Starlord Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, Old Man said: Exactly. And then Hillary lost. I'm just speaking as realistically as I can...it's not my fault the Dem party can't figure out what they want. Bernie came along and fired up lots of people, but I don't think he's close to what the majority of Americans want...again, just being realistic. His best chance was 4 years ago IMO. PS: The 'email' thing is a big X-factor in Hillary's loss, remove it completely and she probably wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Well, to her credit, she won the popular vote but I do think Bernie would do better than Hillary in the states she fell behind in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Hermit said: Warren has dropped out https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/elizabeth-warren-drops-out-2020-121931 Not sure that's going to help Bernie that much as their relationship was, sadly, rather frayed somewhat. She would have made a good president I think. She fought, and continues to fight, for consumers like a tiger. IMO Warren would make a splendid vice-presidential candidate for either Biden or Sanders. She splits the difference between them nicely, likely drawing more "progressives" to Biden, or tempering concerns over Sanders' "extremism." And I don't think there's much doubt she could handle the Oval Office if either of the old boys kick off before the end of their term. Politicians don''t have to like each other to work effectively together. Besides, what candidates say about each other during campaigns is to get elected -- serious politicians put that aside when it's time to actually govern. Matt the Bruins 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 6 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said: IMO Warren would make a splendid vice-presidential candidate for either Biden or Sanders. She splits the difference between them nicely, likely drawing more "progressives" to Biden, or tempering concerns over Sanders' "extremism." And I don't think there's much doubt she could handle the Oval Office if either of the old boys kick off before the end of their term. Politicians don''t have to like each other to work effectively together. Besides, what candidates say about each other during campaigns is to get elected -- serious politicians put that aside when it's time to actually govern. If Biden were to take Warren as VP pick, I would be thrilled to vote for him for the true outreach it showed. I do worry there is a loud if smaller fringe of Bernie supporters and perhaps Russian bots that would declare this as PROOF that everything was rigged, and Warren had stabbed Bernie in the back which is the only down side I can see. Bernie could take Warren as a VP and that would be MY Dream ticket. But a smarter more balanced move might be for Bernie to find a Centrist he respected and take him her as a VP option I would also love to see Yang as a VP. I think with 4 years in the shadow of the president, he would learn SO Much, and he'd be a source of really interesting ideas about transitioning into the future that our older nom options could use Lord Liaden 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 38 minutes ago, Dr. MID-Nite said: Americans supposedly want change, but Bernie is unelectable because he's too "radical"(i.e wants too much change). But "no change" Biden is suddenly everyone's savior? I really just don't get this country sometimes. It helps if you understand that a lot of American voters, on an intellectual level, aren't really sure what they want--but they know on a visceral level what they hate. Chaon, Starlord, Joe Walsh and 3 others 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, Pariah said: It helps if you understand that a lot of American voters, on an intellectual level, aren't really sure what they want--but they know on a visceral level what they hate. That maybe the Truth of the Day TrickstaPriest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 13 hours ago, Badger said: I do think winning the House in 2018 was the worst thing that could happen to the party. It lead them to believe that being just anti-Trump works and is all they needed. Rather than looking in the mirror, which a good trouncing would have forced upon them. Unfortunately, this will be needed in 2020. I hope the party can then honestly look at itself and do that. I've heard plenty of people who claim to know what they're talking about argue that Dems won the House in 2018 thanks to moderate candidates who emphasized "kitchen table" issues such as the cost of health care, while staying away from Trump-bashing -- and so that's the playbook they should follow now. Dean Shomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 48 minutes ago, Hermit said: I would also love to see Yang as a VP. I think with 4 years in the shadow of the president, he would learn SO Much, and he'd be a source of really interesting ideas about transitioning into the future that our older nom options could use I respect Andrew Yang, and I believe he has a bright political future ahead of him. But as a practicing politician he's still a neophyte, and I have my doubts Americans would see him as being ready yet to sit in the big chair if something happened to the President. And given the candidates' ages, that's a pretty possible prospect. (And yes, I realize being a political neophyte worked for Trump. But that was a different kind of campaign appealing to a different kind of voter.