The road to 2020

[GostHacked]

19 minutes ago, Argus said:

Any decent candidate would beat Trump. The question is whether the Democrats are interested in putting up such a candidate as compared to desperate virtue signalling and identity politics. All of them having to hold up their hands to promise health care to illegal immigrants in the last debate, for example, did not endear them to many people who are actually allowed to vote. I don't see anyone of any gravitas in the Democratic campaign at the moment, apart from Biden.

There are some stupid questions from moderators, but overall most of them messed up the health care question.  The current medicare for all proposal by any of them does not remove or negate any private insurance people want to get. The 'gotcha' question was would they remove all forms of health insurance for medicare for all. When that was never the proposal.

I'll still back Gabbard. She's a bit green, but I think given some time she'll be amazing, and well if not this round, I'd put her in the ring for next time.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

There are some stupid questions from moderators, but overall most of them messed up the health care question.  The current medicare for all proposal by any of them does not remove or negate any private insurance people want to get. The 'gotcha' question was would they remove all forms of health insurance for medicare for all. When that was never the proposal.

I'll still back Gabbard. She's a bit green, but I think given some time she'll be amazing, and well if not this round, I'd put her in the ring for next time.

Not even forty and with limited experience at anything like a high level of governance. Another progressive diversity candidate.Give her ten more years in congress and maybe...

Edited July 3, 2019 by Argus

[taxme]

On 5/22/2019 at 8:21 AM, WestCanMan said:

The Dems are throwing out crap candidates for a reason. They're by and large a bunch of morons. 

They throw around platitudes like they're trying to put out a fire, and they manage to suck in the casual observers, but on policy they're weak and stupid.

Honestly they go after Trump like he's the devil, but they just gush about Obama. It's like they completely missed what happened in the past 11 years.

Obama inherited an Iraq that was stable, and Syria was solid. Obama pulled out all the Americans from Iraq, and just left a bunch of tanks, artillery, mortars etc, which essentially  armed islamic state. The middle east turned to absolute crap. It was still getting worse when he left. Trump inherited that and put a hasty end to it. Do Dems honestly talk about Obama's abysmal failure and Trump's success? Nope. 

They're crap, top to bottom.

"Walls are racist" lol. Spare me.

Gawd man, you talk with and make too much common sense and logic here. You are probably scaring some lefty's here with that kind of talk. What the hell did Obama Bin Laden ever do to try and bring peace to the middle East? He gave the world more of ISIS. Thanks to Trump, he just about wiped out ISIS. A fact that the lying and fake leftist liberal media in North America refuse to report on or give credit for to Trump. Trump has his faults like the rest of us do. Of course with the lefty's of the world, they are always right and perfect. Trump never gets any koodos for anything. Just scorn and hatred from a bunch of commie losers.

Calling them "crap" is being too nice to them. I have a lot better not so nice words to call them. 

Walls are for keeping people out. Sanders and Pelosi and many other rich democratic members of congress have walls around their homes and property. Why is that? Well, it is obvious that they want to keep unwanted people off their property. So, that is basically what Trump's wall is all about. Trying to keep people from entering onto American property illegally. Walls apparently do work.

To say that walls are racist is so lefty stupid. But then again, what can anyone expect from leftist liberal/democratic losers? Maybe just more foolish and ridiculous talk by chance? LOL. 

 

 

[Yzermandius19]

12 hours ago, GostHacked said:

There are some stupid questions from moderators, but overall most of them messed up the health care question.  The current medicare for all proposal by any of them does not remove or negate any private insurance people want to get. The 'gotcha' question was would they remove all forms of health insurance for medicare for all. When that was never the proposal.

I'll still back Gabbard. She's a bit green, but I think given some time she'll be amazing, and well if not this round, I'd put her in the ring for next time.

That was the proposal actually. Bernie wants to scrap private insurance, hence why they asked the question on the debate stage and Warren and De Blassio said they wanted to scrap private insurance as well. Beto got pilled on because he took the opposite stance, because it wasn't far left enough for some them.

Some medicare for all proposals want to scrap private insurance and make the public option the only option, others just want a more expansive public option added to the private option. The Democrats are not united on this front, you may have been lead to believe otherwise, but that perception is not reality.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[GostHacked]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

Not even forty and with limited experience at anything like a high level of governance. Another progressive diversity candidate.Give her ten more years in congress and maybe...

She's already done more than anyone up there has. None of the others have been deployed to the Middle East. And she's been there twice.

[-TSS-]

An incumbent president seeking re-election is very likely to win when the economy is good. In a country like the USA it's the economy which matters. Foreign affairs very rarely. 

Bush snr went in a little over a year from 90%+ approval-ratings to lose the election because the economy went bust in the early 90's.

Well, Carter also lost because of poor economy but in his case his perceived weakness in the embassy-hostage crisis also played a part.

Ford lost mainly because people were Fed up with career-politicians in the wake of the Watergate-scandal. He didn't help his chances of winning by pardoning Nixon.

This time around the economy is doing well and the Democratic-candidates are either dinosaurs or nutjobs.

 

[egghead]

On 7/4/2019 at 7:47 AM, -TSS- said:

An incumbent president seeking re-election is very likely to win when the economy is good. In a country like the USA it's the economy which matters. Foreign affairs very rarely. 

Bush snr went in a little over a year from 90%+ approval-ratings to lose the election because the economy went bust in the early 90's.

Well, Carter also lost because of poor economy but in his case his perceived weakness in the embassy-hostage crisis also played a part.

Ford lost mainly because people were Fed up with career-politicians in the wake of the Watergate-scandal. He didn't help his chances of winning by pardoning Nixon.

This time around the economy is doing well and the Democratic-candidates are either dinosaurs or nutjobs.

 

It is truth. Having saying that, I don't recall an incumbent president has this much hate from the other side. If you only watch the five leftist media, you will think Trump is a villain from an anti-USA organisation

[Mike10]

Is he really that bad? I am being objective. Actually a good article why or why not to give him support again: https://bit.ly/2LlJJWk
Hopefully, the link will be allowed. Apart from that, I am currently doing research about why or why should not he be re-elected again, so any appropriate arguments may help.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Mike10 said:

Is he really that bad? I am being objective. Actually a good article why or why not to give him support again: https://bit.ly/2LlJJWk
Hopefully, the link will be allowed. Apart from that, I am currently doing research about why or why should not he be re-elected again, so any appropriate arguments may help.

You have to remember that Trump is a result - he is a cause not an effect.  Its taken years to bring America 'this far'.

[WestCanMan]

On 7/3/2019 at 9:10 AM, Argus said:

Any decent candidate would beat Trump. The question is whether the Democrats are interested in putting up such a candidate as compared to desperate virtue signalling and identity politics. All of them having to hold up their hands to promise health care to illegal immigrants in the last debate, for example, did not endear them to many people who are actually allowed to vote. I don't see anyone of any gravitas in the Democratic campaign at the moment, apart from Biden.

Any decent candidate could have easily beaten Trump in 2016. Just his quote about Megan Kelly's "blood coming out of her eyes and whatever else" should have been enough to sink his ship. Problem is that the DNC barfed out Hillary, and the MSM screwed up. Instead of leaving the focus on the things he said and did that would have derailed his campaign, they kept covering his new quotes,. They pushed the old things out of mind. Then they started with the disinformation campaign which has just backfired on them. Less and less people watch CNN and MSNBC all the time.

202 will be much tougher. Trump has had a really successful run thus far. Islamic State is in shambles, the economy is booming, and the country is at peace. The 4 hos of the apocalypse are running the DNC into the ground and the rest of the field is trying to out-virtue-signal each other and they're grasping at socialist straws. The DNC is a mess. IMO the best chance to beat Trump comes from within the Republican party. 

[Boges]

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

2020 will be much tougher. Trump has had a really successful run thus far. Islamic State is in shambles, the economy is booming, and the country is at peace. The 4 hos of the apocalypse are running the DNC into the ground and the rest of the field is trying to out-virtue-signal each other and they're grasping at socialist straws. The DNC is a mess. IMO the best chance to beat Trump comes from within the Republican party. 

The Economy was booming under Obama, And the KPI's Trump is currently using to show how awesome he is, was mocked when he was a private citizen. Trump's hypocrisy is easy to identify. 

Trump hasn't grown his support since being elected. 

What can't happen, as Argus points out, is Dems can't sit home because they don't approve of whoever is selected this Primary process. Trump didn't exactly create a groundswell of support amongst Republicans. Red-Team only Republicans will vote for him just because they don't want a Dem in power. 

