology for being an ideologist. An ideologist is a simpleton who can't cope with reality when it threatens the ideology so they abandon reason and logic to preserve that false and broken ideology. Witness the NeoCon, who shifted from Democrat to Republican for their ideology of spreading democracy by all means, then clung even as Iraq and Afghanistan proved their simplistic world view false. I gave you evidence through her education that she is not the type. The educated do not abandon reason so easily. I will hold your hand another way:

- Economics: She was characterized as a Conservative throughout her academic career and held a belief in laissez-faire economics. <---- That is an ideology.

- Politics: She was a registered Republican between 1991~1996, but began voting Democrat in 1995 because she no longer believed that the GOP was the party that best supported markets. And given how eager Trickle-Down Republicans are to bail-out banks and corporations, then offer subsidies, while handing them permanent tax-cuts, she is right. Republicans practice socialism when it comes to big business while telling a person like you to "pull up your boot straps" and make the worst of capitalism work for you.

Add in her educational background and this is not an ideologist who stubbornly clings to a Party out of a simpleton's notion of allegiance, nor to an ideology that is proven perverse. This is not a person who makes rash and stubborn decisions that are based on false ideologies.

So, not a bust. Just your pre-determined intentions to dismiss because looking beyond the "Pocahontas" nonsense threatens your fragile ideological world-view.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
You asked for an excuse to glorify an obtuse behavior. Don't confuse ideology for being an ideologist. An ideologist is a simpleton who can't cope with reality when it threatens the ideology so they abandon reason and logic to preserve that false and broken ideology. Witness the NeoCon, who shifted from Democrat to Republican for their ideology of spreading democracy by all means, then clung even as Iraq and Afghanistan proved their simplistic world view false. I gave you evidence through her education that she is not the type. The educated do not abandon reason so easily. I will hold your hand another way:

- Economics: She was characterized as a Conservative throughout her academic career and held a belief in laissez-faire economics. <---- That is an ideology.

- Politics: She was a registered Republican between 1991~1996, but began voting Democrat in 1995 because she no longer believed that the GOP was the party that best supported markets. And given how eager Trickle-Down Republicans are to bail-out banks and corporations, then offer subsidies, while handing them permanent tax-cuts, she is right. Republicans practice socialism when it comes to big business while telling a person like you to "pull up your boot straps" and make the worst of capitalism work for you.

Add in her educational background and this is not an ideologist who stubbornly clings to a Party out of a simpleton's notion of allegiance, nor to an ideology that is proven perverse. This is not a person who makes rash and stubborn decisions that are based on false ideologies.

So, not a bust. Just your pre-determined intentions to dismiss because looking beyond the "Pocahontas" nonsense threatens your fragile ideological world-view.
Click to expand...

Liz was a capitalist for herself when she was becoming a multimillionaire. Now she's a redistributionist for the election.
Bernie's a multimillionaire too. Is he an ideologist?
Liz Warren is an ideologist. There's no question.
The fact that she's very wealthy is not evidence of otherwise.
She's exposed her "rash and stubborn" decisions (policies) during the primary. To be fair, it's not clear how much of her healthy dose of socialist platform is genuine or a recognition that it's where the Party activists are.
Either way if she gets the nod and runs on it she's dead skin & bones.
 
bubbabgone said:
Liz was a capitalist for herself when she was becoming a multimillionaire. Now she's a redistributionist for the election.
Bernie's a multimillionaire too. Is he an ideologist?
Liz Warren is an ideologist. There's no question.
The fact that she's very wealthy is not evidence of otherwise.
She's exposed her "rash and stubborn" decisions (policies) during the primary. To be fair, it's not clear how much of her healthy dose of socialist platform is genuine or a recognition that it's where the Party activists are.
Either way if she gets the nod and runs on it she's dead skin & bones.
Click to expand...

I have never understood how you people think you can promote the idea that a Democrat's bank account matters, when you tripped all over yourselves for a silver-spooned elitist billionaire who helped create the swamp. And before this, Bush's oil money played not a factor in your shallow denigration. Do you see how this bit of BS is exposed?

And let's not pretend that you are coming from a rational place. The fact that she is no longer a Republican is all it takes for you to irrationally complain (reference the above paragraph). I gave you examples of how she is not an ideologist, in the way that you meant it. Simply saying she is does not change her clear history:

- Despite believing in Democracy, she is not a shallow NeoCon.
- Despite teaching Sunday School for years, she is not a religious fanatic.
- And since she has been both a Republican and Democrat, she is not a partisan hack who perverts her beliefs in accordance to the Party's line of the day.

