Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...