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said: And given the candidates' ages, that's a pretty possible prospect. Boy, will those 2 old geezers be shaking a lot of hands (Coronavirus) from now until November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 2 hours ago, DShomshak said: I've heard plenty of people who claim to know what they're talking about argue that Dems won the House in 2018 thanks to moderate candidates who emphasized "kitchen table" issues such as the cost of health care, while staying away from Trump-bashing -- and so that's the playbook they should follow now. Dean Shomshak Wish I could believe, but try as I did, I couldn't find anything in 2018, that was anything, but promises of impeachment, and such. (which I guess they delivered, but at the cost of 2020). It isn't to say it didn't happen. And I cant say, I had infinite time to worry about it outside my own state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. MID-Nite Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 2 hours ago, Pariah said: It helps if you understand that a lot of American voters, on an intellectual level, aren't really sure what they want--but they know on a visceral level what they hate. So Americans are the political equivalent of "valley girls"? Terrific. I guess I'm just expecting too much these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Just now, Dr. MID-Nite said: So Americans are the political equivalent of "valley girls"? Terrific. I guess I'm just expecting too much these days. Totes! Lawnmower Boy, Chaon and TrickstaPriest 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 And dorbs, for a given value of dorbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pariah Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Dorbs, dopes...it's such a fine line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermit Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Part of thuh problem with our political situation currently in America is ya know, like, that us guys are torn between fear of change, fer shure real change, oh, baby and outrage at thuh status quo. Like, ya know, this creates an increasingly tense society which provides itself no outlet. Those in power only offer change in order to acquire more power, totes, but gross- most do their level best to make change never comes as they profit by thuh system that is like, ya know, currently installed. If they were you know smart, like, wow government officials would realize they must provide some real substance, oh, which would be adorbs, because a facade of it, mostly however stylish, totes merely increases thuh odds of thuh eventual backlash includin' them. SO obvs. Old Man and L. Marcus 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 Ah, the language of the common man. Or whatevs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted March 5, 2020 Report Share Posted March 5, 2020 You're just jelly. Valley Girls are the GOAT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 6, 2020 Report Share Posted March 6, 2020 This whole subject is grody to the max. 👸 Hermit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Posted March 6, 2020 Report Share Posted March 6, 2020 SO, should I make the risky bet, that our President for the next 4 years will be a very old white guy? Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted March 6, 2020 Report Share Posted March 6, 2020 Facebook takes down Trump campaign census ads Wow, Facebook actually did something responsible...after some public pressure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 6, 2020 Report Share Posted March 6, 2020 7 hours ago, Badger said: SO, should I make the risky bet, that our President for the next 4 years will be a very old white guy? Well, he might be orange. Old Man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted March 6, 2020 Report Share Posted March 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Starlord said: Facebook takes down Trump campaign census ads Wow, Facebook actually did something responsible...after some public pressure. Bracing for the tweetstorm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted March 6, 2020 Report Share Posted March 6, 2020 Getting away from the presidential campaign (though perhaps returning obliquely, we'll see), yesterday I heard something surprising on the program Marketplace. I find the program interesting because it's a business/finance program, which pulls it one way, but it's public radio, which pulls it another. Anyway, yesterday host Kai Ryssdahl (I hope I'm spelling that right) interviewed a Mr. Siroca, the director of the port of Los Angeles. Siroca avowed that coronavirus fears were hurting the port's business, but weren't the first trouble: The port was already hurting from Donald Trump's trade wars, which he condemned as stupid and crazy, bad for American business in general and the port in particular. Not his exact words, but more or less the sentiment. This surprised me because while Mr Ryssdahl has interviewed many business people who told how Trump tariffs and trade policies made business more difficult. I don't recall hearing anyone call them out so bluntly. (And Ryssdahl, as a good journalist, sticks to objective facts such as reminding us that, contrary to what Trump says, other countries don't