Nominations for potential leaders for the Democratic Party.

Dems should plan to run a corpse in 2020 since most of their so called leaders will be dead or senile by then. Amazing how they think Bernie is immortal.

 

If the Dems ever get their heads out of their tailpipes and discover Tulsi Gabbard, the Republicans could be in serious trouble.

 

I'm pretty fed up with the Democrats at this point. They seem to be living in a bubble, unable to see how they lost the election. Dems need a major overhaul: get rid of the stagnant thinking, and the old nags like Wasserman-Shultz and Hillary and Nancy Pelosi, and a gaggle of others.

Worse, yet, Hillary is starting to make noises. If she runs again, it will assure another GOP win. I wish she'd take Bildo's hand and walk into the sunset, never to be heard from again.

Honestly, at this point, Daffy Duck would be an improvement as party leader.

 

Democratic National Committee: We Had ‘Legal Right’ To Rig 2016 Primaries
The lawsuit, filed against the Democratic National Committee, and its former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, by Bernie Sanders donors reveals the DNC believes its own rules of impartiality don’t apply, and they can pick whatever candidate they wish.
By Matt Agorist | May 4, 2017

Former Chair of the Democratic National Committee and U.S. Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz is interviewed by Maria Bartiromo during her “Mornings with Maria” program, on the Fox Business Network, in New York Monday, March 21, 2016.

Last year, the political election process exposed Americans to more corruption and vote rigging than at any time in their history. Now, a recent lawsuit has exposed that this corruption and fraud is actually standard operating procedure.

The lawsuit, filed against the Democratic National Committee, and its former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, by Bernie Sanders donors reveals the DNC believes its own rules of impartiality don’t apply, and they can pick whatever candidate they wish.

“We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,” DNC’s lawyer Bruce Spiva told a Florida court.

The lawsuit, originally filed in June, accuses the DNC and its former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz of seven different violations, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and negligence.

As RT reports,



“People paid money in reliance on the understanding that the primary elections for the Democratic nominee—nominating process in 2016 were fair and impartial,” the plaintiff’s lawyer Jared Beck said. “And that’s not just a bedrock assumption that we would assume just by virtue of the fact that we live in a democracy, and we assume that our elections are run in a fair and impartial manner.”

“But that’s what the Democratic National Committee’s own charter says. It says it in black and white.”

However, as the Free Thought Project pointed out last year, impartiality was nowhere to be found.

Beginning in Iowa and eventually getting blown wide open in Arizona, the fraud and suppression of votes quickly let Americans know that the DNC was set in their rigging ways.

Examples of this fraud were captured on video, documented on paper, and even broadcast live on television.

The defendants, in their motion to dismiss the lawsuit, argued that a judge cannot determine how the DNC carries out its nomination process, noting that it would “drag the Court right into the political squabbles.”

However, Judge Zlock responded by saying, “So you are suggesting that this is just part of the business, so to speak, that it’s not unusual for, let’s say, the DNC, the RNC to take sides with respect to any particular candidate and to support that candidate over another?”

And that is exactly what voters witnessed last year.

The mainstream media was even complicit in the selection of Hillary Clinton over Sanders. As the Free Thought Project reported last year, a firestorm exploded when the AP abruptly announced Clinton had garnered sufficient delegates and superdelegates to clinch the nomination — before California even held its primary. Irate voters justifiably condemned the inexplicable announcement as premature, especially in light of California polls showing Clinton outpaced by or neck and neck with Bernie Sanders.

Whether or not the judge will rule to dismiss the case remains unknown. However, if it does go to court, Wasserman Schultz and others would be forced to give depositions. And, during these depositions, evidence from WikiLeaks, Guccifer and others will be presented.

Make no mistake, the DNC admitting to having the right to rig the 2016 democratic primary is just the tip of the iceberg. If this goes to trial, America will see even more of the dark underbelly that is the American election process.





The Democrats are in big trouble. Before they find a "leader", they need to drain their swamp. How could anyone be a Democrat today? It is nothing but corruption all the time.

 

Frankly I think so as well but at least he can play an important role in choosing the next DNC leaders.

 

Well, John Wayne Gacey's dead, Jeffery Dauhmer got killed in prison, Charles Manson died, so they're left with Al Sharpton. What's the name of the leader of ISIS? He would be absolutely perfect, nobody else is as representative of the Democratic Party's base. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has great name recognition, great choice for the VP slot with Good ole Al.

 

I agree with your post, except for the fact that Trump is so bad that a Democrat may win by default in 2020. It's like 2008 when pretty much ANY Democrat was going to win the presidency, even Hillary Clinton would have won.

But that said, the Democrats are in real bad shape right now. The only thing saving them is that Trump and the GOP are so hideously incompetent.

 

Actually, that's my prediction for the next Republican president. I mean, why not? Some bloated Reality T.V. star with zero political experience was elected by GOP voters, why not Nugent?

 

It seems so strange that they cannot admit that Hillary almost had no chance whatsoever.

Somewhere around ten times as many people were showing up to Donald Trump rallies than would bother going to hers or even Bernie's.

 

I'd like to see Hillary in the lead.

She should take it from the others who might run.

 

True Christians cannot support war, yet the Christian Right fundamentalists keep voting for warmonger politicians. Abortion is a minor issue compared to war.

 

This past election it was the dems that have become the war hawks.


I keep reading random articles about up and coming dems and I've never heard of any of them. The only dem under 60 with any name recognition is Corey Booker and I have a hard time believing he will run in 2020.

Do the dems have any bench at all? Anyone that could possibly be ready to be the face of a party that's honestly in as much public perception trouble as the GOP?

While you may hate their politics, the GOP has several younger contenders waiting in the wings and I see nothing of the sort from the left.

 

The "wars" the democrats were involved in were all wars that were started by Republicans under G.W. Bush. The Democrats inherited those wars along with a badly crippled economy. Trump pretended to be against foreign involvement during the campaign, but as President, has repeatedly offended our closest allies, and shared classified secrets with Russians in the Oval Office, and made hollow threats against North Korea and ISIS. Trump seems pretty hawkish toward ISIS and North Korea, but has some kind of internal problem finding any fault with Putin or Russia. That attitude in our President is a definite danger, for it ignores the activities of Russian intrusion into our internal affairs, and fails to live up to his oath to protect this nation.

You're right, the Democrats have a leadership problem. New blood is needed, along with new ideas and new spokesmen and women. Hopefully, those will appear over the next couple of years.

 

Dems want war with Russia for some reason. Dems want more US involvement in the middle East, specifically Syria.

Say what you will about Trump not living up his promises to stay away from Syria, but at worst, he's doing what Hillary campaigned on doing.

 

Trump will win in 2020. Pence will run in 2024. The race will be an affirmation, or condemnation of the Trump years.

He should win in a landslide.

 

President Obama consciously stayed away from Syria as much as possible, for there were no combatants involved in that civil war who he could rely on as an ally. Republicans often harassed Obama for being "weak" on Syria. As a Democrat, I have always agreed with Obama about Syria. There's nobody there to side with who would be a friend in peace following the war. Obama could see no "good" ending for America no matter what side it took there. He was right. As a Democrat, I'm totally opposed to American involvement in Syria. I was also totally opposed to the war in Iraq, which was based on complete fabrications. As a Democrat, and an American and a human being, I certainly want no war with Russia, for the end result would be the total annihilation of both countries. Nothing about confronting Russia is worth that risk.

 

1. I wasn't talking about Obama.

2. Obama was so uninterested in Syria is set his, now infamous, red line. The one that was stepped over with zero repercussions from the US. While I want nothing to do with Syria, Russia can have that wasteland, it hurt the US to be seen as too weak to enforce our own demands.

3. Democrats were right in line with the GOP for war in Iraq. They only changed their mind when it stopped being popular.

 

You're right that Democrats supported entering the war in Iraq. They believed the propaganda about Saddam developing atomic weapons. I feel they changed their minds when those weapons were never found and they realized they'd been duped by the Bush administration. I am a registered Democrat, but I never supported the Iraqi invasion. Bush and his minions were claiming that Al Qaeda and Saddam were working together planning terrorist attacks against the U.S. I knew this was a lie, for Osama bin Laden would never have walked in the same room with the heretic Saddam, much less have a working relationship with him. I figured if Bush lied about that, he was probably lying about atomic weapons in Iraq to gain public support as well. I was strongly opposed to the Iraqi war from before the invasion. I also opposed any talk or consideration of future wars debated during the 2016 Presidential campaign. I still do.

 

I don't remember Bush ever saying Al Qaeda and Iraq were connected but I could be wrong. I was still active duty and more concerned with what was immediately around me.

Look up pictures of captured Iraqis during the initial invasion. You will see that most are carrying gas masks. I will see if I can find the guys name again, but a SEAL that was literally one of the first Americans in Iraq said the same thing. Iraqi soldiers had gas masks and other chemical warfare protective gear and it was maintained better than their vehicles and weapons.

Whether Iraq has WMDs or not, the soldiers there most certainly thought they did, and expected them to be used.

 

Very good points Jimmy79!

What do you personally think of this case?

In my opinion........ supporting this case fully would be one of the best possible ways for the USA Democratic Party to get cleaned up in the eyes of many Americans.

Should Lieutenant Clint Lorance be released?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/should-lieutenant-clint-lorance-be-released.507271/

 

Bush, Republicans, and Democrats all said at one point that Saddam was linked to ALQ/terrorism. There were rumors that he paid families of suicide bombers 25K each. I think that was proven to be false.

 

This thread missed a good one. Tulsi Gabbard. I hope she gains more attention with the dems.

 

Whichever anti-American the libs try to prop up will lose anyway because the left have exposed themselves for who they truly are.

 

I think that you are correct.... I believe that President Trump will win a huge
majority in 2020.

http://warriorsinternational.com/info/donald-trump-a-prophet-in-the-making-by-reeni-mederos/

 

From what I have heard about her.... she would be able to begin a clean up of the Democratic Party.