Page 305 of 594 FirstFirst ... 205255295301302303304305306307308309315355405 ... LastLast
Results 4,561 to 4,575 of 8897
  1. #4561
    Astonishing Member Kusanagi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    The issue with Trump is the economy. Most people aren't politically engaged and the only thing they care about is if they feel like the economy is doing well. If you just go by conventional politics, this is a layup for Trump. Incumbant with a strong economy going against a likely split party.

    Like 2016, the question is if Trump being such an anomaly as a politician will make a difference against conventional political theory.
    Pretty much what I've been saying. If Trump wasn't Trump there would be no chance of a Democrat victory in the fall barring a disastrous economic downturn. But because Trump is Trump there's a good section of the public that would happily see the end of him, no matter the economy. Being the outlier to all political norms saw him win in 2016 and might just see him lose in 2020.
    Current Pull: Amazing Spider-Man and Domino

    Bunn for Deadpool's Main Book!

  2. #4562
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Batson View Post
    Then the Sanders campaign should make that case as opposed to using a deceptive version of his 2018 comments in regards to Paul Ryan, tax cuts and social security. They didn't do that.

  3. #4563
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Then the Sanders campaign should make that case as opposed to using a deceptive version of his 2018 comments in regards to Paul Ryan, tax cuts and social security. They didn't do that.
    From what I understand, Biden claimed that we should freeze spending at one point, and that included Social Security.

    I haven't seen any evidence that he wanted to cut the programs in question but that's the newest talking point being used against him.

    Needless to say however, just like the issues with Warren, this will be used to further divide the Democratic party headed into the election.

  4. #4564
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    From what I understand, Biden claimed that we should freeze spending at one point, and that included Social Security.

    I haven't seen any evidence that he wanted to cut the programs in question but that's the newest talking point being used against him.

    Needless to say however, just like the issues with Warren, this will be used to further divide the Democratic party headed into the election.
    Yeah, that 's how I understand it too. I'm not sure if Biden was part of the push for chained CPI SS, which would have been cutting future benefits. Either way, those are cases that they can pursue but instead have decided to... do this.

    This is no different than his declaration that Hillary was 'unqualified'.

  5. #4565
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Yeah, that 's how I understand it too. I'm not sure if Biden was part of the push for chained CPI SS, which would have been cutting future benefits. Either way, those are cases that they can pursue but instead have decided to... do this.

    This is no different than his declaration that Hillary was 'unqualified'.
    The whole situation probably has more to do with the issue of compromise -- which will likely remain an issue all the way into the general election.

    As a matter of perspective, Sanders vision does not really allow for compromise with regards to things like entitlement spending.

    Hopefully both sides can come to an understanding regarding these differences without resorting to slander or venom -- it's a welcome topic of debate so long as it is handled in a civil manner. With the issues with Warren still simmering, it seems that the gloves are coming off. The only real question at this point is whether Democrats can find a way to resolve said differences without empowering their opponent in the general election.

  6. #4566

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    Honestly, if at this point people are still supporting a party that they know is racist, xenophobic, homophobic, fiscally irresponsible and inherently corrupt, then I don't feel the need to waste time trying to "advocate" that they develop a sense of moral integrity, fiscal responsibility or any real empathy for their fellow Americans, and other human beings in general, as that is something that they have to develop on their own.

    Likewise, if they want to invent and/or dwell on potential progressive "horrors" while simultaneously allowing a man like Trump (or Bush) drag our nation into the gutter with policies that increase deficits, start wars, and increase racial and civil injustice and global warming, then so be it.

    It's not my responsibility to "advocate" to people that they should base their choices on facts rather than fear, especially since it's usually a waste of breath.

    As I said when we first discussed these issues -- most Republican voters won't learn from their mistakes until they start to suffer as well.

    With regards to Sanders, all I'll venture is that if he's the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him -- the hypotheticals are irrelevant to me.
    In political conversations, we have no responsibility to do anything beyond being honest and being respectful of others (and that mainly involves trying to not to say anything obnoxious and wrong.)

    It is worth noting that many people will disagree with you that the Republican party is racist, xenophobic, homophobic, fiscally irresponsible and inherently corrupt. But there will also be concerns of bad policies in the name of empathy.

    It is probably in the best interests of Democrats to put more facts out there, so when voters who are sometimes but not always on the side of the party can see that policies on contentious issues do have clear limits.

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    How terrifying, we must elect Joe Biden to ensure that no meaningful legislation of any sort gets proposed.
    Who says Joe Biden hasn't advocated for meaningful legislation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    "But the young voters will save us," said every election loser ever. And yes, it's happened when you 'give them something to vote FOR'.
    Do the young voters really make a difference, or do they just support Democrats in highly favorable environments (IE- coming out in 2008 after George W Bush's approval rating is in the 20s)?

  7. #4567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    Change "Biden..." to "HRC...", and you are describing what was the case when Trump won the Presidency.

    It would make sense to not assume that they exact same playbook will give you a different outcome in the fall.
    Hillary Clinton had special problems that don't apply to Biden.

    She was in a poor position to go after sexual assault allegations against Trump because her husband faced similar allegations, and because she had not treated the accusers with the respect we insisted on in 2016.

    There was a nepotism argument that we shouldn't have the wife of a President serving the office when a decade earlier the son of a President had served in the office, and done a poor job.

