TheCid

2020 Election

530 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, TheCid said:

If her goal is to defeat Trump, the best thing she can do is drop out of the race and race money for someone who can actually win.

 What Dems candidate do you believe can actually win (beat Trump)?

Anyone other than Biden or Klobuchar?     (and Klobuchar has a very small chance to win the Dem primary since too many progressive view her as a DINO).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

 What Dems candidate do you believe can actually win (beat Trump)?

Anyone other than Biden or Klobuchar?     (and Klobuchar has a very small chance to win the Dem primary since too many progressive view her as a DINO).

 

 

Not really sure. Biden 10 years ago for sure, but now?  I still think Klobuchar is the best of the lot and would accomplish more in the White House.

Hopefully in the next few months, the pack will thin out and we will have a better idea of who can actually defeat Trump.  Assuming the Dems don't totally screw up and nobody can defeat him.  There are far too many people who erroneously believe Trump will make mistakes, do dumb things or that evidence of shady dealings, "obstruction," etc. will show up.  Doesn't matter because all that pretty much existed in 2016 and he still won.

My wife believes no one under 50 should be president as they lack experience.  I agree with her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Another meaningless poll.  The last time Texas voted for a Democrat was in 1976 when they voted for Jimmy Carter because he came from the South.  O'Rourke's near win over Cruz was due to a lot of circumstances that are unlikely to occur for a Democrat in 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/05/federal-judges-toss-out-ohios-congressional-map-as-illegal-gerrymander.html

Federal judges toss out Ohio’s congressional map as illegal gerrymander

A three-judge federal panel unanimously ruled Friday that Ohio’s gerrymandered congressional district map is unconstitutional, and ordered the creation of a new map in time for the 2020 election.

This is the latest in a series of decisions across the country striking down partisan maps, including in neighboring Michigan and Pennsylvania. Plus, U.S. Supreme Court rulings are pending for cases out of North Carolina and Maryland.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, on behalf of the League of Women voters and others, filed the suit a year ago in an attempt to move up the timetable for congressional redistricting reform in the state.

“This ruling is a victory for every Ohio voter, because a fair congressional map before 2020 means a stronger democracy for the Buckeye State," said Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio.

The court ordered the state to create a new map by June 14. But if the state fails to adopt a constitutional version of the map for Ohio’s 16 congressional districts, the court may then do so itself.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said the state would both seek to put the ruling on hold and file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The judges in their ruling said: “We are convinced by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional and effective and that no legitimate justification accounts for its extremity. ...

“The 2012 map dilutes the votes of Democratic voters by packing and cracking them into districts that are so skewed toward one party that the electoral outcome is predetermined. We conclude that the map unconstitutionally burdens associational rights by making it more difficult for voters and certain organizations to advance their aims, be they pro-Democratic or pro- democracy.”

DSXP4AATF5EUVGLDJLJNKLWC44.png

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019/05/federal-judges-toss-out-ohios-congressional-map-as-illegal-gerrymander.html

Federal judges toss out Ohio’s congressional map as illegal gerrymander

A three-judge federal panel unanimously ruled Friday that Ohio’s gerrymandered congressional district map is unconstitutional, and ordered the creation of a new map in time for the 2020 election.

This is the latest in a series of decisions across the country striking down partisan maps, including in neighboring Michigan and Pennsylvania. Plus, U.S. Supreme Court rulings are pending for cases out of North Carolina and Maryland.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, on behalf of the League of Women voters and others, filed the suit a year ago in an attempt to move up the timetable for congressional redistricting reform in the state.

“This ruling is a victory for every Ohio voter, because a fair congressional map before 2020 means a stronger democracy for the Buckeye State," said Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio.

The court ordered the state to create a new map by June 14. But if the state fails to adopt a constitutional version of the map for Ohio’s 16 congressional districts, the court may then do so itself.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said the state would both seek to put the ruling on hold and file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The judges in their ruling said: “We are convinced by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional and effective and that no legitimate justification accounts for its extremity. ...

“The 2012 map dilutes the votes of Democratic voters by packing and cracking them into districts that are so skewed toward one party that the electoral outcome is predetermined. We conclude that the map unconstitutionally burdens associational rights by making it more difficult for voters and certain organizations to advance their aims, be they pro-Democratic or pro- democracy.”

DSXP4AATF5EUVGLDJLJNKLWC44.png

This is a good sign, but what will happen when it gets to the Supreme Court.  In every previous case, the S.C. has ruled that this is a political issue, not a Constitutional one and therefore reversed the lower courts.  What will happen with 5 conservative justices?

It also brings up the issue of the intentionally and court approved gerrymandered districts at county, state and federal levels to created minority majority districts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My mom has been a die hard Republican her whole life, she told me yesterday she is going to vote for Bernie. I still can't believe it.
 
“I think healthcare is a top issue for what we call ‘human beings.’”
 
And this ladies and gents is how you win over republicans. Fight based on policy not the “I’m not trump” bs
 
The rich and greedy will try to convince the peasants that Bernie Sanders will turn the US into Vuvuzuela. 😨😨😨😨😨😨
 
Over 300 dollars for pills is ridiculous. Trump said he'd fight that, but instead rolled over and begged for a belly rub from Big Pharma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TalkTalk123 said:

 

It would help if you provided information as to why we should open this link and view it.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Joe Biden says he ‘doesn’t have time’ to lay out his healthcare plan

 

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have made detailed policy proposals on the 2020 campaign trail

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-healthcare-2020-campaign-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-a8898926.html

It doesn't matter if you have a plan if the plan is not practical and not going to be passed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Joe Biden says he ‘doesn’t have time’ to lay out his healthcare plan

In other words Biden doesn't have a plan. :blink:

Idea, how about a plan to tackle the out of control healthcare cost?!  It's BS a postpartum injection cost up to $30,000!   Harvoni a Hep C drug, $94,500!! :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Re: Joe Biden says he ‘doesn’t have time’ to lay out his healthcare plan

In other words Biden doesn't have a plan. :blink:

He's like Trump, who says he'll tell you about his plan "after the election". :lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

He's like Trump, who says he'll tell you about his plan "after the election". :lol:

Joe steps in it once again,  but to be fair to every candidate;  it doesn't matter what their plans are since a President alone can't implement much especially in the area of domestic policy.    So all of the Dems with big ideas and plans are just red meat to progressive since the odds are very low any of them will be implemented as 'planned'.

But since a lot of voters demand red-meat,    Joe should have just told them what they want to hear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Joe Biden says he ‘doesn’t have time’ to lay out his healthcare plan

 

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have made detailed policy proposals on the 2020 campaign trail

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-biden-healthcare-2020-campaign-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-a8898926.html

His response fully quoted is “I don’t have time; I don’t want to keep you standing any longer,” Mr Biden said recently in Iowa City, declining to lay out his vision for America’s healthcare future to the assembled crowd, according to POLITICO."

A VERY reasonable response to a question at a "meet and greet" session.  He was in the middle of the ACA and has been in Washington for a very long time.  He knows how complicated health care really is and how complex it will be.  There is no simple answer such as Medicare for All and we don't know how it will be paid for or actually function, which is the Sanders, Warren, et. al. plan.

Sanders and Warren put forth "plans and policies" that will be impossible to implement and require very broad acceptance by citizens, taxpayers, healthcare industry, insurance industry, ad infinitum.  Not to mention House and Senate.  Still have not addressed paying for it in real world specifics.

From the article: "But Mr Sanders isn’t alone in pushing policy in the race. Elizabeth Warren has become known for doing so, offering up plans on issues ranging from healthcare – increase consumer subsidies, force insurers to accept tougher rules, and make insurance cheaper in the US — to improving accountability for private companies in charge of military housing."

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another CNN identity politics article.   This one relates to Harris.   The view of Harris and the author of this article is that the term "electability"  is code for 'white man' in the Midwestern \ battleground states.

The author is a person-of-color and sadly they see most things from a bias identity politics framework.

I have always viewed "electability" as having centralist policies.    But to these folks,  if you're a white man and you don't vote for them it is because you're a racist or sexist and not because one believes they are too far left.

In the case of Biden,  note the differences between Biden and Sanders on policy;   Sanders is clearly to the left of Biden and many believe that would make it more difficult for Sanders to beat Trump than Biden.   BUT since Sanders is also a white-man he can't use identity politics to attack and shame Biden supporters like Harris.  

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/politics/kamala-harris-joe-biden-electability-race/index.html

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

His response fully quoted is “I don’t have time; I don’t want to keep you standing any longer,” Mr Biden said recently in Iowa City, declining to lay out his vision for America’s healthcare future to the assembled crowd, according to POLITICO."

A VERY reasonable response to a question at a "meet and greet" session.  He was in the middle of the ACA and has been in Washington for a very long time.  He knows how complicated health care really is and how complex it will be.  There is no simple answer such as Medicare for All and we don't know how it will be paid for or actually function, which is the Sanders, Warren, et. al. plan.

Sanders and Warren put forth "plans and policies" that will be impossible to implement and require very broad acceptance by citizens, taxpayers, healthcare industry, insurance industry, ad infinitum.  Not to mention House and Senate.  Still have not addressed paying for it in real world specifics.

