World, Writing, Wealth discussion

29 views
World & Current Events > Dem vs Rep or maybe a third force: two more years what to do?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 116 (116 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3

message 1: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13089 comments As an impeachment became even more improbable and some members here suggest that apart from collusion other agenda might be more helpful to president's competitors, we can maybe turn a page and start a new one.
So, how's Trump's performance so far? Is he on the right way to make America great again? Can he claim any major achievements? Will he desperately need progress with the wall or denuclearization of N. Korea?

Whom and what dems should promote? Hillary won't run. So maybe Biden or I read here a couple of times that Beto O'Rourke was viewed as some rising superstar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beto_O%...

And finally, would a third force (ever) have a chance?


message 2: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) I doubt it. I would say that at this point, only the Democrats have a chance at unseating Trump. And they will have to choose wisely seeing as how whoever they choose will be held to a much MUCH higher standard than Trump himself, like before.

As for Trump, I'd say he's doomed no matter what. He has accomplished nothing at this point and the only thing he can take credit for (the state of the economy) is something he inherited from Obama, and that stands on shaky legs right now. Also, I think assuming that "Russiagate" is over or that Trump has been exonerated is not only premature, but naive.


message 3: by J.N. (new)

J.N. Bedout (jndebedout) | 104 comments Strangely, these posts somehow reminded me of Ross Perot's [in]famous retort, "I'm all ears."


message 4: by Graeme (last edited Mar 29, 2019 11:46PM) (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7087 comments Joe Biden has just been outed today by a democrat politician, Lucy Flores, for sexual predator behaviors. REF: https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/an-awk...

Leading too ...

REF: The Stats, Note Biden's sudden drop from 1 to 2 on the 29th of March. https://www.predictit.org/markets/det...

Which makes Sanders the current front runner.

Lucy Flores: REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Fl...

EDIT: And dropping, now at 3rd place behind Sanders, and Harris.


message 5: by J. (last edited Mar 30, 2019 11:13AM) (new)

J. Gowin | 2660 comments Trump has the advantages of incumbency and an invulnerability to scandal that amazes me. Seriously, he had an affair with a porn star, whom he compared to his daughter, and nobody cares. His career is invulnerable to his own moral turpitude. In his case, I don't think that getting caught with a live boy or a dead girl would matter.

The Democrats have a bunch of embarrassments whose proposed policies give me an ocular tic. They even seem to be at risk of a divided convention brought on by differences between the old "conservative" democrats and the new AOC loving mental defectives.

So I'll vote libertarian again, and the rest of the country will flip a coin. Inertia kept Rome going for centuries with just a few good emperors. Maybe we can survive on inertia long enough to correct our current problems. Maybe...


message 6: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9228 comments I am wondering whether the Dems have a problem with an established hierarchy within the party that makes it difficult to find good candidates or for them to push their way through. For all I know the GOP has too, but Trump had enough financial power to break through. Under normal circumstances, I would say 2020 is the Dems to lose, but somehow they seem to be showing signs of doing just that. Still, there is a lot of time, and maybe a good candidate would be better leaving a run for a while?


message 7: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments I'm hoping Howard Schultz gets some serious attention...or Mark Cuban decides to jump in and get Ross Perot level support...I'd love to send a message that we're ready for a third choice...


message 8: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments To give some ideas of where the Parties' heads are,...

Dems look to be increasing their focus on the South: Florida, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...

Trump's recent rallies make it clear he wants to strengthen his support in the states he flipped, but now he's looking to take Virginia back. This makes sense with the scandals that just fell on the three top Democrats in the state...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/0...


message 9: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7087 comments Current fundraising stats at REF: https://www.statista.com/chart/17762/...

No big surprises, but the war chests are growing.


message 10: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments If Joe Biden wants to run, he better announce soon or he's going to be seriously outspent in the next year...


message 11: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7087 comments He hasn't announced yet? He needs to get a move on.


message 12: by Nik (last edited Apr 22, 2019 12:30AM) (new)

Nik Krasno | 13089 comments Can they run away instead of for president with all the donations?
I mean you've garnered a couple of millions and have zero chance to be a president, why to waist them on a campaign? Campari can be money better spent -:)


message 13: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9228 comments They can, but I believe they had better run fast because there is jail time awaiting. They need a country with o extradition too.

On the other hand, have you ever known a politician who, no matter the odds against, doesn't have this foolish hope there will be a miracle and he will win?


message 14: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5192 comments Biden's letting the Me Too furor die down before declaring, knowing that common sense will prevail. He knows he's the Democrat most likely to get the nomination when people come to their senses. Then he will come out with a positive message that will focus Democrats on something other than their fruitless quest for revenge. Dems have wasted their political capital on this petty quest for the past two years, and voters see that. It's over. The fact that some Democrats are still pushing for impeachment just weakens their party.


message 15: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments Nik wrote: "Can they run away instead of for president with all the donations?
I mean you've garnered a couple of millions and have zero chance to be a president, why to waist them on a campaign? Campari can b..."