    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    Well if nominating a candidate that young voters can get excited about it worked the last time, maybe the Democrats should try it again. If Biden is the nominee, it's virtually guaranteed that most young voters will stay home and it's going to be pretty hard for him to win if that happens.



    Wishing for ethnic tensions to go away without addressing the deeply rooted structural issues that created them hasn't worked here, why the hell would anyone expect it to work in India?
    How do progressives plan to address the deeply rooted structural issues?

    What's the plan for doing that that isn't going to send the pissed off suburbanites who helped Democrats take back the House running back to Trump?

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    The issue with Trump is the economy. Most people aren't politically engaged and the only thing they care about is if they feel like the economy is doing well. If you just go by conventional politics, this is a layup for Trump. Incumbant with a strong economy going against a likely split party.

    Like 2016, the question is if Trump being such an anomaly as a politician will make a difference against conventional political theory.
    Will an incumbent with a strong economy do poorly when facing a united party?

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Batson View Post
    There is no indication that Biden wants to spend less money on social security next year than we're spending now.

  8. #4568
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    It is worth noting that many people will disagree with you that the Republican party is racist, xenophobic, homophobic, fiscally irresponsible and inherently corrupt.
    Of course -- there are a lot of people who tend to live in denial of this, especially when they aren't the victim of said behavior.

    Likewise, there is also a large segment of the party that supports this, as their nomination and reverence of Trump proves.

  9. #4569
    Extraordinary Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    6,003

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    Of course -- there are a lot of people who tend to live in denial of this, especially when they aren't the victim of said behavior.
    There's also still Flat Earthers.
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  10. #4570
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulBullion View Post
    There's also still Flat Earthers.
    Back before the internet existed, I could at least excuse casual ignorance as a matter of a lack of education.

    Now I've just come to accept that many people are intentionally ignorant to any facts that might go against their own personal biases.

  11. #4571
    Astonishing Member Darkspellmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,961

    Default

    Well apparently Sanders is looking into how Warren can be Vp/Treasurer/Secretary and have all three jobs. Aren't we supposed to have separate people doing these jobs as part of the balancing act we have in government.

    I mean isn't the Sec and VP more likely needing to travel, while the Treasurer mostly stays states side. Wouldn't there be conflict of interest as well with the jobs.

  12. #4572
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkspellmaster View Post
    Well apparently Sanders is looking into how Warren can be Vp/Treasurer/Secretary and have all three jobs. Aren't we supposed to have separate people doing these jobs as part of the balancing act we have in government.

    I mean isn't the Sec and VP more likely needing to travel, while the Treasurer mostly stays states side. Wouldn't there be conflict of interest as well with the jobs.
    I honestly thought Bernie was going to run a clean campaign.

    The Sanders campaign looked into whether Warren could serve as vice president and treasury secretary at the same time, according to report

  13. #4573
    Mighty Member SquirrelMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,535

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkspellmaster View Post
    Well apparently Sanders is looking into how Warren can be Vp/Treasurer/Secretary and have all three jobs. Aren't we supposed to have separate people doing these jobs as part of the balancing act we have in government.

    I mean isn't the Sec and VP more likely needing to travel, while the Treasurer mostly stays states side. Wouldn't there be conflict of interest as well with the jobs.
    Well, Trump is President, businessman making money off his presidency, and Russian spy all at once. So there is precedent.

  14. #4574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkspellmaster View Post
    Well apparently Sanders is looking into how Warren can be Vp/Treasurer/Secretary and have all three jobs. Aren't we supposed to have separate people doing these jobs as part of the balancing act we have in government.

    I mean isn't the Sec and VP more likely needing to travel, while the Treasurer mostly stays states side. Wouldn't there be conflict of interest as well with the jobs.
    There is chatter that Sanders is interested in Warren serving as both Vice President, and Secretary of the Treasury.

    There is a Treasurer of the Untied States, but this is a relatively minor position that has often gone vacant for more than an year.

    The Treasurer's main responsibility is to advise the Secretary of the Treasury, be a liaison with the Federal Reserve, and provide oversight over the U.S. Mint, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and Fort Knox.

    https://www.nawrb.com/president-trum...u-s-treasurer/

    The responsibilities of the Vice President are largely dependent on the relationship with the President, but for the most part, you could probably have the same person filling both offices.

    The main tasks for the Vice President are to represent the country in certain functions, and to cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate (a rare situation.) Someone can do both jobs, and it would have some advantages (IE- shows how important the economy is to the administration, keeps the Vice President involved in the decision-making process.)

    Quote Originally Posted by shooshoomanjoe View Post
    How is this not clean?

    By all accounts, he was consulting lawyers about whether something can be done. That's the appropriate process for bold moves.

    This was probably be a bad idea from an electoral standpoint.

  15. #4575
    Astonishing Member PwrdOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shooshoomanjoe View Post
    It's not so much dirty as it is pointless and counterproductive. There's a reason VPs are almost always empty suits with no real power or influence, because no sane leader would want a #2 who would backstab you to take the top spot for herself. That's why Obama picked Biden as his running mate and not Clinton. You definitely don't want the person who would benefit most from you having an unfortunate accident in a position of actual power like Secretary of State where she can build up her own network of supporters within the administration who'd prefer to see her in charge.
    Last edited by PwrdOn; 01-19-2020 at 10:59 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •