Bogie56

Trump's Biggest Whoppers

68,844 posts in this topic

Ag. Sec. Sonny Perdue told CNN he believes human-caused climate change is just changes in weather: "I think it's weather patterns... It rained yesterday, it's a nice pretty day today. So the climate does change in short increments and in long increments."

https://www.axios.com/sonny-perdue-agriculture-climate-change-weather-894fb67a-3980-40c8-832b-d1a732f0ce92.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100

ApxHlN-2?format=jpg&name=600x314

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

You mean the one's who thought Hillary Clinton was too far to the left or just thought she was a very bad candidate?  

I would suggest that whoever the democrat candidate is that everyone stop worrying and get behind him or her or say goodbye to your country as you now know it.  You say that Sanders and Warren could never get their agenda passed so what are you worrying about?  Show some unity with everyone in your party not just the middle of the road old f arts.

I have been making a similar case to Cid,  but getting nowhere;   It doesn't matter if the Dem candidate is too liberal;  the Senate will not implement most of their agenda anyway.   So yea, that is over-the-top paranoia by centralist.

But Trump has to go,  period.   We will see how that plays out in the debates,  but it appears many of the Dem candidates don't agree;   E.g. will the black candidates continue their attacks on white candidates as being out-of-touch.  Some goes for the women candidates.    Booker appears ready to throw anyone not-like-him under the bus and I suspect Harris will do so also in order to become part of the top 3.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jakeem said:

Our freedoms are under attack because the radical left will stop at nothing until socialism has spread from coast to coast. Let me be clear: socialism has no place in the Hawkeye State or America, and I will stop at nothing to protect our Iowa values.

Em-rmZo5?format=jpg&name=600x314

Our freedoms are under attack because the radical right-wing is trying to destroy the US Constitution-- starting with the First Amendment.

Socialism in the form of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare have already spread Coast to Coast, which includes Iowa.

I think Joni and her Target audience are really concerned about something else besides socialism

and she's using it as a good subterfuge or camouflage.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I have been making a similar case to Cid,  but getting nowhere;   It doesn't matter if the Dem candidate is too liberal;  the Senate will not implement most of their agenda anyway.   So yea, that is over-the-top paranoia by centralist.

But Trump has to go,  period.   We will see how that plays out in the debates,  but it appears many of the Dem candidates don't agree;   E.g. will the black candidates continue their attacks on white candidates as being out-of-touch.  Some goes for the women candidates.    Booker appears ready to throw anyone not-like-him under the bus and I suspect Harris will do so also in order to become part of the top 3.

 

Well, we agree on something.  And I think a good strategy for the democratic candidates would be to circle the wagons.  I know that they are all trying to win but if Trump attacks Biden, Warren, Booker and Sanders should come to his defence and respond.  If Trump attacks Sanders, Biden, Buttigeg and Harris should respond, and so on.

And this talk about democratic socialism ... please.  Sanders would be a right wing candidate in a lot of European countries.  Even the conservatives in Canada and Europe know that it is suicide to talk about taking away people's health care.  Once given to the people, don't try to take it away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

Well, we agree on something.  And I think a good strategy for the democratic candidates would be to circle the wagons.  I know that they are all trying to win but if Trump attacks Biden, Warren, Booker and Sanders should come to his defence and respond.  If Trump attacks Sanders, Biden, Buttigeg and Harris should respond, and so on.

And this talk about democratic socialism ... please.  Sanders would be a right wing candidate in a lot of European countries.  Even the conservatives in Canada and Europe know that it is suicide to talk about taking away people's health care.  Once given to the people, don't try to take it away.

So true about democratic socialism,  but Dems should have been wiser about using such a label since way too many voters only deal with taking-points.    So instead of socialism they should have created a label that included capitalism instead of socialism.     (but G.W. Bush already used compassionate conservatism).