What they can do instead, is "loan" the campaign some of their personal money, then charge a 100% interest rate or whatever. In essence they'll end up pocketing the money anyway, but for some reason, it's legal...


message 16: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9228 comments Talk about loan sharks :-) Candidate sharks make them look harmless.


message 17: by J.J. (last edited Apr 22, 2019 11:11PM) (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments Everyone focuses on the money these groups are spending on campaigns, but the real crime is what the candidates do with it. It's not just making loans at exorbitant interest rates, but they also get away with hiring family members and paying ridiculous salaries. It's only illegal to put themselves on the payroll, but the law lets them put their family members on...even Bernie Sanders employed his wife on his 2016 campaign...it's everyone and it's ridiculous.

And that's really why you get the long-shot candidates running for office, because they can make a lot of money without any real shot of winning.


message 18: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7087 comments Ian wrote: "They can, but I believe they had better run fast because there is jail time awaiting. They need a country with o extradition too...."

Cuba?


message 19: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7087 comments Scout wrote: "Biden's letting the Me Too furor die down before declaring, knowing that common sense will prevail. He knows he's the Democrat most likely to get the nomination when people come to their senses. Th..."

My thoughts exactly. (Have you been reading my mind...?)


message 20: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7087 comments J.J. wrote: "And that's really why you get the long-shot candidates running for office, because they can make a lot of money without any real shot of winning...."

Cool. Can I sign up? ... No.... You have to be American...


message 21: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9228 comments Employing wife is not necessarily wrong, provided the payment is not ridiculous. It is always helpful to have someone you trust to act as a secretary and to make arrangements, and not just for politics. If you have a one-man business, the wife invariably does an awful lot.


message 22: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7087 comments Ian wrote: "Employing wife is not necessarily wrong, provided the payment is not ridiculous. It is always helpful to have someone you trust to act as a secretary and to make arrangements, and not just for poli..."

I hope she's well rewarded... mind you - happy wife, happy life!


message 23: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5192 comments Graeme, it's the smart move. Take the high road after all the BS the Dems have been doing, wasting two years on getting revenge. Biden has been noticeably absent from the fray. Dems have forgotten that they applauded Michelle saying "When they go low, we go high." They have been enthusiastically going low, but they'll conveniently forget the past two years and all the taxpayer money wasted in pursuit of revenge. They'll claim the high road going into the election. And supporters will be happy to erase it all from their minds and see all good things.


message 24: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9228 comments Graeme wrote: "Ian wrote: "Employing wife is not necessarily wrong, provided the payment is not ridiculous. It is always helpful to have someone you trust to act as a secretary and to make arrangements, and not j..."

That was then, Graeme. As for now, I have no idea - she has been dead for over three years. But the point about a small business is, of course, the financial wealth of you both is at stake, so you both should be trying to do what you can to make it work.


message 25: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7087 comments Sad to hear that Ian.


message 26: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9228 comments These things happen, Graeme. We are all dying - it is merely a question of when. She did say shortly before the cancer took her that she had done everything she wanted to, and I found that comforting.


message 27: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5192 comments That is comforting. I hope when my time comes that I can say the same. I'm motivated now to get busy doing important things I've been putting off.


message 28: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7087 comments Good advice, Ian


message 29: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13089 comments So Biden is in the game


message 30: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9228 comments The field is crowded. Should they have a preliminary round to fix starting positions, like at motor races? :-)


message 31: by J. (new)

J. Gowin | 2660 comments That's what fund raising is for. If you can raise enough money to make it to the primaries, then at least you have convinced some rich people that you're worth a damn.


message 32: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9228 comments J. wrote: "That's what fund raising is for. If you can raise enough money to make it to the primaries, then at least you have convinced some rich people that you're worth a damn."

Which means the rich people select the Presidential candidates. Who cares about the poor? ;-(


message 33: by J. (new)

J. Gowin | 2660 comments Just one of the many reasons why political parties are a bad idea.


message 34: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5192 comments And why we need campaign finance reform and why we should all be pissed at the Supreme Court and hope for an appeal to the Citizens United decision.


message 35: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13089 comments The old-new Joe Biden is leading the dem polls: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/30/po...

But he's just an ex-deputy of Barack.
If Obama could run again, do you think he'd win against Trump?


message 36: by J. (new)

J. Gowin | 2660 comments Between Trump and Obama, the victor would be irrelevant. The reaction of the loser's supporters would be a nightmare.


message 37: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9228 comments I have a feeling the reaction of the losers is going to be horrible irrespective of who stands. What is even more depressing is that might be putting off better candidates from standing. From this distance, at least, the Dems offerings so far seem somewhat lacking in promise.


message 38: by J. (new)

J. Gowin | 2660 comments The Dems go beyond lacking promise. Uncle Joe is still Uncle Joe, but older. Kamala Harris' is only notable for hating Trump and threatening a single mother with jail time. Elizabeth Warren managed to get a President to call her "Pocahontas", because of her repeated false claims of native ancestry, then she took a DNA test proving that she has no notable native ancestry. Beto O'rourke is a child of privilege who brags about how he lost to Ted "the most punchable face in Texas" Cruz.

