HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Joseph Kennedy lll in 202...

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:26 AM

Joseph Kennedy lll in 2020






Gray hair is not a prerequisite for the president, neither is orange hair but I digress. His earnestness, fundamental decency, and commitment to liberal values is evocative of his grandfather, Robert Kennedy. He offers the promise of his uncle Ted without the baggage of Chappaquiddick , womanizing, and hard partying. "His reputation as a teetotaler earned him the college nickname Milkman."

63 replies, 22397 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply Joseph Kennedy lll in 2020 (Original post)
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 OP
Vinca Mar 2017 #1
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #2
TexasTowelie Mar 2017 #4
Chasstev365 Mar 2017 #3
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #5
ehrnst Mar 2017 #16
Motley13 Mar 2017 #11
CTyankee Mar 2017 #36
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #6
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #7
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #8
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #9
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #15
ehrnst Mar 2017 #14
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #18
ehrnst Mar 2017 #25
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #30
ehrnst Mar 2017 #38
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #43
ehrnst Mar 2017 #47
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #48
ehrnst Mar 2017 #50
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #54
ehrnst Mar 2017 #58
ehrnst Mar 2017 #13
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #17
ehrnst Mar 2017 #39
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #44
ehrnst Mar 2017 #51
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #55
USALiberal Mar 2017 #33
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #34
ehrnst Mar 2017 #40
stonecutter357 Mar 2017 #10
ehrnst Mar 2017 #12
jimlup Mar 2017 #19
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #20
gordianot Mar 2017 #21
nocalflea Mar 2017 #22
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #23
uponit7771 Mar 2017 #24
nocalflea Mar 2017 #26
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #28
uponit7771 Mar 2017 #29
ehrnst Mar 2017 #41
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #45
ehrnst Mar 2017 #46
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #49
ehrnst Mar 2017 #52
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #56
ehrnst Mar 2017 #57
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #62
Starry Messenger Mar 2017 #27
brooklynite Mar 2017 #31
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #32
brooklynite Mar 2017 #35
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2017 #37
kerry-is-my-prez Mar 2017 #42
GitRDun Mar 2017 #53
Fast Walker 52 Mar 2017 #59
GitRDun Mar 2017 #63
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #60
NurseJackie Mar 2017 #61

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:28 AM

1. Democrats need to get him out there.

He does have the "it" factor, but what else has he got? No one knows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:31 AM

2. He has a commitment to liberal values which he is able to articulate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:31 AM

4. He has been showing up on the radar recently.

I've posted a few threads about him in the Massachusetts Group that are worth reading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:31 AM

3. Possible VP candidate

 

He is a bright star for the future but it would be too soon and too fast to launch his own presidential campaign. He's only a freshman congressman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:37 AM

5. Youth and wisdom are not mutually exclusive.

Reminds me of what Chris Matthews said in 08 about it being Barack Obama's time. The only thing he would get by staying longer in the Senate is grayer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 09:00 AM

16. However, youth and long experience are.

 

Don't diss experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:51 AM

11. Obama was only in the senate 3 years

& that is what they said about him.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 06:40 PM

36. Let's see what happens. He made a good start. He is promising...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:39 AM

6. Dynasty wasn't even a very good television show.

It's a terrible principle by which to run Democracies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:40 AM

7. Maybe we need more "rags to riches" stories like Donald Thump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:42 AM

8. No, but Barack Obama and, even Bill Clinton both came out of nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:46 AM

9. That argument was made about Ted Kennedy in first Senate run.

His opponent asked if his name was Edward Moore would he even be running.

The young man has "it." No need to punish him for his last name.


Have you seen him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 09:00 AM

15. Suggesting that we've gotten some of our best recent leadership where people might not

have expected to find it, with life stories or characteristics that party conventional wisdom at the time deemed "unelectable", is not "the same argument". Not at all.

Rather it's a vindication, to my mind, of both the best values our party aspires to as well as actual American meritocracy in action.

But, I digress. I assure you I have no interest in punishing this young man for his last name. He doesn't get any bonus points from me for it, either, but I'd certainly give him just as much chance as I would anyone else. Hey- If he can lead, fucking AWESOME.

I admit I get a bit frustrated, around here, with this sort of magical thinking infecting some in our party that if we just could plug in the right set of variables, we could staple together the ideal Democratic Candidate, like Frankenstein's monster assembled on a slab. You know, the exact right percentages of looks and connections and geography and... whatever. Add to that the sort of almost OCD idea that having a magic last name on the ballot will translate into electoral victory.

To my mind, you don't list the requirements and then go searching for the perfect homunculous to slap up there on the stage and cash in the requisite votes. Leadership is an organic phenomenon. We need someone who can inspire, who can lead, and that may end up being a Millennial Kennedy or it may end up being the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, with the funny name. I don't know.

