Jump to content
Tweety Tweety (Member) Expert Nurse

Presidential Election 2020

Politics   (1,419,697 Views 1,641 Comments)
6 Followers; 54,223 Visitors; 29,820 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 4 of Presidential Election 2020. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

11 minutes ago, BCgradnurse said:

Agreed.  I watched the interview and liked some of his ideas.  He seems to be a smart man who has done well with his businesses.  However, we've already seen what happens when an allegedly brilliant businessperson gets the top jobs as first foray into public service.  Let's not make the same mistake twice.

If by some chance he becomes president, I wouldn't liken it to making the same mistake twice.  I think he would appoint wiser people to advise him, wouldn't vilify established institutions like the CIA and FBI, would not call the media "fake news", wouldn't lie daily.  Just can't compare the the two.  It's kind of like comparing Charles Manson with Mother Theresa, the two are just a gazillion miles apart that they just can't be compared.  

 But I see the point.

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tweety said:

So far what Fox News can dig up on him is he sold a Seattle Sports team to another city.  Which is better than coming up with a tape that shows him saying "grab 'em by the ***" or paying off porn stars he's committed adultery with, but I'm sure they'll keep digging.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/howard-schultz-expresses-regret-over-selling-seattle-supersonics-to-okc-group

He's taking heat for proposing "Medicare For All" so if someone like him runs he will be called a socialist wanting "government controlled medicine", blah blah blah.  Plus there's the outrage that Starbucks is not Christian enough for people and they say "Happy Holidays".

He has a brain and he's successful and his business practices such as making sure his employees have health care, providing opportunities for education, etc. give him some respect in my book.  

But I do understand that the Presidency shouldn't be an entry level position for a rich businessperson.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/howard-schultz-medicare-for-all-cnntv/index.html

Actually, the heat he is taking is for not supporting Medicare for All.

“He argued that the Democratic progressive platform of providing Medicare, free college education and jobs for everyone is costly and as "false as President Trump telling the American people when he was running for president that the Mexicans were going to pay for the wall."

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/howard-schultz-medicare-for-all-cnntv/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

He isn’t the perfect candidate, but there is enough good things he says that I would listen to hear what else he has to offer.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected and my post makes no sense and not even sure what I meant now.

I believe the Democrat stance is still affordable healthcare for all, not medicare for all, and those that campaign on that will be accused of wanting "socialized medicine", "government controlled healthcare" etc. and will find it difficult.  It's more the Democrat Socialist ideal from people like Sanders and Jayapal.

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that an all out attack has begun on Schultz.  Including some talk of a boycott of Starbucks.  CNN reportedly had five hit pieces on him this week.

Evidently their is fear that he will siphon off more Democrat votes then Republican.  He seems pretty centrist to me and for me hard to say at this point which side he would take more votes from.

I wonder if those with that fear realize that if the electoral college goes away like many liberals want, that legitimate third party (and more) candidates will become more frequent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SC_RNDude said:

It seems that an all out attack has begun on Schultz.  Including some talk of a boycott of Starbucks.  CNN reportedly had five hit pieces on him this week.

Evidently their is fear that he will siphon off more Democrat votes then Republican.  He seems pretty centrist to me and for me hard to say at this point which side he would take more votes from.

I wonder if those with that fear realize that if the electoral college goes away like many liberals want, that legitimate third party (and more) candidates will become more frequent?

An all out attack, eh?

Wealthy political novices should expect that they will be scrutinized from every direction as they seek positions for which they are unqualified.  Perhaps they believe their wealth or privilege should shield them from difficult questions or opposing opinions? 

In reality, an all out attack looks more like the efforts to discredit AOC or Clinton, complete with fabricated personal attacks and nicely edited media. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

An all out attack, eh?

Wealthy political novices should expect that they will be scrutinized from every direction as they seek positions for which they are unqualified.  Perhaps they believe their wealth or privilege should shield them from difficult questions or opposing opinions? 

In reality, an all out attack looks more like the efforts to discredit AOC or Clinton, complete with fabricated personal attacks and nicely edited media. 

 

Completely agree.

Just because someone is wealthy, they should have NO expectation that they are uniquely qualified to be POTUS.

None.

They should expect their views, finances, history and businesses to be scrutinized.

That is what a free and open press does in a democracy.

These are not "hit" pieces as Dude suggested.

I welcome a hard look at all potential and actual candidates.

What is dude afraid of?

Is he afraid Schultz can't withstand a little sunlight?

Why the need to attack the press, when it is doing its job?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2019 at 10:24 AM, Horseshoe said:

I'm absolutely disgusted that the RNC has backed Trump.

If the Democrats don't come up with some very strong leadership with broad appeal, they are going to lose again.

There is still so much sexism in the USA right now (and some of the worse offenders are women), I'm not sure any female candidate could win the Presidential election right now. The Democrats may be shooting themselves in the foot if they put forward a female or far left liberal candidate of either gender.

In 1984, when we had the Olympics here, Kamala Harris was 20 years old and dated the then San Francisco Mayor, Willie Brown. He and his wife had been separated and most people assumed they were divorced. She was a single undergrad at Howard University, probably home with her parents for the summer. 

According to this site she is being attacked 

https://www.mediamatters.org/print/782736 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And does dude think CNN floated the idea of a Starbucks boycott?

That idea is coming from elements within the political machine.

Of course, any good media outlet would report on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, herring_RN said:

In 1984, when we had the Olympics here, Kamala Harris was 20 years old and dated the then San Francisco Mayor, Willie Brown. He and his wife had been separated and most people assumed they were divorced. She was a single undergrad at Howard University, probably home with her parents for the summer. 

According to this site she is being attacked 

https://www.mediamatters.org/print/782736 

Yeah. Big yawn.

But please wake me up, if tape emerges of the Senator bragging about grabbing men by their d**ks.

I might care about that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot remember any presidential candidate who was not criticized and attacked for actual or perceived actions and omissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides her sleeping to the top which does seem to be a non-issue at this point, from Sarah Palin's site:  Kamala Harris: No, You Can’t Keep Your Own Doctor…Or Your Guns…Or Your Wall

This is more in line with what progressives are going to hear from the right.  They probably don't care she slept with someone, obviously if they voted for President that committed adultery....but go after their guns, talk about "socialized medicine" and now the wall, and you're going to hear that over and over again.

https://www.governorpalin.org/2019/01/29/kamala-harris-no-cant-keep-doctor-guns-wall/?fbclid=IwAR3aZsoFavOR1L9fy2G9xJgaRTw4fGnO0YEH3Vsimktf_7bMVfD68nIKUbw

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

Completely agree.

Just because someone is wealthy, they should have NO expectation that they are uniquely qualified to be POTUS.

None.

They should expect their views, finances, history and businesses to be scrutinized.

That is what a free and open press does in a democracy.

These are not "hit" pieces as Dude suggested.

I welcome a hard look at all potential and actual candidates.

What is dude afraid of?

Is he afraid Schultz can't withstand a little sunlight?

Why the need to attack the press, when it is doing its job?

 

Relatively speaking, yes it is a all out attack.  He has only said he is thinking of running.

i don’t know anyone who has suggested that he shouldn’t be scrutinized because he is wealthy.  

Yes, political candidates should be scrutinized.  Of course, excptions are made for favorites. Obama the candidate wasn’t.  It seems the current VA governor wasn’t  vetted very well by the press.  WaPo even endorsed him.

What am I afraid of?  I’m not sure what I would be.  I’m confused by that question,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.