Note that a recent poll showed that most voters are interested in the Dem ideas and plans (which is why Warren continues to rise) while only a few care about how they would be funded.    That is good news for Dem candidates since the ideas and plans are mostly about moving the country in a certain direction (and one much different than the GOP) and not the actual implementation of said plans.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

So true about democratic socialism,  but Dems should have been wiser about using such a label since way too many voters only deal with taking-points.    So instead of socialism they should have created a label that included the capitalism instead of socialism.     (but G.W. Bush already used compassionate conservatism).

They should call it "Welfare Capitalism" or "Keynesianism" because that is what it really is. It isn't Socialism (at least not the way the term is meant by economists and historians).

Share this post


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

They should call it "Welfare Capitalism" or "Keynesianism" because that is what it really is. It isn't Socialism (at least not the way the term is meant by economists and historians).

Well using 'welfare' is a true loser label regardless of how accurate.  

Keynesianism might works since most voters wouldn't know what that was! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Princess of Tap said:

Our freedoms are under attack because the radical right-wing is trying to destroy the US Constitution-- starting with the First Amendment.

Socialism in the form of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare have already spread Coast to Coast, which includes Iowa.

I think Joni and her Target audience are really concerned about something else besides socialism

and she's using it as a good subterfuge or camouflage.

Back to castrating pigs, Joni!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hibi said:

Back to castrating pigs, Joni!

Maybe back to having a majority in the House,  and gaining additional power in the Senate, as well.   

Share this post


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

Robin Abcarian writes a sound article related to this:  If you believe Clinton's accuser,  why would you dismiss Trump's?.

It makes the point you make;  that sexual assault isn't political and that everyone,  especially partisans,  should be consistent.   Most of the article is to shame Christians that attacked Bill Clinton (as well as Hillary as an enabler),   that do NOT also attack Trump.     I agree with this;  be consistent regardless of the party of the accused.   

So I agree here;   Where I differ is that I choose to generally ignore these type of accusations made toward a politician during the off-season (when there is no election pending)  or when advised the accusation has nothing to do with politics.     I'm consistent regardless of politics.    

  

There is much more of a solid case for believing E. Jean Carroll than the woman Trump trotted out at the debates who accused Bill Clinton of rape.  As George Conway pointed out the Clinton accuser had stated under oath that he never touched her.  In Carroll's case she told two friends right after it happened.  One advised her to go to the police and the other said that she should drop it as Trump had hundreds of lawyers who would destroy her.  Part of the reason that Carroll did nothing was that she did not want to feel like a 'victim.'  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Might make it easier for people to get to the polls on a Tuesday...:ph34r:

I live in Kochland, AKA Kansas. The Libertarian Koch brothers believe that they should make it as hard as possible for people to exercise their Democratic rights, by knee-capping the federal government whenever possible.

A step ladder to that was destroying the Kansas tax system as well as just about every state department in Kansas with Koch appointed  Gov Sam Brownback.

And Kris kobach, the Secretary of State, rounded this mess out by spending time looking for bogus voters. But instead getting himself in trouble with federal courts and being exposed as an associate of white supremacist groups.

Kansas voters, both Democratic and Republican, got rid of both of these jerks. ( Brownback turned tail before the end of his second term into a trump appointee. Kris kobach ran in his place and despite a capital city trump rally was roundly defeated.)

Whenever anyone wants to make it more difficult for ordinary citizens to vote, they have got an agenda--

whether they're Americans for Prosperity or whomever.

 

* BTW-- Pompeo, the current Secretary of State, is a former Koch  associate, who was sponsored as a congressman in the Wichita District by the Koch brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

There is much more of a solid case for believing E. Jean Carroll than the woman Trump trotted out at the debates who accused Bill Clinton of rape.  As George Conway pointed out the Clinton accuser had stated under oath that he never touched her.  In Carroll's case she told two friends right after it happened.  One advised her to go to the police and the other said that she should drop it as Trump had hundreds of lawyers who would destroy her.  Part of the reason that Carroll did nothing was that she did not want to feel like a 'victim.'  

I think it's one thing to say that, for example, an individual does not believe an accusation of rape. They have a right to their own opinion.

But it's another thing altogether to say that an accusation of rape, that is clearly true or has solid evidence for belief is irrelevant and immaterial.

That kind of an amoral attitude can only lead to the destruction of any civilized society.

Plus it exhibits an absolute denigration of women--  and denigration of their humanity and worth as a human being. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

You mean the one's who thought Hillary Clinton was too far to the left or just thought she was a very bad candidate?  

I would suggest that whoever the democrat candidate is that everyone stop worrying and get behind him or her or say goodbye to your country as you now know it.  You say that Sanders and Warren could never get their agenda passed so what are you worrying about?  Show some unity with everyone in your party not just the middle of the road old f arts.

It is not about whether the socialist agenda gets passed or not, it is about whether or not a Dem or Trump is elected.  In 2015 and 2016, the Dems and many GOPers were positive Trump could never be elected, but he was.  One of the tactics he and the GOPers used was to paint Clinton as too left and to ally her with Sanders and the far left. Many Trump voters who voted for Obama considered him too far to the left in hindsight, so voted for Trump.

I have been advocating Dem Party unity for weeks if not longer, but the Dem candidates other than Biden don't seem to value it very much.  Some are coming around to the idea, but some are not.

And it DOES NOT MATTER if the Dem Party is united, IF the independents and others don't vote for the Dem candidate.  And it about who shows up to vote!!!!!!

2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I have been making a similar case to Cid,  but getting nowhere;   It doesn't matter if the Dem candidate is too liberal;  the Senate will not implement most of their agenda anyway.   So yea, that is over-the-top paranoia by centralist.

But Trump has to go,  period.   We will see how that plays out in the debates,  but it appears many of the Dem candidates don't agree;   E.g. will the black candidates continue their attacks on white candidates as being out-of-touch.  Some goes for the women candidates.    Booker appears ready to throw anyone not-like-him under the bus and I suspect Harris will do so also in order to become part of the top 3.

 

James:  Up until this post you and I have been saying the same thing re: a too far left/socialist aura to the Dem candidate will result in Trump being re-elected.  What happened?  Just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean they are wrong.  Those same candidates (and others) are the ones advocating a far left agenda for the Dem Party.

As I said to Bogie; replacing Trump is the most important thing and that requires getting elected.

1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

Well, we agree on something.  And I think a good strategy for the democratic candidates would be to circle the wagons.  I know that they are all trying to win but if Trump attacks Biden, Warren, Booker and Sanders should come to his defence and respond.  If Trump attacks Sanders, Biden, Buttigeg and Harris should respond, and so on.

And this talk about democratic socialism ... please.  Sanders would be a right wing candidate in a lot of European countries.  Even the conservatives in Canada and Europe know that it is suicide to talk about taking away people's health care.  Once given to the people, don't try to take it away.

Politics is Perception.  One of the oldest rules of getting elected in AMERICA.  Almost no one is talking about taking away health care, not even most Republicans.  That is why ACA is still here.

It does not matter how Sanders or the Dems. would be viewed in Europe or Canada, this is the United States of America.

I agree it would be great if the Dem candidates would circle the wagons, defend each other and join together.  Unfortunately that is not how you win primaries in America, especially with 25 candidates.

57 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

So true about democratic socialism,  but Dems should have been wiser about using such a label since way too many voters only deal with taking-points.    So instead of socialism they should have created a label that included capitalism instead of socialism.     (but G.W. Bush already used compassionate conservatism).

Note that a recent poll showed that most voters are interested in the Dem ideas and plans (which is why Warren continues to rise) while only a few care about how they would be funded.    That is good news for Dem candidates since the ideas and plans are mostly about moving the country in a certain direction (and one much different than the GOP) and not the actual implementation of said plans.

 

 

 

The Democrats did not use the Democratic Socialism label; a few of the people who are "Democrats" when running for office publicly adhere to that label.   

While voters may be interested in the Dem ideas and plans, when it comes down to how much it will cost and who will pay for it, the numbers drop significantly.  Enough to change an election.  Only 33,000 voters in 3 or 4 states determined the 2016 election.