"Liz" is just another way of clinging to "Pocahontas," which is really the only level you bother with. You shouldn't use words like "redistribution" and "socialist" when you can't even identify it when you actually see it. What exactly do you think bail-outs to farmers are? Or bail-outs to banks that turn around and seize homes and small businesses? What do you think government subsidies to corporations are? What do you think tax-money going back to the people who pay it in select programs is? And how do you reconcile the notion of taking the tax money of the average American, sending it upwards where tax-cuts are permanent, where it is not trickled down? It's an upward perverted sense of redistribution. Your need to cling to broken ideologies and false arguments of "the Left" is why you have been so easily manipulated into not seeing truths. You default to select politicized words, with clear enough definitions for all to understand, as a means to denigrate. If Jesus Christ was a Democrat (who was more the liberal) you would denigrate because of his unkept beard and redistribution of fish to the people because he didn't send the fish to the elite instead.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
I have never understood how you people think you can promote the idea that a Democrat's bank account matters, when you tripped all over yourselves for a silver-spooned elitist billionaire who helped create the swamp. And before this, Bush's oil money played not a factor in your shallow denigration. Do you see how this bit of BS is exposed?

And let's not pretend that you are coming from a rational place. The fact that she is no longer a Republican is all it takes for you to irrationally complain (reference the above paragraph). I gave you examples of how she is not an ideologist, in the way that you meant it. Simply saying she is does not change her clear history:

- Despite believing in Democracy, she is not a shallow NeoCon.
- Despite teaching Sunday School for years, she is not a religious fanatic.
- And since she has been both a Republican and Democrat, she is not a partisan hack who perverts her beliefs in accordance to the Party's line of the day.

"Liz" is just another way of clinging to "Pocahontas," which is really the only level you bother with. You shouldn't use words like "redistribution" and "socialist" when you can't even identify it when you actually see it. What exactly do you think bail-outs to farmers are? Or bail-outs to banks that turn around and seize homes and small businesses? What do you think government subsidies to corporations are? What do you think tax-money going back to the people who pay it in select programs is? And how do you reconcile the notion of taking the tax money of the average American, sending it upwards where tax-cuts are permanent, where it is not trickled down? It's an upward perverted sense of redistribution. Your need to cling to broken ideologies and false arguments of "the Left" is why you have been so easily manipulated into not seeing truths. You default to select politicized words, with clear enough definitions for all to understand, as a means to denigrate. If Jesus Christ was a Democrat (who was more the liberal) you would denigrate because of his unkept beard and redistribution of fish to the people because he didn't send the fish to the elite instead.
Click to expand...

You gave me no example of why she is not an ideologue.

Somehow you believe because she's very wealthy, used to be a Republican, and was (this is the funniest as to its significance - but they're all ridiculous) a Sunday school teacher, that shows she can't be a socialist ideologue today.
Your claim doesn't make it so and what she used to be has no currency.

You're the one who thinks her bloated bank account means she can't be an ideologue. That's bizarre thinking, my friend.
Soros is a mulitibillionaire ... is he an ideologue?
She's in sync with Bernie. Is Bernie an ideologue?

What are her campaign positions that demonstrate she's not an ideologue ... today.
 
Nobody I've seen so far. Jury's still out on Butigeig.
 
bubbabgone said:
Liz was a capitalist for herself when she was becoming a multimillionaire. Now she's a redistributionist for the election.
Bernie's a multimillionaire too. Is he an ideologist?
Liz Warren is an ideologist. There's no question.
The fact that she's very wealthy is not evidence of otherwise.
She's exposed her "rash and stubborn" decisions (policies) during the primary. To be fair, it's not clear how much of her healthy dose of socialist platform is genuine or a recognition that it's where the Party activists are.
Either way if she gets the nod and runs on it she's dead skin & bones.
Click to expand...


What is a Trump supporter/defender think he's doing trying to say anything about a Democrat's bank account? Is the idea to stuff so much hypocrisy into one post that you manufacture the first internet-derived singularity?
 
bubbabgone said:
I asked for evidence. That means examples that demonstrate she's not ideological. Teaching at Harvard and other places aren't. I didn't ask for her resume.
If you have come up empty you could have said that. I guess as someone said, it "was proven a bust".
Click to expand...

What the hell does that mean, "not ideological"? Is having developed an ideology supposed to be a bad thing, in which case even though you have come through life to believe in certain causes and ideals you have ideas but are not "ideological", but if someone's ideals and ideas puts them somewhere on the left, they no longer have ideas but are instead "ideological"?

It's an idiotic labeling game, but then that's what a certain contingent likes to do. Can't argue in detail why someone's policy position is worse than one's own? Call them a socialist or a leftist and move on...








"Ideologue" typically means "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology".

Ideologue | Definition of Ideologue by Merriam-Webster

Yet I daresay that Warren could make her case on any political point infinitely better than you, and I say that even though I don't agree with much of what she says and definitely do not want her as president (though I'd easily take her over the orange lout). Or perhaps we could watch you try to teach one of her Harvard classes.

:lol:




Like her and her ideas, or not, she isn't blindly anything.

Then again those who defend Trump no matter what, those who love him for his claims to wealth but criticize Democrats for having any wealth, weeeeeeellll......

:shrug:
 
BrotherFease said:
I will do one for the GOP side, but I want to hear from people who are registered Democrats and/or people who plan on voting in the Democratic primaries.

QUESTION ONE: If the vote came down to either Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren, which one would you choose?

QUESTION TWO: Pick three of the candidates listed below, and rank them from best to worst. 1 being your favorite, 3 being your "worst" favorite.

Joe Biden, former Vice President & former Delaware U.S Senator

Cory Booker, New Jersey U.S Senator & former Mayor of Newark

Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend Indiana & U.S Navy Lieutenant

Julian Castro, former HUD Secretary & former Mayor of San Antonio

Tulsi Gabbard, Member of the Hawaii House of Representatives & Major in the U.S Army

Kamala Harris, California U.S Senator & former California Attorney General

Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota U.S Senator & former County Attorney of Hennepin County

Beto O'Rourke, former U.S House of Representative for Texas & former El Paso City Council member

Bernie Sanders, Vermont U.S Senator & former Mayor of Burlington

Tom Steyer, Impeach Trump Advocate

Elizabeth Warren, Mass U.S Senator & former Advisor for the Consumer Financial Protections Bureau

Marianne Williamson, The Power Crystal Lady

Andrew Yang, Universal Basic Income Salesman
Click to expand...
Currently:
Sanders
Warren
Not really sure on the 3rd - I like some things about 5 or so more candidates, but I also have some serious questions about/issues with them
Gabbard
Buttigieg
Castro
Harris
Booker
 
Mr Person said:
What is a Trump supporter/defender think he's doing trying to say anything about a Democrat's bank account? Is the idea to stuff so much hypocrisy into one post that you manufacture the first internet-derived singularity?
Click to expand...

Just the balls-out Socialists.
 
Mr Person said:
What the hell does that mean, "not ideological"? Is having developed an ideology supposed to be a bad thing, in which case even though you have come through life to believe in certain causes and ideals you have ideas but are not "ideological", but if someone's ideals and ideas puts them somewhere on the left, they no longer have ideas but are instead "ideological"?

It's an idiotic labeling game, but then that's what a certain contingent likes to do. Can't argue in detail why someone's policy position is worse than one's own? Call them a socialist or a leftist and move on...








"Ideologue" typically means "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology".

Ideologue | Definition of Ideologue by Merriam-Webster

Yet I daresay that Warren could make her case on any political point infinitely better than you, and I say that even though I don't agree with much of what she says and definitely do not want her as president (though I'd easily take her over the orange lout). Or perhaps we could watch you try to teach one of her Harvard classes.

:lol:




Like her and her ideas, or not, she isn't blindly anything.

Then again those who defend Trump no matter what, those who love him for his claims to wealth but criticize Democrats for having any wealth, weeeeeeellll......

:shrug:
Click to expand...

It wasn't me who denied Liz was an ideologue. I know she either is, or is pretending to be, because her flavor of ideology is so au courant with her Party's real movers and shakers.

Harvard you say? I'd love to teach her woodshop class.

No problem with her wealth. Or Bernie's wealth. Or Soros' wealth. But what they do with it and what they say they want to do with yours is certainly worth examining ... doncha think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom