You are not logged in. Please register or login.

misterID
 Rep: 459 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

Btw, this race would be a lot more interesting if Biden dropped out.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 119 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

Middle America isn't going to vote for someone who wants to change the system, especially for non-Americans at the expense of Americans.

In fairness I dont think many of us were huge Bernie or AOC supporters  ill admit I was in for Warren, her mistake however ended up being going far left. Had she stayed content with Obamacare just enhancing it a bit she'd be fine. The whole universal/free is what turns ppl off.

You don't have to be.  Their rhetoric has poisoned the well as much as Trump has.  Klobuchar doesn't have the footprint to compete, and she'll be competing directly against Bloomberg on Super Tuesday.  Warren's ego is all that is keeping her in.  Maybe Buttigieg can stay relevant, but he's going to be competing against Bloomberg and Biden in 2.5 weeks, splitting the moderate vote 4 ways.  That leaves Sanders as the front runner within the party. 

Obamacare didn't work.  It was badly broken from its start, and Obama never enforced the mandate - something he lacked the authority to do and is now biting the entire act in the ass as it goes before SCOTUS.  I'm not saying pre-existing conditions is a losing issue, it's clearly not.  But Trump is telling his base he's going to protect those, and it hasn't been taken away yet. 

At the end of the day, 6/10 Americans feel they're better off under Trump than they were Obama.  Impeachment failed.  It had the opposite effect.  It destroyed Biden, made Trump stronger, and made the Democrats look petty.  Just look at how Pelosi embarrassed herself at the SOTU.  10 years ago Democrats censured Wilson because he yelled "you lie!" during Obama's healthcare speech before Congress.  Then they chant during the speech and Pelosi tears up the speech.  She claimed it was spur of the moment, but the moron was on national TV putting small tears on the speech throughout the whole thing, so she could tear it up without effort at the end.    Then they go on national TV and demand that Facebook and Twitter delete ads showing her do just that. 

You're rightfully going to point at the million shitty things Trump has done, but all of it means dick when the other side is doing the same thing.  Take the outrage over DoJ reducing Stone's recommended sentence.  Ignore that the DoJ sent a SWAT team to arrest Stone at 6 am and probably tipped off CNN to it all.  Ignore that the recommended sentence was way beyond norms.  Let's not pretend that Trump had no involvement.  But guess what, who met who in a hangar in 2016?  Did these people demand Lynch resign?  No, they didn't.  So when the average Joe looks at it, what can they say besides "par for the course".

I know "anyone but Trump" is the Democratic mantra, but people in middle America don't share that view.  If you want them to risk fucking up their jobs, healthcare, retirement and the culture of America, you need a really compelling reason.  Bernie offers that to those interested.  He's talking about real change.  But anyone that has a chance at standing next to Trump in September is going to offer "slightly better" versions of hypothetical change they hope they can deliver on, and will be promising to remove guns, allow more illegals to stay, and try to make middle america feel guilty that they're better off than poor people in inner cities or the 3rd world. 

Anyone who likes Trump as a person, I take issue with.  But if you step back and look at what really matters to you, in your everyday life, what candidate's policy and proven record is most attractive to middle America?  6/10 think Trump offers that.  He's not going to be any more racist, poor spoken, mean, stupid, etc. in 2020 than he was perceived in 2016.  It's a huge ask, and "I don't like Trump" isn't enough in my opinion to get people to break from that when you look at the some of the more outrageous policy proposals even "moderates" have. 

I know this is long winded, but this thread has been a ghost town for months.  Democrats campaigned from 2004 onward as being anti-war.
Obama expanded military operations in Afghanistan, and had our military in all kinds of new conflicts in the Middle East.  Trump ended ISIS, killed the head Iranian general responsible for thousands of US injuries, and withdrew from most of our armed conflicts.  The Iran deal was never popular.  Obama's own party opposed him on this, with Schumer being the loudest voice against it.  Illegal immigration is incredibly unpopular - it's a loser for Democrats.  And Trump delivered big.  Illegal crossings are at a modern low, the asylum claims have been exposed for the fraud and abuse they were used as, as shown by Mexico saying 90% of people held there have volunteered to return home rather than wait for a date in US Court. No he didn't build the wall and have Mexico pay for it, but Obama didn't deliver on his "If you like your healthcare, you can keep it", and he was re-elected. 

So the Democrats have Climate Change, Healthcare and Guns to run on.  Bloomberg covers all of those and has the capital to run a national campaign.  But wait until all the women who have accused him of improper conduct break their NDAs for Ronan Farrow, and watch the far left revolt and middle america mutter "par for the course."