pay the tariffs, Americans do, and that the promised stampede of blue collar manufacturing jobs back to the US has not happened yet.) And a thought occurred to me, which I haven't heard suggested before, though maybe some of you have encountered it already. See, businesses can apply for waivers from the tariffs. The administration's process for deciding whether to grant waivers is apparently, hm, opaque. So business owners and managers can't know whether an application was denied for some greater economic strategy or... other reasons. It occurs to me that while the tariffs have been a lousy way to protect and promote American manufacturing, they might be an excellent hammer to hold over the heads of business people who might be tempted to complain about Trump's policies. Keep quiet, and maybe you get your waiver. Say in public that business, trade and economics don't work the way Trump says and his policies are counterproductive at best, and you could see your costs going way up. Oh, and one of Mr Ryssdahl''s occasional interviewees is a soybean farmer who admits that China's retaliation has hurt his business. He's holding on because of federal payments to make up for his losses. He admits he'd rather be selling soybeans than receiving government money, but he avers he remains supportive of Trump and his policies. Well, naturally. He too has a strong financial incentive not to condemn Trump. But another thought: Isn't that the long-time accusations conservatives have made against Democrats? That they create and nurture a class of people dependent on government handouts and so will keep voting for the party that provides them? Dean Shomshak Ternaugh, Matt the Bruins, Grailknight and 3 others 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted March 6, 2020 Report Share Posted March 6, 2020 Getting away from the presidential campaign (though perhaps returning obliquely, we'll see), yesterday I heard something surprising on the program Marketplace. I find the program interesting because it's a business/finance program, which pulls it one way, but it's public radio, which pulls it another. Anyway, yesterday host Kai Ryssdahl (I hope I'm spelling that right) interviewed a Mr. Siroca, the director of the port of Los Angeles. Siroca avowed that coronavirus fears were hurting the port's business, but weren't the first trouble: The port was already hurting from Donald Trump's trade wars, which he condemned as stupid and crazy, bad for American business in general and the port in particular. Not his exact words, but more or less the sentiment. This surprised me because while Mr Ryssdahl has interviewed many business people who told how Trump tariffs and trade policies made business more difficult. I don't recall hearing anyone call them out so bluntly. (And Ryssdahl, as a good journalist, sticks to objective facts such as reminding us that, contrary to what Trump says, other countries don't pay the tariffs, Americans do, and that the promised stampede of blue collar manufacturing jobs back to the US has not happened yet.) And a thought occurred to me, which I haven't heard suggested before, though maybe some of you have encountered it already. See, businesses can apply for waivers from the tariffs. The administration's process for deciding whether to grant waivers is apparently, hm, opaque. So business owners and managers can't know whether an application was denied for some greater economic strategy or... other reasons. It occurs to me that while the tariffs have been a lousy way to protect and promote American manufacturing, they might be an excellent hammer to hold over the heads of business people who might be tempted to complain about Trump's policies. Keep quiet, and maybe you get your waiver. Say in public that business, trade and economics don't work the way Trump says and his policies are counterproductive at best, and you could see your costs going way up. Oh, and one of Mr Ryssdahl''s occasional interviewees is a soybean farmer who admits that China's retaliation has hurt his business. He's holding on because of federal payments to make up for his losses. He admits he'd rather be selling soybeans than receiving government money, but he avers he remains supportive of Trump and his policies. Well, naturally. He too has a strong financial incentive not to condemn Trump. But another thought: Isn't that the long-time accusations conservatives have made against Democrats? That they create and nurture a class of people dependent on government handouts and so will keep voting for the party that provides them? Dean Shomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickstaPriest Posted March 6, 2020 Report Share Posted March 6, 2020 15 minutes ago, DShomshak said: See, businesses can apply for waivers from the tariffs. The administration's process for deciding whether to grant waivers is apparently, hm, opaque. So business owners and managers can't know whether an application was denied for some greater economic strategy or... other reasons. This is an excellent point, and kind of core to why I hate his politics in particular. It's inherently destructive to everything but the state. We can argue about a lot of whether other groups do this to some extent or not, but because of the way Trump directly communicates, accuses, and is motivated, it crushes everything else to survive. It has to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.