• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

ImTheCaptain said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Lol
 
PhDeac said:
You just said that.
Click to expand...

It’s ethical. It’s not my cup of tea and it goes explicitly against what the dude promised early in his campaign, but nobody mentioned ethics. Interesting you interpreted it that way.
 
TownieDeac said:
You know what else isn't "standing up to Trump"? Giving him his defense bill.

Also, it's centrists that keep bandying about this terminology about purity tests. What they refer to, of course, is ethical standards.
Click to expand...

What are “ethical standards” when it comes to fundraising for a political campaign? Is this some higher standard that politicians should be living up to other than the laws that are already in place?
 
Sure, the pledges you make and the words you use to describe how you fundraise.
 
That’s not an ethical standard attached to the act of fundraising, but to the actions of a particular individual in holding them to their word.

In terms of fundraising, do you find anything unethical about accepting large donations from the ultra wealthy for your campaign, assuming no rules are violated?
 
TownieDeac said:
Sure, the pledges you make and the words you use to describe how you fundraise.
Click to expand...

Even more important is if a candidate has a central issue to his/her campaign and changes their position during the campaign like Warren has done regarding M4A.
 
Les Grossman said:
That’s not an ethical standard attached to the act of fundraising, but to the actions of a particular individual in holding them to their word.

In terms of fundraising, do you find anything unethical about accepting large donations from the ultra wealthy for your campaign, assuming no rules are violated?
Click to expand...

No, and my original statement didn’t suggest that either. I just said you can’t brush off any complaint about a candidate as not meeting a purity test. I don’t like some positions some candidates have taken, and that’s not the same thing as establishing a purity test. It’s just having standards, some of which are ethical.
 
It's possible that the last 4 presidential elections could have had different results if the losing party had not nominated absolutely awful candidates....though I tend to think that Obama would have defeated any Republican in 2008 after 8 disastrous years of George W Bush. Still, it would have been hard for the losing party to nominate worse candidates than Kerry, McCain, Romney & Hillary.
 
FDDeacon said:
It's possible that the last 4 presidential elections could have had different results if the losing party had not nominated absolutely awful candidates....though I tend to think that Obama would have defeated any Republican in 2008 after 8 disastrous years of George W Bush. Still, it would have been hard for the losing party to nominate worse candidates than Kerry, McCain, Romney & Hillary.
Click to expand...

Who were the better candidates available in 08 and 12?
 
is it possible that firedepartmentdeac is bobknightfan here to tell us how much howard dean rules
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Who were the better candidates available in 08 and 12?
Click to expand...

As I said, it probably didn't matter who the Republicans nominated in 2008. Kerry's loss in 2004 giving Bush 4 more years to screw up everything he touched effectively made it impossible for any Republican to have won against any Democrat in that election. McCain sealed the deal, though, when he selected Sarah Palin as a running mate. As for 2012, I think either Jon Huntsman or Newt Gingrich would have been a better candidate than Romney. One was slightly left of center and one was slightly right of center. Romney was meaningless mush.
 
FDDeacon said:
As I said, it probably didn't matter who the Republicans nominated in 2008. Kerry's loss in 2004 giving Bush 4 more years to screw up everything he touched effectively made it impossible for any Republican to have won against any Democrat in that election. McCain sealed the deal, though, when he selected Sarah Palin as a running mate. As for 2012, I think either Jon Huntsman or Newt Gingrich would have been a better candidate than Romney. One was slightly left of center and one was slightly right of center. Romney was meaningless mush.
Click to expand...

Your assessment of both Hunstman and Gingrich make me question your analysis a bit. Palin sucks, but McCain seemed like an excellent candidate in 2008. Romney was also not a bad candidate in 2012. I would give the Obama campaigns a bit more credit that you seem willing to. Do you really believe that Gingrich or Huntsman beat Obama? Newt would look like Jabba the Hut on that debate stage regardless of what he was saying.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Your assessment of both Hunstman and Gingrich make me question your analysis a bit. Palin sucks, but McCain seemed like an excellent candidate in 2008. Romney was also not a bad candidate in 2012. I would give the Obama campaigns a bit more credit that you seem willing to. Do you really believe that Gingrich or Huntsman beat Obama? Newt would look like Jabba the Hut on that debate stage regardless of what he was saying.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with anything you say here, other than that I do think Romney was a bad candidate. Don't think McCain ever really had a chance, but his Palin pick and reaction to the October, 2008 financial crisis ended what little chance he ever had. And Obama ran an excellent campaign that energized his supporters and resulted in a record turnout. Romney was a bland guy who made a fortune closing down U.S. companies and sending American jobs overseas. That's not a very good resume for a presidential candidate.
 
Romney needed to fire people on a reality show.
 
Donald Trump is president. He is the most obviously grifty and corrupt, lack of knowledge, lack of learning, lack of spine, lack of hair, insecure, empty ill fitting suit fraudulent scam artist candidate who has ever sought the office.

Hillary Clinton was not a weak candidate, THAT is a weak candidate. People voted for him because they don’t think critically about jack shit because they’re weak, fearful, stupid and untalented and he spoke to that because he is that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top