• 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

I was bored today so I took one of those quizzes to figure out which candidate you identify with most. I wasn't very surprised with the results. Warren and Castro were at 95% with Bernie right behind at 94%. Biden came in at 89%. The only major surprise was Andrew Yang was at 81%. Surprising in that he was that low because I really like the guy.

Warren has been at the top of my list for the while but I think like most of us, it'll be whomever runs on the Democratic ticket.

Trump came in at 2%. I was disappointed that it was that high but it was things like support of nuclear energy and same sex marriage (which apparently Donald supports? That didn't seem right)
 
lokisapocalypse said:
I was bored today so I took one of those quizzes to figure out which candidate you identify with most. I wasn't very surprised with the results. Warren and Castro were at 95% with Bernie right behind at 94%. Biden came in at 89%. The only major surprise was Andrew Yang was at 81%. Surprising in that he was that low because I really like the guy.

Warren has been at the top of my list for the while but I think like most of us, it'll be whomever runs on the Democratic ticket.

Trump came in at 2%. I was disappointed that it was that high but it was things like support of nuclear energy and same sex marriage (which apparently Donald supports? That didn't seem right)
Click to expand...

Which test? Might be fun to see where everyone lines up.
 
The donald is not a real republican so things like support for same sex marriage is one of his... legacy... pov's.
 
PhDeac said:
But since we are stuck with the systems we have, I don’t see the problem with people going out and recruiting other people to make legal donations and the biggest fundraisers get a pizza party or fancy dinner at the end.
Click to expand...

or an ambassadorship or the ear of the most powerful person in the country

hey if trump's doing it we should too!
 
TownieDeac said:
or an ambassadorship or the ear of the most powerful person in the country

hey if trump's doing it we should too!
Click to expand...

Not what I said. Feel free to criticize Pete if his ambassador to the EU is some rich dope.
 
Strickland33 said:
Nurses can donate $2800 to a campaign? Link?

If Ph wants to throw his vote away, then that’s his right. I just hope he stans this hard for whoever gets the nomination.
Click to expand...

1) there are nurses who can afford to make $2800 donations. CRNA's, for example make like $170K a year in NC.
2) my point was that you appear to care, very much, whom Ph votes for.
 
PhDeac said:
Not what I said. Feel free to criticize Pete if his ambassador to the EU is some rich dope.
Click to expand...

I know it's not what you said, it's what I'm saying, because this is dismaying:

 
PhDeac said:
I have the same problem with bundlers fundraising for campaigns that I have with kids doing school fundraisers for prizes to pay for school resources. Government should pay for it.

But since we are stuck with the systems we have, I don’t see the problem with people going out and recruiting other people to make legal donations and the biggest fundraisers get a pizza party or fancy dinner at the end.
Click to expand...

So what’s the pizza party in this analogy?
 
deaconson said:
The donald is not a real republican so things like support for same sex marriage is one of his... legacy... pov's.
Click to expand...

He might not personally have a problem with it, but he's done everything possible to undermine it with his Supreme Court nominees. He also signed a ban on transgender people in the military (not the same as same sex marriage, but pandering to the same bigots who oppose it). Which plausible candidates don't outwardly support same sex marriage?
 
TownieDeac said:
I know it's not what you said, it's what I'm saying, because this is dismaying:

Click to expand...

That's a stupid criteria. There never has been and never will be a POTUS (at least until there are no nations) who doesn't rewards some donors with ambassadorships. If you believe Bernie or Warren won't do it, you are hopelessly naive.

It makes as much sense as saying nurses can't give $2800.
 
Unlike Pete, Bernie and Warren have actually stuck to their pledges this campaign. I absolutely believe they'll stop it, because one of the two of them has actually proposed legislation to stop it. Do you ever get tired of being ceaselessly wrong about every subject?
 
I definitely don't think it is naive to believe Bernie won't reward donors with ambassadorships. Not so sure about Warren. Either way, it seems like a pretty basic concept we should move towards.
 
TownieDeac said:
Unlike Pete, Bernie and Warren have actually stuck to their pledges this campaign. I absolutely believe they'll stop it, because one of the two of them has actually proposed legislation to stop it. Do you ever get tired of being ceaselessly wrong about every subject?
Click to expand...

You must believe in leprechauns riding unicorns to the city of gold where they eat with the Loch Ness Monster (who hides because he hates that name and is really a nice person).
 
deactherunner said:
He might not personally have a problem with it, but he's done everything possible to undermine it with his Supreme Court nominees. He also signed a ban on transgender people in the military (not the same as same sex marriage, but pandering to the same bigots who oppose it). Which plausible candidates don't outwardly support same sex marriage?
Click to expand...

Of course he has. He is pandering to the people that elected him. He does not have all the same beliefs they do. He just pretends to for his own ends. Having said that her certainly shares some views with his supporters like racism.

My only point is he was once a clinton supporter and those left leaning ideas (not sure I would call them beliefs since they change from moment to moment as needed to get a vote or justify a narrative) are bound to spill out now and then.
 
RJKarl said:
You must believe in leprechauns riding unicorns to the city of gold where they eat with the Loch Ness Monster (who hides because he hates that name and is really a nice person).
Click to expand...

Cool, so Warren will just outright go back on this section of her campaign website: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/campaign-finance-reform

Ban the Consideration of Campaign Donations in the Selection of Ambassadors. For decades, administrations of both political parties have appointed big donors and bundlers to ambassadorial posts around the world. These donors are usually not experts in the country, region, foreign policy, or anything else relevant to the job - but they are donors. I have pledged not to participate in this practice. My plan will make it the law by prohibiting campaign donations and political spending from being a consideration in the selection of an ambassador.

This section is good too:

In my campaign, I’ve pledged not to take money from federal lobbyists or PACs of any kind. Not to take contributions over $200 from fossil fuel or big pharma executives. Not to give ambassadorships to wealthy donors or bundlers. And I’m not doing call time with rich donors or giving special access to rich people in exchange for contributions to my campaign.

Today, I’m announcing that in addition to these policies, I’m not going to take any contributions over $200 from executives at big tech companies, big banks, private equity firms, or hedge funds. And when I’m the Democratic nominee for president, I’m not going to change a thing in how I run my campaign: No PACs. No federal lobbyists. No special access or call time with rich donors or big dollar fundraisers to underwrite my campaign.
 
Those are nice words. If you don't think there will be donors who get to be Ambassador to The Bahamas or Luxembourg or Vatican or other places, you are being naive. A big donor who has visited or has a home in Slovakia could be named as being "qualified" you are dreaming.

Of course, she will never have to worry about, because she isn't winning the nomination.
 
boy it's that precise level of cynicism that makes me want to get out of bed and vote for pete buttigieg
 
The idea that one can only truly vote for a candidate that “gets them excited “ is fascinating
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top