I don't believe that any of them can beat Trump, and he is a scandal ridden orangutan. I'm hoping that one of the "fake journalists" embraces the moniker and chanels Hunter S. Thompson.


message 39: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments What's probably telling about this election is the number of Democrats doing town halls on Fox News after the DNC announced they would refuse to allow Fox News to host any debates. What's even more interesting is the ratings are blowing away CNN.

Bernie Sanders garnered about a million more viewers from his town hall on Fox than he had during his CNN town hall. And Amy Klobuchar had nearly double the viewership on her Fox town hall than on her CNN town hall.

If the DNC sticks to their Fox News ban, any candidate who doesn't embrace Fox will have a hard time convincing the public they're going to be anything but another divisive President.


message 40: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5192 comments Most Republicans weren't happy with Obama, but the mainstream liberal media were on his side no matter what he did. Trump was elected despite their best efforts, and the mainstream liberal media have been out to get him from the moment he was elected. They support the Democrats' obstructionist agenda, this petty nipping at the heels of the President because he had the audacity to win without their support. A free and independent press is meant to inform. It's not meant to be a player in the political process.


message 41: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments Scout wrote: "Most Republicans weren't happy with Obama, but the mainstream liberal media were on his side no matter what he did. Trump was elected despite their best efforts, and the mainstream liberal media ha..."

Not sure if you've been catching the ratings news, but CNN has been paying heavily for their reporting. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar both held town halls hosted by Fox, and the ratings blew away their town halls on CNN. Considering CNN is supposed to be friendly territory, Sanders had about a million more viewers on Fox, and Klobuchar had almost double the viewers on Fox.

CNN just had a "town hall" with James Comey the other night, and it came in a dismal third place behind Fox News and MSNBC's programming.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoye...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-...

https://deadline.com/2019/04/fncbeats...

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...


message 42: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5192 comments What do you think are the implications?


message 43: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2911 comments Scout wrote: "What do you think are the implications?"

Firstly I think Fox should be applauded for hosting these Town Halls - a marked difference from my viewpoint on my last US visit at the end of 2018. Perhaps CNN should take a leaf out of the book and host some Republican ones without turning it into a shrill anti-Trump viewpoint

In both case it must help the voters at least see a different set of opinions. Something that news organisations used to be famed for.

I do not know enough about the new candidates (or previous candidates re-running) to make any judgement. The UK has little coverage at the moment - we still have our own decisive issues to deal with.

I would be interested to know if Sanders got a fair ride given the normal description of him as a firebrand Socialist. In most of Europe he would be considered on the right of the left of centre political groupings e.g. he would be too right wing for the UK's Labour Party currently the main opposition party.


message 44: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments Scout wrote: "What do you think are the implications?"

The Democrats have been labeling Trump as divisive and claiming he's polarizing the country more than it already is. Their nominee has to show Independents that they're going to be a uniter. Their nominee has to show Independents that they're going to be the President for everybody and not just for their base.

Those candidates how have or will go on Fox for these town halls show that, without a doubt. Bernie Sanders had a conversation with Conservatives. Amy Klobuchar appealed to Conservatives.

Contrast them with Elizabeth Warren who said she would refuse to take a turn on Fox. She made a whole host of excuses for why she was not going to speak to Conservatives...for why she was not going to talk with the other side. Her decision says to voters that she won't be the President to everyone. She's only going to be President to her base, and we will get another 4 years of polarizing divisiveness...we might as well stick with Trump.

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/11...


message 45: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments Philip wrote: "Scout wrote: "What do you think are the implications?"

Firstly I think Fox should be applauded for hosting these Town Halls - a marked difference from my viewpoint on my last US visit at the end o..."


Everything I see on Sanders's town hall indicates it went very well for him.


message 46: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9228 comments It sounds like Warren doesn't want to be President. Talking to your own base gets you the votes you were always going to get. Talking to the other side means if you can just swing some of the more doubtful ones, you win. You still have to perform, but there's nothing wrong with having to do that. As J.J. wrote, a President for everyone is what you want, and there must be some Republican-leaning voters who would switch to a good candidate that looked like they would be sympathetic to their interests.


message 47: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2911 comments Is there anyone on the Republican side that will challenge Trump that is appealing to Dems?


message 48: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5192 comments We talk about politicians as if they have free will, but they owe allegiance to money first and to their base second. They have to please both and really have no autonomy if they want to be re-elected, which they do.


message 49: by Kris (new)

Kris Haliday (krishaliday) | 127 comments Nik wrote: "The old-new Joe Biden is leading the dem polls: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/30/po...

But he's just an ex-deputy of Barack.
If Obama could..."


Absolutely. People so want to feel good again and whether you agree with everything Obama did or not, whether you believe he was good, bad, or indifferent, I think most people did feel good when he was elected.


message 50: by Kris (new)

Kris Haliday (krishaliday) | 127 comments Scout wrote: "Most Republicans weren't happy with Obama, but the mainstream liberal media were on his side no matter what he did. Trump was elected despite their best efforts, and the mainstream liberal media ha..."

Scout, do you really think it is? I mean, do you think the press has had a significant impact on how things are going? They couldn't, after all, stop Trump from being elected. How could they do anything significant if they couldn't do that, when (you're right) they loath him?


« previous 1 3
back to top