WRONG!!!
If you can't win, you don't fight to lose.
I've shown a rational way to get to universal coverage in a short period of time that is cost effective and won't scare tens of millions of people. Yet you and other extremists won't even discuss it.
You prove my point with almost every one of your posts. If you don't exactly what you want; how you exactly want it and immediately, you will take your ball and go home. While giving the finger to all those who won't do your bidding, even it means 50-60% of the federal judges for the prime of your life will be reactionary RWers. Even if it means a far right Supreme Court for the next 30+ years. Even if it means, turning back voting rights and civil rights for a generation or more. But that will show everyone!!!
Lots of interesting ideas here. There are no perfect tickets. Every combination will have plusses & minuses to be considered. This nation is hopelessly divided and I don't see anyone on either side who can unite the country in the current atmosphere. So the result is that this will be another close election that will come down to the same handful of states....mainly Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida & North Carolina. Ohio seems to be trending more & more Republican, and Virginia seems to be trending more & more Democratic. Democrats will think they have a shot in Arizona & Georgia and Republicans will think they have a shot in Minnesota, New Hampshire & Nevada.....but whoever can win the most EVs in those "Big 5" is most likely going to win the election.
Personally, if the goal is to defeat Trump and win the election, I think a Biden/Harris ticket would cover the most bases.
Townie, Castro should have run vs. Cornyn in 2014 then run for President in 2016. He would have been the next Obama.
I think Adams may be more likely than Harris due to CA being a lock and GA (hopefully the racist, immoral cutting of the voter rolls will be overturned) getting into play.
If you feel that strongly about Stacey Abrams it looks like you would at least know her name. In any event, I feel that Kamala Harris would be a much better VP candidate than Stacey Abrams....for several reasons. 1) Harris is more photogenic. Ridicule that if you wish, but it would be a factor. 2) Harris is better known. The fact that you didn't even know Abrams' name is a testament to that. 3) Harris is better qualified to become president, which would be an important factor when paired with what would be a 78-year old President Biden.
just when i feel like we've made progress as a civilization, a dude called "FDDeacon" posts that Harris is a better VP candidate because she's more photogenic
It's called living in the real world.
If trump wasn't enough in 2016, then what makes you think that he's enough now?
Bernie or Warren's.
it's called misogyny
If you feel that strongly about Stacey Abrams it looks like you would at least know her name. In any event, I feel that Kamala Harris would be a much better VP candidate than Stacey Abrams....for several reasons. 1) Harris is more photogenic. Ridicule that if you wish, but it would be a factor. 2) Harris is better known. The fact that you didn't even know Abrams' name is a testament to that. 3) Harris is better qualified to become president, which would be an important factor when paired with what would be a 78-year old President Biden.
I'm telling you it has to be Biden. He would play the best in the must-get states (MI, WI, PA, et al) and is middle of the road enough to not scare off moderate/independents like some of the more progressive candidates might. Do you really need someone to "fire up the base"? Isn't Trump enough? If not, then you deserve what you get.
No matter how many times you stress it, it doesn't make it less idiotic.fuck...and i cannot stress this enough...moderates and independents who'd be scared off by anybody the dems nominate