The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[TheSker]

22 minutes ago, deedsker said:

Actually, the comparison is administrative costs of business not operating expenditures. That is the point of the charity links. How well do they convert money into the states goal. If the goal is to find research, what present goes toward research, I.e. the first example of 40%. The government actually does A MORE efficient job by keeping ongoing and outgoing expenditures below 1%.

Operations are quite important.  Especially when you're voting to use a dollar that doesn't belong to you.

[Moiraine]

When people who want low taxes bring this up, they never seem to know how much is too much. They just think they're too high, always, and want them lower, always.

[Guy Chamberlin]

19 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Nah, it's not profound.  That's why it doesn't take me 3 paragraphs.

 

I very much appreciate your mix of humor with your viewpoint btw.  Truly.

 

Thanks!

[NM11046]

1 hour ago, deedsker said:

Actually, the comparison is administrative costs of business not operating expenditures. That is the point of the charity links. How well do they convert money into the states goal. If the goal is to find research, what present goes toward research, I.e. the first example of 40%. The government actually does A MORE efficient job by keeping ongoing and outgoing expenditures below 1%.

Figured I'd put this here ... good source to double check before you support any charity.  

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org

 

 

[Fru]

 

[deedsker]

Is it really breaking news if everyone already knew he was going to run?

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, Fru said:

 

So I'm interested in those of you who may be voting Dem would rank Booker in those who have announced.  Is he progressive enough?

[Fru]

53 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

So I'm interested in those of you who may be voting Dem would rank Booker in those who have announced.  Is he progressive enough?

 

I'm not a fan of Booker but if he ends up being the nominee, I'll vote for him. I don't like the dude, but I'm willing to recognize that a candidate I don't like is infinitely better than the current occupant of the Oval Office. 

[Ulty]

56 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

So I'm interested in those of you who may be voting Dem would rank Booker in those who have announced.  Is he progressive enough?

 

From what I have seen and heard from Booker over the last couple of years, I really like him. Although I can't recall the specifics of what I've heard, just impressions, so I am really looking forward to seeing him head to head with other Dems to see who stands out. I want a progressive candidate, but I don't know if "progressive enough" is the right question, as what we really need is competent leadership, honesty, and integrity. Eventually, someone is going to have to find a way to lead the way in terms of unity and compromise, although I don't know who will do that or how it is even possible at the moment. But I'm looking for a candidate that at least shares that value.

[Ulty]

Just now, Fru said:

 

I'm not a fan of Booker but if he ends up being the nominee, I'll vote for him. I don't like the dude, but I'm willing to recognize that a candidate I don't like is infinitely better than the current occupant of the Oval Office. 

 

What don't you like about him? I have positive impressions of him, but I need to replace feelings and impressions with actual knowledge.

[Fru]

11 minutes ago, Ulty said:

 

What don't you like about him? I have positive impressions of him, but I need to replace feelings and impressions with actual knowledge.

 

He takes more money from Wall St than anyone

https://www.wnyc.org/story/booker-gets-more-wall-street-any-house-senate-member/

 

He takes Big Pharma money

https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/02/01/cory-booker-2020-what-know-presidential-candidate/2738557002/

 

He takes Ivanka and Jared money

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/344819-booker-i-dont-regret-fundraising-with-jared-kushner-and-ivanka

 

It's difficult for me to take him seriously. But again if it ends up being him against Trump in 2020, I'd absolutely vote for him. An imperfect ally is better than a deadly enemy. 

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, Ulty said:

 

From what I have seen and heard from Booker over the last couple of years, I really like him. Although I can't recall the specifics of what I've heard, just impressions, so I am really looking forward to seeing him head to head with other Dems to see who stands out. I want a progressive candidate, but I don't know if "progressive enough" is the right question, as what we really need is competent leadership, honesty, and integrity. Eventually, someone is going to have to find a way to lead the way in terms of unity and compromise, although I don't know who will do that or how it is even possible at the moment. But I'm looking for a candidate that at least shares that value.

Regarding the bold, I think he is trying to put himself in the uniter role - willing to reach across the isle to get things done.  I think that is how he will set himself apart from the others in the race.  I don't believe he will make it all about being the anti-Trump.

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, TGHusker said:

So I'm interested in those of you who may be voting Dem would rank Booker in those who have announced.  Is he progressive enough?

Booker isn't progressive. He's a typical corporate Dem but with better charisma and a shorter, less high profile career than Hillary.

 

As each of the Dem candidates comes out in favor of various progressive ideas and policies, it'll be interesting to see which ones backtrack and how quickly. For example, Kamala Harris came out in strong support of Medicare-for-All and then backed away within days:

 

[Danny Bateman]

@Fru You pretty much nailed it. Well said my friend!

 

Booker would probably rank low-ish on my list of potential nominees, but I'd vote for literally any of them over Trump. Hell, I'd vote for Schultz or Bloomberg if they somehow ran as a Dem and got the nod (they won't). I'd vote for Oprah or the Rock if they ran against Trump.

 

Booker is fine and definitely has more bipartisan appeal than other potential nominees. But he's definitely more comfortable with big money interest groups, which I guess makes him more of a centrist since the GOP will take any money anyone throws at them, ever?

 

I'd definitely prefer someone more distrustful of corporations/special interests and more in favor of campaign finance reform, but he'd do in a general against the utterly embarrassing buffoon we have now.

[Fru]

1 minute ago, Clifford Franklin said:

@Fru You pretty much nailed it. Well said my friend!

 

Booker would probably rank low-ish on my list of potential nominees, but I'd vote for literally any of them over Trump. Hell, I'd vote for Schultz or Bloomberg if they somehow ran as a Dem and got the nod (they won't). I'd vote for Oprah or the Rock if they ran against Trump.

 

Booker is fine and definitely has more bipartisan appeal than other potential nominees. But he's definitely more comfortable with big money interest groups, which I guess makes him more of a centrist since the GOP will take any money anyone throws at them, ever?

 

I'd definitely prefer someone more distrustful of corporations/special interests and more in favor of campaign finance reform, but he'd do in a general against the utterly embarrassing buffoon we have now.

 

 

I'm glad to know I'm not alone with this sentiment. What kills me is I have acquaintances that are elated about Booker announcing yet they're simultaneously tearing down Kamala, Beto, Biden and Gillibrand for their past sins. It's baffling to me.