Dems have to do the same. Sure Bernie was screwed, but their protest vote by sitting on their hands is how they got Trump. 

There are way more people that don't approve of Trump than do approve of Trump. And in a two party system, that means Trump should have no chance in winning if people who oppose him just vote for the one candidate that's not him. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

The Economy was booming under Obama, And the KPI's Trump is currently using to show how awesome he is, was mocked when he was a private citizen. Trump's hypocrisy is easy to identify. 

Trump hasn't grown his support since being elected. 

What can't happen, as Argus points out, is Dems can't sit home because they don't approve of whoever is selected this Primary process. Trump didn't exactly create a groundswell of support amongst Republicans. Red-Team only Republicans will vote for him just because they don't want a Dem in power. 

Dems have to do the same. Sure Bernie was screwed, but their protest vote by sitting on their hands is how they got Trump. 

There are way more people that don't approve of Trump than do approve of Trump. And in a two party system, that means Trump should have no chance in winning if people who oppose him just vote for the one candidate that's not him. 

The economy was plateauing under Obama. It was nothing like it is now. Look at the DJ Avg from May 2016 to Feb 2017 if you don't believe me.

There was also widespread rioting and looting in the USA, racial division was flourishing, cop-killing was popular, Islamic State sprung up and grew to the size of a large country, large-scale terrorist attacks on US soil were becoming normal, and the US was at war. If you can't admit that the US is far better off now than it was 4 years ago that's pathetic.

Trump is more popular now than he ever has been, and his approval rating is where Obama's was at at this point in his presidency. 

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The economy was plateauing under Obama. It was nothing like it is now. Look at the DJ Avg from May 2016 to Feb 2017 if you don't believe me.

There was also widespread rioting and looting in the USA, racial division was flourishing, cop-killing was popular, Islamic State sprung up and grew to the size of a large country, large-scale terrorist attacks on US soil were becoming normal, and the US was at war. If you can't admit that the US is far better off now than it was 4 years ago that's pathetic.

Trump is more popular now than he ever has been, and his approval rating is where Obama's was at at this point in his presidency. 

So you attribute Trump's presidency to Police and Black harmony?  

And Trump never attributed Stock numbers as a measure of success when he wasn't president. 

Canada's economy isn't doing too badly itself. We gonna give JT any credit? 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Boges

[WestCanMan]

44 minutes ago, Boges said:

So you attribute Trump's presidency to Police and Black harmony?  

No, it was blowback from the fact that the country was going downhill for the previous 4 years or so.

Quote

And Trump never attributed Stock numbers as a measure of success when he wasn't president. 

The main thing he cites is the unemployment numbers, which are crazy good. He doesn't mention the DJ Avg.

Quote

Canada's economy isn't doing too badly itself. We gonna give JT any credit? 

It's nowhere near what the US economy is. The economy in Alberta is terrible. Debt is ballooning. Scandals (with actual guilt involved, not just media hyperbole) have become normal. I give JT credit for that.

[Boges]

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

No, it was blowback from the fact that the country was going downhill for the previous 4 years or so.

No it was blowback from Cops shooting defenceless black people. If anything the outrage has made it less likely and not Trump.

Quote

The main thing he cites is the unemployment numbers, which are crazy good. He doesn't mention the DJ Avg.

And Trump scoffed at good Job Numbers under Obama. 

Quote

It's nowhere near what the US economy is. The economy in Alberta is terrible. Debt is ballooning. Scandals (with actual guilt involved, not just media hyperbole) have become normal. I give JT credit for that.

If Debt is your measuring stick then the US is in an awful place. The Federal Government is in Trillions of dollars of debt. And adding more every day because of this Tax Cut. 

Trickle Down Economics 

Alberta is in a bad place because the price of oil stays low. Ontario isn't doing so bad right now. The reverse was the case when Oil and the Dollar were high. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Boges

[WestCanMan]

43 minutes ago, Boges said:

No it was blowback from Cops shooting defenceless black people. If anything the outrage has made it less likely and not Trump.

Wrong. Obama got the country all fired up about police shootings which weren't nearly as bad as advertised. "He looked like me" lol. Then the Ferguson shooting got blown out of proportion by CNN and the Prez failed to get things in perspective.

Quote

And Trump scoffed at good Job Numbers under Obama. 

With good reason, now that we have the benefit of hindsight.