I could totally be wrong, and there's a lot of time left.  Anything can happen.  And god only knows what moronic thing Trump will do next.  But this is just about the worst case Democrats could have for November.  Maybe they'll all unite around one of the 4 moderates in 3 weeks, but Sanders didn't drop out in 2016 until May or June. I don't know why he wouldn't do that again.  But Democrats need to seriously consider their congressional strategy, and try to have something separate from just relying on the front runner.  Otherwise it could be 2004 all over again.  And I don't know if this country could survive GOP control of government for at least 2 years.

misterID
 Rep: 459 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

If I were running against Trump I'd go at him with, yeah, the economy is good, and after three years he deserves credit... But we're headed for a wall. Paul Ryan spent his career trying to destroy entitlements but couldn't do it. He finally did it with the tax cut. Trump has no answer for when we hit the wall and will gut SS and Medicare. They stimulated a healthy economy with tax cuts they can't pay for. We're headed for a wall.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 119 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

If I were running against Trump I'd go at him with, yeah, the economy is good, and after three years he deserves credit... But we're headed for a wall. Paul Ryan spent his career trying to destroy entitlements but couldn't do it. He finally did it with the tax cut. Trump has no answer for when we hit the wall and will gut SS and Medicare. They stimulated a healthy economy with tax cuts they can't pay for. We're headed for a wall.


People have been predicting the wall annually and it hasn’t happened yet. I’m no economist, so my opinion means dick. Eventually the economy will go down, but SS and medicare aren’t going to collapse under Trump’s term(s). I’d assume the election of people advocating the end of fossil fuels would cause a sudden dip moreso than anything on the 5 year horizon.

misterID
 Rep: 459 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

I'm not just talking about a recession, and yeah, there have been people in the media practically begging for one, but I'm talking about Bush raiding the Social Security trust fund for the wars, and banning Medicare from negotiating drug prices, etc. Entitlements are going bankrupt and I would keep hammering it.

mitchejw
 Rep: 111 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
misterID wrote:

If I were running against Trump I'd go at him with, yeah, the economy is good, and after three years he deserves credit... But we're headed for a wall. Paul Ryan spent his career trying to destroy entitlements but couldn't do it. He finally did it with the tax cut. Trump has no answer for when we hit the wall and will gut SS and Medicare. They stimulated a healthy economy with tax cuts they can't pay for. We're headed for a wall.


People have been predicting the wall annually and it hasn’t happened yet. I’m no economist, so my opinion means dick. Eventually the economy will go down, but SS and medicare aren’t going to collapse under Trump’s term(s). I’d assume the election of people advocating the end of fossil fuels would cause a sudden dip moreso than anything on the 5 year horizon.

I don’t think you need to be an economist to know putting this much shit on a credit card for this long is going to become a problem.

The game will be who to blame it on.

PaSnow
 Rep: 201 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

I’d assume the election of people advocating the end of fossil fuels would cause a sudden dip moreso than anything on the 5 year horizon.


lol "fossil suels" for the future. 


Search: TSLA

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 119 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

I’d assume the election of people advocating the end of fossil fuels would cause a sudden dip moreso than anything on the 5 year horizon.


lol "fossil suels" for the future. 


Search: TSLA

I’m not saying they’re the future. They’re the present. I want to go full nuclear, as wind and solar are a joke. Someone who wants to destroy the current energy sector overnight is going to wreck the economy. This isn’t rocket science.


In other news, I don’t know what Bloomberg is apologizing for stop and frisk. Murders in nyc were around 2k a year before Giuliani implemented it. Bloomberg continued it and got nyc down to 300 a year. It clearly worked, and all the liberal outlets trying to debunk his leaked comments talking about national statistics show their hand when they refuse to talk about NYC. Go ahead. Look up murder demographics in NYC. I guess Black Lives only matter if the a white cop is the culprit. The other 99.9% don’t matter. 

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downlo … report.pdf

What do you know, 95% of murder suspects were black or hispanic in 2019 in NYC.

PaSnow
 Rep: 201 

Re: US Politics Thread

PaSnow wrote:

Nuclear as in nuclear energy?  It's been phased out short of a few lobbyist pursuits. After Three Mile Island & Chernobyl just 1 error whether human or automation it's too risky, let alone storing its waste for a hundred thousand years. Japan had Fukushima during their earthquake. So you really have to consider where you put them which rules out California, Florida, and Tornado country.

misterID
 Rep: 459 

Re: US Politics Thread

misterID wrote:

Nuclear fusion and carbon capture are far more realistic than wind or solar, which are still YEARS away from even being close to providing the power we need (best estimates are 15%)... They've been promising the tech is just five years away since 1993.

Total irony, wind and solar plants are awful for the environment and ecosystem, they kill birds, bees, insects and bats. A functioning solar plant would have to be bigger than a major city and... Imagine the heat it would create.

BTW, Puerto Rico's nuclear plant survived both the hurricane and earthquake, while all their other power sources were destroyed. They're just not allowed to use it in any substantial way because of..... Green lobbyists!

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB