Pretty similar to mine, though I reverse Yang and Bernie for now. Also, don't know very much about Klobuchar and Williamson, so they're on the sideline for now

So mine looks like this:

Tulsi>>>>Bernie>>>>>>>>>Yang>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Warren/Harris>>>>>>>>>>> All unnamed Dem candidates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Biden/Castro.

Care to explain this? I've been following Bernie fairly closely for years now, and haven't seen either of those things.

"sold out to the Clinton machine" is false; do you mean, joining the democratic party so he could up his visibility? That's not selling out.

And what do you mean by identity politics bs? Are you saying that because he's Jewish?

I used to be really big on Tulsi, until a few things popped up about her that gave me significant pause.

1) First, there's her record on gay rights. She opposed gay rights, using pretty nasty language. Check out the link here from a local newpaper. She was a freshman congresswoman in the Hawaii House of Representatives at the time, and I'd like to particularly call attention to this quote from the article: "To try to act as if there is a difference between 'civil unions' and same-sex marriage is dishonest, cowardly and extremely disrespectful to the people of Hawaii," said Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Tamayo, who directed her testimony at Hamakawa. "As Democrats we should be representing the views of the people, not a small number of homosexual extremists." Emphasis mine. Yikes. Homosexual extremists? This was just the young gay rights movement, and as you may know, Hawaii was an early victory. She was pretty against it. Also there's this article by Rolling Stone. It's obviously a hit piece, but it brings up several very valid points I can't ignore, like that she was against a bill meant to prevent anti-gay bullying, on the grounds that she feared it would teach children that being gay was "normal and natural" (guess what Gabbard, it is...). The same article talks about her being a proud supporter of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage, her far-right dad's homophobic organization. I understand that she claims to have evolved, but I don't buy it any more than I buy that Hillary Clinton has evolved on the matter. She was too rabidly against it, and at such a young age too, to just suddenly evolve like that. I don't buy it. In fact, in this article that's more friendly to her, she tells the interviewer that her personal views haven't evolved on homosexuality, she just takes a libertarian viewpoint on it that the government shouldn't be a moral arbiter. I can appreciate that viewpoint that the government shouldn't legislate morals, but I certainly don't trust someone who was and apparently still is that virulently homophobic to protect the rights of the LGBTQ community on the grounds that she doesn't want the government to be moral arbiter. Trump said he would be good to LGBTQ as well, I believe in his inauguration speech, but now transsexuals are banned from the military, among other culturally conservative victories. She claims to be culturally libertarian, but she's culturally conservative and her supporters on the right know it and will want some wins out of her. An example of such potential wins we might see in spite of her claimed libertarian stance on the matter? Look at Trump's court nominations. She's supported them, and attacked her own fellow Hawaiian representative Mazie Hirono, as well as Kamala Harris, accusing them of religious bigotry just because they opposed the nomination of Brian Buescher, who has a record of partisan activism against LGBTQ equality. That is an absurd accusation, and their concerns were well-founded and based on observable actions, not prejudice against a belief system. I could go on, as there's a shocking amount of evidence that she's not a friend of anyone who believes in LGBTQ equality, but I think I've said enough here.

2. She's way too friendly with right-wing dictators and has a creepy authoritarian flavor to her. She uses "peace" and being "against the war industry" as reasoning for her foreign policy stances, which was something I loved about her at first, but I have other options if I want to promote peace and staying out of fights we have no place in, or fighting against the war industry. I don't need Tulsi. It's one thing to be in favor of staying out of Syria or not escalating things with Russia, it's quite another thing to meet with and actively support the talking points of Assad and praise Putin for military interventionism. That meeting with Assad had her escorted by Bassam and Elie Khawam, officials of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. I'd link that, but I'm at work and would rather not go to such websites. Suffice to say, the SSNP is a political and paramilitary organization, it supports Assad, and has been very violent about doing so. It has also done many other violent things in its past, including several assassinations and suicide bombings. It seems to hate the US, Israel, Jews in general, and is extremely authoritarian, with an ultimate goal of Syria conquering Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, and Cyprus for the "Greater Syrian" race. Not something a patriotic American or sane person in general would want to associate with. Meanwhile Assad is himself a vicious dictator that has committed horrible crimes against his own people. She chooses to look the other way and support him because she claims that to not support him would be to support "regime change" but apparently associating with expansionist nationalists is fine. We should never have gotten directly involved in Syria, to be sure, but rather have supported a local coalition against ISIS, and local rebellion against Assad, through material support and training. He's a evil man. But she supports him, as well as Putin. Indeed she seems to support all of Russia's endeavors. She's not truly for peace, she's for America getting out of the way of dictators that want to rule their countries with an iron fist. Think it's just Assad and Putin? Think again. She also supports brutal Egyptian dictator General Abdel Fatteh el Sisi. That link is from her own campaign site, and showers him with praise, and claims supporting this dictator is the only way to stop Islamic extremism. I'm no fan of Islamic extremists and terrorists, but why does she always turn to dictators to stop them? Violent ones that commit crimes against humanity at that? Then denies that they're violent? Why? I don't trust her. And yes, Sisi is nasty. Here's a bit on a massacre he ordered, from Human Rights Watch. She also claims to be "conflicted" on whether torture is acceptable. Here's a video of an interview where she states she's conflicted on torture and would consider using it, using the typical justification of "bUt WhAt If ThE tErRoRiStS hAvE a NuClEaR bOmB!?!" Time stamp is 15:47. Also keep in mind that people like Steve Bannon, white supremacist and ethno-nationalist Richard Spencer, and former KKK grand wizard David Duke have all praised or endorsed her. So not only does she seem to like right-wing authoritarians, they seem to like her back. Both liberals and libertarians alike should not call her their friend.

3. She has creepy connections with a cult. Her father claims to be Catholic, she claims to Hindu, but they're lying. They're part of a Hare Krishna cult known as the Science of Identity Foundation. It's probably where her hatred of homosexuality comes from, as it's rabidly homophobic. I suppose you can argue that there's not definitive proof that they're part of the cult, but the connections are too suspicious. I'll let you look into them yourself, but between this and the other unsavory things about Gabbard, I'm done with her.

I used to want Gabbard as Bernie's VP so she could set up for a Presidential run after him. Now I want her out of politics entirely.

Wow no no no, absolutely not lol.. I have close familiy that is Jewish. But even if I didn't, I have less than zero against Jewish people.. That would be absurd and unfair for me to argue that baked in traits means you're pushing identity politics. What I mean is his statements like "white people don't know what it's like to be poor", talking about the "wage gap", which has long since been debunked that it has to do with sexism. He's also talked about "racial equity" with his policies. No, not "equality", which I of course support, but EQUITY, whcih means litterally giving people of certain races advantages over others, to "tip the scales" in their favor I guess or help even things out in some way, which basically means enacting racist policies.

He sold out by basically bowing out of the race and supporting the very pro Wall Street, pro free trade Clinton, despite being very much against both himself. Considering he got very clearly screwed over by the DNC with the collusion and super delagate fiasco, I wish he would just just made more of a stink about it I guess. Though I suppose you could say his hands were tied somewhat. 

Bernie thrives far more when he focuses on the economy, Wall Street, foreign policy, etc. which I haven't seen as much lately. I've seen more just typical anti Trump hysteria and identity politic jargon which I find repellent. Like, yes, yes I get it. "Orange man bad" and all. That's great.. Tell me specifically how YOU would make a better president. That's what I want. Tulsi and Yang seem like they're doing that far more. Focusing on solutions far more than negativity and what NOT to do.

Regardless, I just don't find him as appealing as I once did. 

He seems like a cool and smart guy. Some of his talking points does make sense, like about robotics and jobs being more automated.

I see it in my hometown in NYC, like back in the day almost every subway station had an MTA agent in a booth. Now they're just a bunch of kiosk, and metrocard vending machines.

He backed Clinton because he considered Trump a threat to democracy. He was afraid, and still is, that Trump would/will undermine the democratic mechanisms of the US so that he would effectively have a dictatorship. For someone who calls himself a classical liberal and cultural libertarian, you'd have to be a fool to support Trump. Bernie is right, Trump is a threat to liberal democracy (wherein liberal is the classical sense like you believe in). And it took incredible humility to support Clinton after she cheated him like that. He didn't make a stink because he knew what was at risk, and made a very principled sacrifice, and here you shit on him for "selling out". He made it very clear in the primaries what the difference between him and Clinton was and why he didn't like her, but swallowed his pride and supported the side that wasn't a threat to liberal democracy worldwide. To be able to do that, he had to have more humility in his left pinky toe than the entire Clinton family put together has. And he has said all sorts of things about how he would make a better President, including dealing with automation, showing that he's thinking ahead just like Yang is.

I don't support Trump. But I did (and still do) think he's the lesser of evils between him and warmongering neolib/neocon Clinton, if only slightly.

Bernie was just as unlike Hillary Clinton as he was unlike Trump, maybe more. They actually both had the overlap (at least initially) of being anti war, anti free trade, bringing manufacturing jobs back to America, etc.

There are many things about Trump I dislike, but I disagree with the laughable notion that he's a "threat to democracy". This is largely just media hype and sensationalism by Dem politicians and the media, who's interests quite obviously conflicted with an outsider like Trump. 

I still believe Bernie would have beaten Trump because he had the Rust Belt/Mid West of the US (trust me, as a Midwesterner I know - our jobs have been hit the hardest). Clinton did not have these regions - many of which were the swing states. Hence why she lost. If anything, it was Clinton that should have backed down, not Bernie.

I agree as a fellow midwesterner that Bernie would have beaten Trump, largely through flipping the midwest, particularly PA, MI, and WI. Indeed, he'd have crushed him. I also agree that Clinton could never have won them, based on what I saw in the region, and that since she was complicit in organizing the DNC rigging, she should have backed down. And yes, she's a neolib/neocon warmongerer.