Quote

If Debt is your measuring stick then the US is in an awful place. The Federal Government is in Trillions of dollars of debt. And adding more every day because of this Tax Cut. 

Obama doubled the debt.

Quote

Alberta is in a bad place because the price of oil stays low. Ontario isn't doing so bad right now. The reverse was the case when Oil and the Dollar were high. 

You know that's not true at all. Alberta is in a bad place because Trudeau scared away over $140B in investment. He's telling the world that we're phasing out the oil sands. Conversely he's unduly influencing everyone he can for SNC Lavalin & Quebec. 

WTH Boges. Out to lunch.

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, Boges said:

Trump hasn't grown his support since being elected.

...

There are way more people that don't approve of Trump than do approve of Trump. And in a two party system, that means Trump should have no chance in winning if people who oppose him just vote for the one candidate that's not him. 

The losers in the last election got 3 million more votes than Trump.  Trump and the Republicans don't have to grow their support given how effectively the electoral college and gerrymandering favours them. How long can they keep that up however?  Probably one more election at least but the cranky old white people Republicans must depend on for the votes they do get will keep dying off and at at a faster pace so.

Trump's next victory could truly be the Last Great Cranky Old White Hope for Republicans so just how low might they go to stay in power?  Its hard to ignore the fondness Trump seems to have for dictators and the absence of Republican squeamishness for Trump is increasingly legendary.

So this is what Dystopia looks like.

[-TSS-]

Aren't the number of HOR-seats determined at the federal level based on the population of each state? Therefore gerrymandering happens at the HOR-elections as the state can draw the boundaries of the electoral districts but there is no chance of gerrymandering in the presidential elections.

Is it only the republicans who gerrymander the electoral districts? I guess not.

[Boges]

17 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Aren't the number of HOR-seats determined at the federal level based on the population of each state? Therefore gerrymandering happens at the HOR-elections as the state can draw the boundaries of the electoral districts but there is no chance of gerrymandering in the presidential elections.

Is it only the republicans who gerrymander the electoral districts? I guess not.

This is true. Because the EC is winner take all, it doesn't matter how the districts are drawn, just the number of them for Federal Election purposes. 

But that actually favours the Republicans is a different way. States like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania are all very divided purple states. We saw in 2016 that these swing states went to Trump by the narrowest of margins. But under the EC rules, you get ALL the EC votes if you win a state. You win by 30 points or 1 point in Florida, you still get the 29 votes. 

That skews the intent of the electorate. A state like California or Texas can go strongly to either the Democrats or the Republicans but they still only get X amount of EC votes no matter how strong their intent is. So you don't weight a state's preference for the candidate one way or the other. It's black and white. 

Should they make the EC a set of individual districts and you need 270 of districts to vote for you (ignoring the states) then you may get a more accurate indication of who the public wants to lead them. Red and Blue States wouldn't be complete wastes of time to campaign in and Swing states wouldn't hold the power they do. 

This is more similar to our Westminster system. Where the HoC is decided by 338 separate races. One may be concerned that it would mean the Congress would just mirror the White House. It could be like that but at least, unlike in Canada, you can vote for your Executive leader separately. In Canada a vote for your MP is the same as your vote for the PM. In the US, that could still be a separate vote. You like your Republican Congressman, but you hate Trump, for example. 

[Shady]

Looks like Trump still enjoys an electoral map advantage.  It used to be Dems that held an advantage.

[egghead]

33 minutes ago, Shady said:

Looks like Trump still enjoys an electoral map advantage.  It used to be Dems that held an advantage.

The four houseman of dem-pocalypse are killing the dems ,plain and simple

[Shady]

This, and promising to eliminate all private health insurance.

[Yzermandius19]

2 hours ago, Shady said:

This, and promising to eliminate all private health insurance.

It was self destructing before that, Bernie is such a lightweight. Good to see him getting a taste of his own medicine though, just desserts.

[Shady]

[GostHacked]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/31/gabbard_vs_harris_you_kept_prisoners_locked_up_for_labor_blocked_evidence_that_would_free_man_on_death_row.html

I am not happy Gabbard side stepped the actual question, (maybe she saw it as a trap, not sure), but she made some great points regarding Harri's record.

 

Shady,  we also heard Trump saying he would drain the swamp. Which did not happen. A lot of them are corrupt.