But I promise, if it comes up, I will give this dude a chance. While I'm not a fan of the one who is on the anti-marijuana legalization crusade, as a general point of politics I harbor no ill will towards the Kennedy family, believe me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:58 AM

14. Do you think that should be a qualification for running?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #14)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 09:04 AM

18. No.

But I take issue with the idea that we need some magic formula, or secret sauce, to win elections.

Actually, we do need a special ingredient- just one- and that's real, organic, inspirational and brave leadership.

If this guy's got it, awesome. No, I wouldn't disqualify him for his name. My point is, I don't give a shit about the name. The best leadership I've seen in the past month came from a guy I'd never heard of before, named "Buttigeig".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #18)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 10:36 AM

25. You gave a great description of what is enough for an activist, or leader of a movement.

 

But politics is another thing. There is a huge amount of administrative work, as well as public management involved in effective governing. Understanding when you don't know enough about one of the many, many different aspects of public policy administration and budgeting, and where to find expertise on it is vital. The ability to change direction on policy when you get evidence that doesn't support your first idea on it is also desirable, but, as we have seen - isn't something that is valued in a presidential candidate.

Charisma and bravery are not enough for effective leadership in public office. There is the ability to work in teams, to compromise when needed, and a deep understanding of the legislative process. The ability to truly listen is as important as issuing visionary speeches, and that skill is often lacking in young, especially male, politicians.

Trump supporters made the mistake of thinking that all that was needed to lead effectively in office was to be charismatic, inspirational, and 'brave' enough to "buck the establishment."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 04:39 PM

30. That guy (Trump) is not charismatic, inspirational, nor is he a natural leader.

I have no doubt that everything else you say is true- certainly leaders need to be able to work with others and compromise. If your takeaway from my prior post was that the ONLY thing we need in leaders is the ability to lead, that is an oversimplification. Obviously they need to be able to delegate, administrate, compromise, and understand how the system works.

But that wasn't really the point under debate; rather, it is about the concept of political dynasties themselves, which frankly to my mind seem to echo our human history of monarchal rule, or maybe it reflects something even deeper in the primate/mammalian social group heirarchy, where we're wired to think that the offspring of the pack leader will somehow do a similar job.

Either way, to your point, if "the ability to listen is often lacking in young, male, politicians", is the argument here that it's somehow any less lacking if the young male politician's last name is "Kennedy"?

Because that was really the only point of discussion in the the subthread from my perspective. Look, I don't want to debate this round and round, in fact I think I can make my sole, singular dynasty vs. meritocracy point here perfectly effectively using only three words.

Clinton. Bush. Obama.


I rest my case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 12:32 PM

38. Because she had the last name Clinton, she didn't merit the office?

 

Makes as much sense as your statement as if "the ability to listen is often lacking in young, male, politicians", is the argument here that it's somehow any less lacking if the young male politician's last name is "Kennedy"?



Straw man much? I think you are lacking in your comprehension of my positions - that experience is neccessary in a leader, despite their age or their last name. I don't think young Mr Kennedy is ready for the WH, because of inexperience, and I'm certainly not going to dismiss him when he gets some experience because his name is Kennedy.

It's as pointless to dismiss HRC or Chelsea because of her last name as well. When the last name determines if you support them or not as a leader, that is as much folly as supporting a candidate because he is a man, or because of their religion.

Is that clearer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #38)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 04:02 PM

43. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were both complete products of meritocracy, as much as such a thing is

possible.

George W. Bush was a textbook example of a political dynasty in action.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #43)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 05:07 PM

47. So you're saying Yes, because of her last name, HRC was not running on merit. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #47)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 05:16 PM

48. If i had ten bucks for every time someone did the "So you're saying..." followed by something

I never said, I'd have a butt-ton of money.

I haven't mentioned HRC once in this thread. Is that why you're so worked up, here? Take a breath.

Hillary Rodham achieved national prominence well before her husband did, actually. No one could- and I certainly would not- accuse her of not having natural brains and chops in spades. Okay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #48)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 05:26 PM

50. You omitted her in your list of those who merited office. Your post - right up there...

 

I'm assuming you think that RFK and Ted Kennedy should not have been running for office, "Dynasty being a bad TV show, and a worse way to run democracies."

Or have you changed your mind in this thread from the time of that post?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #50)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 06:46 PM

54. Jesus fuck. The fact that you have to construct arguments Ive never made, here

To battle against--- Should be a giant red flag.

"so you're saying that--" "I'm assuming that--"




Maybe go back and read my actual posts, you know, the words, and look for where I said anything about a "list of those that merited office". i didnt put FDR on that "list", either... does that mean I think the new deal was a bad idea?