But my fears regarding democracy as a whole are altogether different from the media hype, and they're coming true. The media hypes it as "Oh sweet Jesus he said some mean things it's the end of the world" when in actuality that has different consequences that are also bad for society but aren't the threat to democracy. The media hypes it as "Oh the humanity he rolled back such and such right" and rolling back rights is not cool to be sure but Republican presidents have done it before and had their rolling back undone. Indeed, Democrats have done it before (though much longer ago) and eventually rights win the day. And perhaps what I refer to, you also think is media hype, but my thought process is more complex than simply "orange man bad". I too am anti-war, I too am skeptical of free trade, and I too want to support blue collar workers and jobs. However, Trump is none of those things, he just pretends to be when it's convenient.

When I say he's a threat to democracy, I mean that it sure as hell looks like Russia tried to influence our elections, even our own intelligence agencies staffed by Trump come to the conclusion that Russia tried to influence the election, yet rather than act like an innocent person and encourage the investigation into whether he worked with them to do so, he tries to obstruct it at every turn and insist that Russia is innocent against the advice of his own generals and national security staff. His refusal to cooperate with the investigation makes him look guilty as hell, and his refusal to take action to protect our democratic mechanisms from foreign interference (be that Russian or otherwise, I mean there was a time when Saudia Arabia loved Clinton and probably would have helped her if they had the chance, not to mention China is developing the capabilities and there's no telling what they'll do), well that is a threat to my vote being properly counted, and that's about the most fundamental threat to democracy you can get beyond declaring martial law or staging a coup.

When I say he's a threat to liberal democracy everywhere, I don't just mean in the states, I refer to his tendency to prop up the ambitions of dictators and bully our democratic allies. How the hell do you get off defending the dictator king of Saudi Arabia when he literally invades foreign sovereign soil and kills a journalist?! Yet that's exactly what Trump did with Khashoggi. That's a double threat, both to freedom of the press, in that it normalizes killing journalists if an allied government of the US can get away with it with no consequences, and to the ability of the international community to punish human rights abuses, in that there was broad international consensus that Saudi Arabia needed to be punished yet it didn't happen. Only Canada had the guts to do anything about it and we sat there and let Saudi Arabia bully Canada, one of our closest allies, for daring to cross them. Our other democratic allies wanted to do something but didn't want to be bullied like Canada was and without the support of a major world power like the US, it's hard to support human rights and the rule of law on an international scale like that.

But perhaps none of this implicates Trump directly enough in an immediate assault on democracy in America for you to give a shit? Well how about his stupid national emergency declaration? You had some of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate opposing it because it's a blatant breach of the most straightforward interpretation you could possibly have of the U.S. Constitution. He's trying to consolidate power into the executive branch in a way no president ever has. People act like Obama was horrible in this regard because of his executive actions, but none of those executive actions, or those of presidents before him, ever had so much open disregard for fundamental Constitutional separations of powers as that emergency declaration did. Trump has opened a portal to hell that needs to be shut quickly. Today it's his pointless, ineffectual border wall wasting money we don't really have, tomorrow with a future president it'll be climate change prevention (though that wouldn't be so bad, but it should happen through the proper legislative channels), then next thing you know some president will seize money to give out reparations for slavery, or combine the unconstitutionally seized power of the purse with Congress' precariously maintained power to declare war (that's actually all on Congress, not Trump's fault at all) and declare and fund a war all of his own! Again, not necessarily Trump, as the guy won't live forever even if he managed to completely rig our democracy to let himself rule until he dies, but this is about more than Trump, it's about the fundamental institutions of democracy being damaged by his complete lack of regard for democratic norms and the rule of law, and what that might mean for our future.

You can disagree, but you have to at least admit there's a rational train of thought here that goes beyond emotional reaction to media sensationalizing. It's that rational train of thought that Bernie is following when he opposes Trump. As for Bernie talking about Trump already, well that's less him being Trump obsessed and more a projection of confidence that he'll win the primary, as well as a signal to the powers that be that no matter what, he's already decided to oppose Trump, in hopes that they don't see him as a spoiler that needs to be attacked. By running against Trump now, Democrats trust him more even though he's an Independent, and he also has the opportunity to weaken Trump ahead of time by highlighting his failures so that when he wins the primary Trump is already partially weakened in the general. Bernie has talked plenty about what he plans to do, in fact through constant campaigning since his primary loss in 2016 he's redefined what all the other Democrats are planning to do. Medicare For All was supposed to be a Bernie 2nd term goal, only possible after working at convincing the American people for 4 years to trust him and believe in his vision even for his bigger asks like that. Yet now he has most of the nation ready and supportive of Medicare For All, and it would easily be a 1st term goal for him, and his plan blows the other Dems corporate focused Medicare For All plans out of the water. His plan is the only one that simultaneously obsoletes almost all private insurance companies while saving trillions of dollars over our current system, and that's according to the numbers of a Koch brothers funded study, so you know they tried to weight the numbers against Bernie's plan.

Its humor is kind of unique ,it takes a slower more dry and calming approach if that makes sense :p

I'm not for a UBI (an I'm not a US citizen, so whatever). But I do try to follow the US' politics.
He looks interesting, at least more so then that O'Rourke guy.
Someone do tell me, how many candidates are there on the democratic side?