From the article: "But Mr Sanders isn’t alone in pushing policy in the race. Elizabeth Warren has become known for doing so, offering up plans on issues ranging from healthcare – increase consumer subsidies, force insurers to accept tougher rules, and make insurance cheaper in the US — to improving accountability for private companies in charge of military housing."

 

It's only corporate greed that finds it hard to figure out how to pay, no questions asked when it comes to military spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess she didn't approve enough uranium deals for the Kremlin as secretary of state. Strange how her foundation received millions from Russia. It's in the freaking newyork times.
 
The scream. That's how I feel every time. JUST GIVE US MEDICARE FOR ALL YOU PRICKS
 
This is like asking a junkie how to stop taking drugs
 
It's interesting how Putin has so much power that he can choose the president of the U.S.
 
So for the rest of her life, Putin will occupy part her brain. Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2019 at 1:47 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

Here is another CNN identity politics article.   This one relates to Harris.   The view of Harris and the author of this article is that the term "electability"  is code for 'white man' in the Midwestern \ battleground states.

The author is a person-of-color and sadly they see most things from a bias identity politics framework.

I have always viewed "electability" as having centralist policies.    But to these folks,  if you're a white man and you don't vote for them it is because you're a racist or sexist and not because one believes they are too far left.

In the case of Biden,  note the differences between Biden and Sanders on policy;   Sanders is clearly to the left of Biden and many believe that would make it more difficult for Sanders to beat Trump than Biden.   BUT since Sanders is also a white-man he can't use identity politics to attack and shame Biden supporters like Harris.  

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/06/politics/kamala-harris-joe-biden-electability-race/index.html

I watched this on CNN and as they said, she was speaking to a black audience at an NAACP convention/meeting.

As for me (old, white guy in South), I voted for Obama both times and voted for Hillary.  I think Harris is trying to come up with a rationale for why she is going to lose or is doing poorly in the polls.

23 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:

It's only corporate greed that finds it hard to figure out how to pay, no questions asked when it comes to military spending.

I spent 26 years in the military as an officer and there is no department that has more waste.  BUT, if you could all the waste and corruption in DOD, DHS, DVA, etc., you still would not come anywhere near close to funding Medicare for All.

Not sure what you mean by corporate greed as it relates to military spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TheCid said:

I think Harris is trying to come up with a rationale for why she is going to lose or is doing poorly in the polls.

I agree;    Note that in that same CNN article it was said that Harris was cautious.   E.g. when asked if those in prison,  like the Boston bomber should be able to vote,  she said 'we should have that conversation'.

The article said 'cautious' was also code used to imply women or people-of-color candidates are confused \ don't know what they are talking about.

NOT;  if there is any 'code' related to cautious and a politician it would be: not taking a stand until one gets feedback from focus groups or polling data and this applies to ALL politicians.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree;    Note that in that same CNN article it was said that Harris was cautious.   E.g. when asked if those in prison,  like the Boston bomber should be able to vote,  she said 'we should have that conversation'.

The article said 'cautious' was also code used to imply women or people-of-color candidates are confused \ don't know what they are talking about.

NOT;  if there is any 'code' related to cautious and a politician it would be: not taking a stand until one gets feedback from focus groups or polling data and this applies to ALL politicians.   

I remember seeing that.  To me, she should have a definitive opinion on this even if she is willing to listen to others.  Personally I agree with restoring right to vote after all penalties are completed.  While in prison, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheCid said:

I remember seeing that.  To me, she should have a definitive opinion on this even if she is willing to listen to others.  Personally I agree with restoring right to vote after all penalties are completed.  While in prison, no.

Do those penalties include being on parole?    I would say YES (can't vote until parole is over),  but I understand those that say NO.      But to me parole is a continuation of the sentence.

(but while in prison,  is NO, NO, NO).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree;    Note that in that same CNN article it was said that Harris was cautious.   E.g. when asked if those in prison,  like the Boston bomber should be able to vote,  she said 'we should have that conversation'.

"We should have that conversation" isn't nearly as dumb as Sanders' response but it is still very bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

"We should have that conversation" isn't nearly as dumb as Sanders' response but it is still very bad.

But the point was that Sanders was forthcoming.   He took a stance and was open about it.   Yea, I agree that stance is dumb but at least voters know where he stands.

Harris is somewhat phony,  having little to no core views or values (dumb or otherwise).    She is like Captain Renault.

She needs to have a conversation to figure out which way the wind is blowing.   That isn't leadership. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us