No, rather than making any sort of comprehensive "list of those that merited office", I was merely comparing the three presidents we had, immediately prior to the cheetoh nightmare we've got now. Two came from scrappy, anonymous, middle class obscurity, and one was the product of a political dynasty.

Understand, now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #54)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 07:52 AM

58. Perfectly. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:55 AM

13. So we disqualify him automatically on the basis of his family tree? That's democracy?

 

That sounds pretty dynastic to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 09:02 AM

17. Look, man, anyone who knows me knows how hard it is to get me to shut up.

If I wanted to say that - the words you tried to put into my mouth - I would have actually said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 12:37 PM

39. That is the effect of your point, isn't it? Whether you put it that way or not.

 

Excluding someone for being a leader because of ancestry, rather than judging them on the basis of merit is exactly the opposite of meritocracy.

It's like excluding someone for being female, instead of judging them on merit. Or having black ancestry.


That's not meritocracy - you have created that binary; either you vote for someone with a family history in politics or you vote on merit, can't be both if you vote for anyone named Kennedy or Clinton.

You have expressed no middle ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 04:04 PM

44. I've said repeatedly in this thread I'm not "excluding" anyone.

You seem desperately to want to have some other, unrelated fights here, for some odd reason. Maybe you should do some thinking as to why, exactly, that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 05:27 PM

51. So you've changed your mind since the "Dynasty was a bad TV show...."

 

I must have missed when you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #51)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 06:49 PM

55. If Joe Kennedy III is really all that, i will gladly suppport the guy.

Frankly I think we're well overdue for some leaders from the other end of the country, though, myself. Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris spring to mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 05:57 PM

33. Wow, what an odd response. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to USALiberal (Reply #33)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 06:15 PM

34. ...is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #34)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 12:39 PM

40. Yes. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:51 AM

10. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 08:54 AM

12. He's good, but he's got time to build the resume. And we need him where he is right now. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 09:09 AM

19. My problem with him is that - as I understand

he is an anti-vaccer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimlup (Reply #19)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 09:20 AM

20. That's his first cousin once removed Robert Kennedy Jr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 09:33 AM

21. We do owe Donald Trump a debt of gratitude.

He has proven that anyone can become President even if you have liabilities that suggest you belong in an asylum. One quality for Mr. Kennedy having lived in the Kennedy spotlight his entire life with that name and managing to being a teatotaler is extraordinary. Could history repeat itself another star born of a convention speech? What I would look for in a President is someone who can multi task, hire the right people, deliver a progressive message, listen to experience with judgement and is willing and able to do the job for 8 years. Age requirements are set, there is talent and tradition in his family. As to experience name another job that compares, it is certainly not con artist-traitor. This will be Mr.Kennedy's choice let him make the call but do not draft him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 09:56 AM

22. Anyone who doesn't think his family's history

won't be used against him is naive. He will be cast as someone who believes he is entitled to the office because of family name/history.There will be alot of resentment towards him because of this, whether it's fair or not.(Do not underestimate the family baggage he brings with him.He will be pummeled with it ).

I don't know much about the guy. Mine , is a wait and see attitude. Who knows where the next great democratic hope will emerge from ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nocalflea (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 10:00 AM

23. You mean the family history of giving three lives in service to their nation ?

And John Kennedy is one of the most popular American presidents, up there with Jefferson, Washington, Roosevelt, and Lincoln.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nocalflea (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 10:02 AM

24. I hope it is, it'll tie him to good people... Benedict Donald is tied to a white supremacist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 10:37 AM

26. This is about a general election. The Kennedy

family was not/is not universally loved. Not everyone thinks they were good people. If only democrats voted , Trump would not be president .Consider the larger picture. (I have my doubts about Trump even making it to 2020.If he does , we're in big trouble. )

Just trying to be realistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nocalflea (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 10:44 AM

28. No politician, living or dead, is universally loved.

That being said John Kennedy's presidency is viewed more favorably than most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nocalflea (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 10:44 AM

29. Hmmmm, then we're making the mistake of proffering the perfect while they proffer the horrible

... its not like people care about a person background related to politics over economics.

Its economic message first everything else is second...

No on is going to be perfect, our economic message must be populist ... we find a common scapegoat in Russia and the Bankers and we turn out 5 to one in the trump voting red states

... then we win

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nocalflea (Reply #22)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 12:41 PM

41. Yep - people will accuse him of being part of a "dynasty" some of whom died before he was born

 

By people in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #41)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 04:18 PM

45. Okay, let me play the devil's advocate for a minute, here, then-

if we fast-track this young man in the express lane to a prominent place of party leadership, as some here seem to be suggesting--

how, precisely, do you think such a thing will play to Mr. and Mrs. Ralph and Alice Middle America, when the Republicans come around telling them that the Democratic Party is a "private club run by a clique of insider elites, that you could never hope to belong to"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #45)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 05:03 PM

46. Um... I'm not one of those people suggesting that we "fast-track" him.

 

Perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #46)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 05:18 PM

49. And I'm not suggesting we exclude him.

Like I said, I don't care if our next generation of leadership has the last name Kennedy, or Buttigeig. Personally, from what I've seen, Buttigeig has a lot to offer. Maybe Joe Kennedy III does, too. I will wait and see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #49)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 05:28 PM

52. So you've changed your mind since the "Dynasty was a bad TV show...."

 

post?

