World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Dem vs Rep or maybe a third force: two more years what to do?
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.
Strangely, these posts somehow reminded me of Ross Perot's [in]famous retort, "I'm all ears."
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.
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...
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?
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...
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...
Current fundraising stats at REF: https://www.statista.com/chart/17762/...No big surprises, but the war chests are growing.
If Joe Biden wants to run, he better announce soon or he's going to be seriously outspent in the next year...
He hasn't announced yet? He needs to get a move on.
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 -:)
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?
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.
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...
Talk about loan sharks :-) Candidate sharks make them look harmless.
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.
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?
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...?)
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...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
The field is crowded. Should they have a preliminary round to fix starting positions, like at motor races? :-)
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.
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? ;-(
Just one of the many reasons why political parties are a bad idea.
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.
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?
Between Trump and Obama, the victor would be irrelevant. The reaction of the loser's supporters would be a nightmare.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
What do you think are the implications?
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.
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...
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.
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.
Is there anyone on the Republican side that will challenge Trump that is appealing to Dems?
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.
Do politicians, once elected, have free will?
Yes, but the party machine tends to subvert it at all possible times,
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?