Share this post


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

James:  Up until this post you and I have been saying the same thing re: a too far left/socialist aura to the Dem candidate will result in Trump being re-elected.  What happened? 

I see two different topics here;   the one we agree on is that a too far left/socialist 'aura' is likely to lead to Trump being re-elected.    To win the Dem nomination it shouldn't require the candidates to 'out-left' each other but sadly it is going in that direction.   Even the Dem strategist on CNN fear this will happen in the debates.

The other topic is how the above impacts how one votes;   It is my understanding you would vote for Trump over Harris,  Sanders and other Dems you believe are too-far-left;   While voters with your POV wouldn't impact SC's general election  (Trump will win SC),   I don't wish for other voters in states where it does matter to follow that same POV;     A President with a too-far-left agenda,  that will mostly not be implemented,  is much better than Trump.     

As for the 'socialism' labeling:  The majority of Dems running are now implying they want the party to move in the direction Sanders outlined in 2016.  Yea, they don't say 'socialism',  but siding with Sanders is siding with socialism from a perception POV, since Sanders openly embraces that label.    

Note the attacks on Biden;   One candidate said that Biden is out-of-touch because taking America back to the 90s instead of the 50s (like the GOP,)  isn't enough.   This is code for massive government mandated programs that the GOP will be able to label as socialism.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

One of the tactics he and the GOPers used was to paint Clinton as too left

Clinton too far left?  Well I'm sure he will say that about any candidate.  If you are not willing to go up against that you might as well give up and vote Republican.  Clinton too far left?  My goodness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I see two different topics here;   the one we agree on is that a too far left/socialist 'aura' is likely to lead to Trump being re-elected.    To win the Dem nomination it shouldn't require the candidates to 'out-left' each other but sadly it is going in that direction.   Even the Dem strategist on CNN fear this will happen in the debates.

The other topic is how the above impacts how one votes;   It is my understanding you would vote for Trump over Harris,  Sanders and other Dems you believe are too-far-left;   While voters with your POV wouldn't impact SC's general election  (Trump will win SC),   I don't wish for other voters in states where it does matter to follow that same POV;     A President with a too-far-left agenda,  that will mostly not be implemented,  is much better than Trump.     

OK, we are on the same page in paragraph one.  Guess I was confused by your reply to Bogie.

While I have said that I would vote for Trump over the ones you named, in retrospect probably not.  Unless I thought that person could actually get elected and pass their agenda.  Unlikely on both accounts in my opinion. As you note, in South Carolina it doesn't matter since any Republican will win the election.  

However, I do believe that many independents, moderate Republicans, conservative Democrats, etc. would vote for Trump over a "socialist" threat regardless of whether or not their agenda is feasible.   If the country did elect one of the far left people, how much more time would Congress waste in considering meaningless legislation that will never get passed, but will pi$$ off a lot of people?  How many moderates will be pressured to vote against good legislation just because the "socialists" are behind it?  Every member of Congress will be running for re-election in Jan. 2021, if not Nov.2020 (day after the election).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANYWAY, we now know who TheCid likes and doesn't like as far as the democrat candidates.  James and I seem willing to accept ANY Dem over Trump.  So why not give this a rest?  What's the point of moaning about someone who may not even win the primary being too far to the left?  Who are you going to convince?  ANY democratic candidate will do just fine.  Even Gaga Joe.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Clinton too far left?  Well I'm sure he will say that about any candidate.  If you are not willing to go up against that you might as well give up and vote Republican.  Clinton too far left?  My goodness.

Too far left for America and a lot of voters agreed with him.  Enough to make to elect Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

ANYWAY, we now know who TheCid likes and doesn't like as far as the democrat candidates.  James and I seem willing to accept ANY Dem over Trump.  So why not give this a rest?  What's the point of moaning about someone who may not even win the primary being too far to the left?  Who are you going to convince?  ANY democratic candidate will do just fine.  Even Gaga Joe.  :D

1. Because you keep posting things about it.  2.  Not you, but then you don't get to vote anyway.  3.  I suppose Hitler was better than a communist.

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