I missed that....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #52)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 06:51 PM

56. Nope.

It was a bad tv show. The same sort of middlebrow network inanity eaten up by the same people who today think "the big bang theory" is the height of witty brilliant writing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #56)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 07:51 AM

57. Smokescreen....

 

If you changed your mind, you should just own it. Contrary to what you may have been told, changing your mind about something after you have discussed it with someone with a different POV isn't heresy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #57)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 08:19 AM

62. I didn't change my mind. I said "Dynasties are a terrible principle by which to run democracies"

And I think that is a fairly self-evident truth, actually.

(I guess you got tired and gave up trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say to argue against, so now you're doing the "declare victory and go home" shtick. Ok, well, have fun.)

I hate to have to repeat myself, but I'll do it- I think it's pretty damn obvious that some peoples' reflexive desires to 'go there' in terms of dynastic rule dates back to monarchal eras or even earlier sort of primate pack behaviors, shit, I'm sure it's hard wired in the social mammalian brain. You probably see dogs doing similar stuff, in the wild, I'd imagine.

Does that mean that there NEVER can be a good or wise or effective leader who comes from a family of other good or wise or effective leaders? Fuck, no. And just like sometimes an actor's kid can make it in Hollywood more effectively because they're connected and know how the business works, I'm sure it even sometimes makes good sense.

But personally, I don't give anyone any extra points if their last name is "Kennedy", and frankly when I see people in our party operating under what appears to be the magical thinking, delusional belief that what is keeping us from winning isn't inspirational leaders who aren't afraid to lead, to articulate our values, to take potentially unpopular but ethical and forward-thinking stands (my view) but rather that we just haven't found the right face with the right name... well, know what? it's fucking tiresome. Just like it's tiresome that here we are 3 and a half years out from the next presidential election, and we're ALREADY being presented by those 'in the know' with an unappetizing buffet of well-connected boring East Coast party insiders, all universally clueless about issues that the Western half of the country cares about, that we're presumably going to be "allowed" to pick from in 2020. Andrew Cuomo? Boy, I can hardly wait for the primaries.

But, a lot of things are tiresome. Maybe this red-haired kennedy kid is the future of our party. Like I said, I'll certainly give him a chance (he's gotta be better than his cousin the anti-vaxxer or the other cousin who is on the anti-weed crusade) ... but again, I think it's worth noting that the most impressive piece of oratorical leadership I've seen, personally, in the past month came from a dude I'd never heard of whose last name is "Buttigeig".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 10:43 AM

27. Hopefully by 2020, we won't be all the way back to hating Irish Catholics

The Kennedy genes are amazing, I saw his picture the other day before I saw his name, and knew he must be from the family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 04:53 PM

31. Ted Kennedy didn't lose because of "Chappaquiddick, womanizing, and hard partying"

He lost because 1) he was running against an incumbent President, and 2) he could never explain WHY he was running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 04:56 PM

32. Did history begin and end in 1980?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #32)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 06:33 PM

35. No, but his Presidential campaign did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 11, 2017, 07:39 PM

37. Precisely for the reasons I cited. Thank you for the confirmation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 12:43 PM

42. Was thinking that when I saw him....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Mar 12, 2017, 05:42 PM

53. No IMO

No more establishment names if you ask me.

That's we lost this last time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GitRDun (Reply #53)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 07:52 AM

59. we didn't lose because her name was Clinton... was far more complicated than that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #59)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 09:30 AM

63. Not really

The electorate wanted change. Despite her negative polling data they shoved her out there anyway.

Our top 2 candidates were an establishment person who many in the country didn't trust and an independent who could not get minorities to support him.

It doesn't matter that the attacks were bullshit, people are stupid, they follow the soundbites like little lambs.

We need fresh faces IMO, not another member of an old political dynasty who'll get tagged with the same crap we hear every time.

If we should have learned anything from President Obama, it's that a class act with fresh ideas sells even in Trump's America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 08:11 AM

60. You said "Joseph Kennedy lll" (with three lower-case L's) but I keep seeing "Joseph Kennedy Ill" ...

... as if he's come down with some sickness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Mar 13, 2017, 08:13 AM

61. Is it just me? JKIII reminds me a lot of Conan...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread