Why Joe Biden should not be the Democratic nomonee
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago
0Number one reason: He is problematic because he is not a strong enough contrast from Donald Trump. Joe has a history of gaffes his entire political career. Combine that tendency to say the wrong thing with his advancing age, and you have a problem. Joe is already showing why he should not be the Democratic nominee. His grasp of modern culture is just not there, both with regard to women and to race. This is a problem, because when he stands next to Donald Trump, who is clearly misogynistic and racist, Joe's milder but still unacceptable problems with women and race will not look much better.
We need the anti-Trump, and it is not Joe Biden. It could be Elizabeth Warren, but it could also be Mayor Pete, Cory Booker, or Kamala Harris.
I think Joe is doomed. Thoughts?Sorry, Panther, I must disagree. We need someone who is stable, moderate and experienced to start healing the country again. Biden has that ability and has a history of working well with Republicans in the Senate.
Besides, he has high electability. The Democrats don't need an extremist candidate to counter an extremist Republican. They need someone who can rebuilt trust. I believe that's why he does so strongly in the polls.
Yes, Biden has made some goofy comments. But we will never get a perfect candidate for President.Some of your points are valid, but I think as time goes on, you will see that enthusiasm for good ol' Joe will wane.
Take a look at this panel of undecided Iowa Democratis. Not a one thinks Joe is performing well as a candidate. Things could change, but as of now, I'm losing confidence in Joe's ability to inspire people.
Of course, this is a tiny sample, and it is very early, but the support for Joe kind of reminds me of the support for Hillary. Lukewarm
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 … ay-vpx.cnn
Edited to add: Regarding working with Republicans, I would love to see that happen, but I don't think it will matter who is president, as long as do-nothing Mitch is in charge, there will be no working together with Republicans. We must unseat him.If the Democrats come up with a better candidate, so be it. But a better candidate has to be a centrist and not from the far left.
What do you think of Mayor Pete Buttigieg?
This sounds to me like someone who thinks the Democratic Party still represents/supports the platform from 1992.
I believe that is why there is frustration and confusion with many die-hard Democrats right now.
Many older voters don't get, or don't accept, that the talking points on stage right now (IE - Open Borders, Gun Confiscation, Universal Healthcare, Green New Deal) are not "extremist" and not just talk to capture the "base" support.
They are the PILLAR positions of the Democratic Party going forth.
Label them however you want, Progressive, Globalist, Socialist, whatever label you think fits. But its the future of the party, and politicians like Biden are its past. In another election or two, the likes of Biden and Pelosi will be a memory, and so will be their "moderate" politics.Independents make up the largest voting block in this country and not Democrats or Republicans.
They will vote for the candidate who is less extreme. In this case, it's easily Biden.
Trump is the most far right "Republican" -- which he really isn't -- since Herbert Hoover.
At the rate Trump is going, he will end his Presidency the same way that Hoover did.Biden is not the one, he isn't capable of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DncEnGwvqUA
He couldn't handle Ryan 6 years ago, he damned well can't handle Trump, he will be made to look like a bumbling dottering fool.Your personal dislike of Biden isn't a factor in whether or not he will win.
As I already said, if the Dems can come up with a better candidate, they should go for it.
But Trump won't win with his latest 38% approval rating, a declining economy, raping the environment, insulting our allies and kissing up to Russian money.Its not about personal dislike.
He's a doddering old man that likes to grope kids, he doesn't have enough wits about him to handle Trump on a National Debate stage.
He will not win in the swing states, he will not be able to "get out the vote", he is not a populist candidate, only a great depression could shift things enough in his favor to get him the win.
Promisem, sorry to use what might be a rather large excerpt from a Salon article that discussed the particulars of Warren plan to attack corruption is high places, the link is found here.
https://www.salon.com/2019/09/17/elizab … overnment/
Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive set of far-reaching and aggressive proposals to root out corruption in Washington," Warren wrote on Medium Monday. "It's the most sweeping set of anti-corruption reforms since Watergate. The goal of these measures is straightforward: to take power away from the wealthy and the well-connected in Washington and put it back where it belongs — in the hands of the people."
---------------
Isn't it about time? I don't hear anything like this from ANY Republican as if I really expected the fox to guard the hen house? Trump can't clean a swamp that he is in the middle of.
An oddly enough I don't hear this kind of commitment from any of the other Democratic contenders. I hear feel good generalities and bromides, but who is really willing to identify the beast and face it head on?
-------------
Warren directly targeted President Trump with her Medium post. "Make no mistake about it: The Trump administration is the most corrupt administration of our lifetimes," she wrote, highlighting tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, Supreme Court justices "hand-picked by right-wing extremist groups," and key cabinet and ambassador posts the president has filled with former lobbyists and major donors.
-----------
If that is not corruption, what is?
-----------
"But these problems did not start with Donald Trump. They are much bigger than him," Warren noted, emphasizing the need for broad, transformative change. "My plan lays out nearly a hundred ways that we can change our government to fix this problem — from improving public integrity rules for federal officials in every branch of government to ending lobbying as we know it, fixing the criminal laws to hold corrupt politicians to account, and ensuring our federal agencies and courts are free from corrupting influences."
-----------
If this is radical and extreme, let's have more...
---------------
The plan has six broad goals under which Warren organized her proposals. The first goal is restoring public integrity — which, she argued, requires "rooting out financial conflicts of interest in Washington." To achieve this, Warren would:
End self-dealing in the White House by applying conflict of interest laws to the president and vice president;
Disclose tax returns of federal candidates and officeholders to the public automatically;
Force senior government officials to divest from privately-owned assets that could present conflicts of interest;
Completely ban the practice of government officials trading individual stocks while in office;
Shut down a raft of additional shady practices that provide opportunities for government officials to serve their own financial interests; and
Immediately end the possibility of trading on access to insider political information.
As part of Warren's effort to address the public's lack of confidence in federal officials and institutions, she wants to "close and padlock the revolving door between government and industry." Her proposals to achieve this are:
Ban "golden parachutes" that provide corporate bonuses to executives for serving in the federal government;
Restrict the ability of lobbyists to enter government jobs;
Make it illegal for elected officials and top government appointees to become lobbyists — ever; and
Restrict the ability of companies to buy up former federal officials to rig the game for themselves.
The White House hopeful would also work to curb the influence of corporations and powerful special interests on the U.S. justice system. Specifically, Warren calls for strengthening ethics requirements for federal judges and ensuring that Supreme Court justices are held to the same standard as judges in lower courts. She would also mandate the public dissemination of all federal judges' financial reports, recusal decisions and speeches and "close the loophole that allows federal judges to escape investigations for misconduct by stepping down from their post
-----
I have been advocating these kinds of common sense precautions to rein in the power and influence of the fat cats for years, and you think that I dont note who it is that actually listens? I consider THOSE as mainstream objectives. Such a candidate can NEVER be over the top for me.
---------Sounds like some good points.
Hopefully she can achieve some of them.
It's incredibly difficult to root out corruption in politics. In every country there is corruption in politics. one way or another. Politician having side jobs, or assets in companies.
Lot's of things that I would call corruption are legal.
The thing I like about Warren, above all other candidates is that she is serious about the climate breakdown we now face. Sanders was to late in jumping in the New Green Deal discussion. He is a socialist old style (nothing wrong with socialism, but we have to accentuate the fight against the climate crisis.)
I can't vote but as the President of the US has such a huge influence on the rest of the world I follow the race for the presidency closely.Credence, I like some of her proposals to put limits on corruption and special interest groups. But many of her other proposals are too far left for me.
That said, she may be trying to attract the left to win the nomination and then gradually move to the center.The news is reporting that Warren drew a crowd of 20,000 at Washington Square Park in NYC. She then stood for four hours taking selfies with every single person who wanted one.
She has an impressive work ethic on top of a consistent message.Warren is the best option the Democrats have that I can see.
When they get to the point where they start digging into backgrounds HARD and exposing everything, I believe she will be able to survive the scrutiny... more importantly, the speeches she gave before going into politics will stand well with most voters.
In comparison, the likes of Biden and Booker are fools who have made so many gaffes and blunders I can't understand how they are even in the race, things they have said and done in the past will turn off enough voters to ensure a Trump victory.
So the Dems need the right ticket, a Warren & Gabbard ticket would be a tough match-up for Trump & Pence.
A ticket that presents positive change, that can stand scrutiny and not be considered part of the same old croney D.C. hack politicians... well informed intelligent voters are done with the two-faced normal politicians.
In fact that is one of the biggest issues to the Dems winning in 2020, to many in the media and D.C. refuse to acknowledge what got Trump elected, and they still pound away on Russia, Impeachment, its mass denial...
I like what Tucker said here, starting at 14:40 it explains the problem well, and it is why I am certain that if the Democratic Party decides to stick with a blast-from-the-past politician like Biden, they will lose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbv2FQ9 … amp;t=787sI want you to know I watched this video at about14:00 on, despite my disdain for yucky Tucker, out of respect for you.
I disagree that Dems have not explored why Trump won; the strategists have done so ad nauseum. It's the Democratic voters who will choose the candidate, not the Democratic party and certainly not the party strategists. I don't think it will be Biden.
I agree with most of your post, but find it amusing that you think what is in a candidate's background matters given who currently occupies the White House. Perhaps you recognize that Democrat voters have different standards of conduct than GOP voters. ;-)Trump won, despite of what was in his background, or the accusations made against him.
I doubt a Democrat candidate could survive having those types of issues in their background, Democrats would never support such a person.
I think the mistake being made, certainly by many who identify as Democrats or Progressives, is that Trump beat Clinton.
Trump is a big fat F U to D.C. politics as normal, to 30 years of things like NAFTA and the ACA which squeezed the working class ...from the Glass Steagal Repeal to still being in Afghanistan. He was elected in spite of all the issues he has, not because of them.Yes,I agree. Democrats will never vote for such a person as their candidate while the GOP already did.
Elizabeth Warren has the skills and character to do what she wants to do: change the system from within, which can only be accomplished if it is the will of the people. Trump is just an incompetent, lying con man who hasn't done any real change, just real damage.Warren will have an incredibly difficult time making major change happen, even with the support of the people.
However the changes coming to the world are unstoppable, they can be slowed, not stopped.
AI, robotics and automation will be taking more and more jobs away, most of us will live to see a day when AI has taken over driving. We will be seeing major disruption in what has made the world economy work for the last 70 years. Oil and gas will be more abundant than ever, yet less needed.
The industrial age, the age of the automobile, being tied to one job until retirement... so many things that society/civilization considered the norm for the last 70+ years are being phased out, and will have no place in the future for most people.
We will also be taking the leap from everyone having a cell phone, to everyone being directly connected to a global neural internet, just like with the cell phone, it will start soon with the very rich, and then within a generation be available to everyone, rich or poor.
Where that leads us is anyone's guess. I doubt any of us could imagine what the internet and cell phones would bring us 50 years ago.
The changes coming in the next 10 years will be as impactful and dramatic as all that has occurred in the past 50, that is due to how quickly technology is advancing, its pace is so quick now, that what is new today may be obsolete in six months.
We need someone like Warren as President at that time, because she will look out for the people, and will also be willing to move the nation into a more integrated state with the rest of the world... she is an intellectual with a better background to handle the changes coming.
All that said... Trump was a necessity, the conversation he has started nationally on many topics, standing up to China and bringing to light how it has become a global power to rival us, and likely exceed us in the future if we do not act now... and most of all Warren would have never been possible without him, instead there would have been Clinton, which I know would have been worse for our country than even Trump has been.
I don't think Trump beat Clinton. Russia beat Clinton, and she did win the popular vote. I don't think Americans like the idea of a foreign country meddling in our internal affairs.
OK, well if you are one of those believers in the Russian hoax then I guess there is really no need to converse further.
I like to debate and discuss matters, but only if I believe the other person is capable of rational and somewhat objective perception of a given topic.
I don't feel one who believes that tripe is capable of such.Speaking of tripe, with what is going on right now with the Whistleblower, Trump and the Ukraine, how can you not believe? It is you who are so blinded by the magnificence of that Hitler wannabee that you can't see the truth.
And concerning the Pelosi story, it is unethical and a possible breach of National security for an American President to ask a foreign country to investigate a presidential candidate. The FBI does that when it is necessary.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … story.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4623 … -complaint
Damn Ken, you hooked me with that one. As they say, In light of full disclosure: I am not, (was not?), a Tucker Carlson fan. What few past impressions I had of him put him in the Hannity category for me - I hear his voice I tune out.
However, starting from 13:41, I was hooked until the 1:06:00 ending. I didn't find any major disagreement with what he said, but a lot of major agreement.
Thanks for the link. I think he nailed the explanation for the Trump phenomenon.
GAThat's great GA, glad you took the time to watch it.
I've been saying many of those things for months now, he touched on a lot of my own perceptions. He's about the only 'cable news' guy I occasionally watch, but only posts on youtube, not cable.Yes, his Fox news segments are what turned me off of him. But this video was a different thing.
GA
"But we will never get a perfect candidate for President."
Why not? The R's did - while Trump will not be the perfect president he WAS the perfect candidate to go against the "business as usual" crap on Capital Hill.
Perhaps you should look at the Republican side of the fence to find someone to elect (or appoint, as the case may be) as the Democratic adversary to Trump.How's that wall working out for you? I heard Mexico was paying for it. And Hillary's in jail, rght? And that new infrastructure...where is that again? Oh, and all those deals...."I do the best deals." How many are there now?. You must be tired of all that winnng.
He won, right? Guess that says it all when it comes to being a candidate, doesn't it?
Sure, he won. That says more about the voters than anything. By the way, fewer than half of those who voted cast a vote for him, much less "half the nation."
Yep, it does. He is an expert at bankruptcies, so it is only logical that he would bankrupt the country.
He doesn't need to. Congress is quite proficient at traveling that road already.
Trump lost by 3 million votes. You can look it up.
LOL, seriously. Trump's approach to business as usual is bankrupting the country even more than the so-called swamp he was going to fix.
And speaking of fences, when is Mexico going to pay for that wall?
But he certainly is a perfect candidate for fools and racists.Of course, Half the nation are fools and racists. Got it.
You DID read the comment though? About being the perfect candidate, but not the perfect president? He won, and that pretty much says it all about his candidacy.
You must really want Trump to get re-elected, Biden will ensure that.
Not when:
1. Biden continues to outpoll Trump by a wide margin.
2. Trump's approval rating is under 40% -- a historic low for any President.Come on.
Most polls are not worth the time it takes to read them... they had little value in 2016, and they will have even less value in showing what is going to occur in 2020.There were several last-minute polls that showed Hillary was in big trouble in 2016. Remember, Trump won the electoral college by a razor-thin margin in three states. Had the election been held two weeks earlier, the result might have been different. I'm surprised you would dismiss a poll without citing a valid reason why it should be dismissed.
Well lets consider your statement, you said if the election had been held two weeks earlier the result might have been very different.
Polls from two months prior to the election stated Clinton was going to win overwhelmingly, in a landslide.
So... polls are worthless.
These polls are based on what people? From what state?
These polls are prior to Biden having to debate Trump in person, just review the Ryan - Biden debate, and then consider an older more senile Biden going up against Trump.
The only place they should poll is Ohio, Florida, Texas, and a few other swing states. That is where the election will be decided... he can lose CA and NY by tens of millions of votes, that doesn't matter, and neither does how he is polling in those states.My point is polls are a snapshot in time. What a poll states today could be invalid in two weeks. Comey's little announcement had quite an impact.
The polls may be a snapshot in time, or they may be total garbage.
We don't know, because the election wasn't at that time.
I saw some polls that were unique, in that they canvassed hundreds of thousands of people, across all states. And they had Trump ahead at that time, well before the election.
I contend that the accusations against Trump where one woman after another came out and accused him of rape day after day leading up to the election, impacted the election far more than Comey's announcement.
I contend that Comey's announcement did almost nothing, the media used it as an excuse for why her numbers plummeted... it happened to come out just hours after the release of the increases to Obamacare (ACA)… in states like Arizona where it went up more than 100% Clinton took a massive hit.
The media doesn't ever mention how one woman after another for days leading up to the election came out and accused Trump of rape, and how all those accusers went silent right after the election.
Its all about the Russians and Comey, that's why Clinton lost.
Its just rubbish, the news, the polls, just so much noise that has no value at all, especially at this stage.
Common sense, combined with reviewing Biden's debate against Ryan as well as his political gaffes in the past that will come up, tells me Biden has no chance at defeating Trump... he will be a deer in the headlights.Back to the original subject at hand, yes, I agree that Biden is not the right candidate to take on Trump.
With regard to current polls,I believe If the election were held today, Biden would beat Trump as would Warren and Sanders. Those pills are accurate. The election won't be held today, though. It will be held after a long, grueling campaign during which Trump will lie, cheat, tweet, bully, and create massive amounts of chaos, confusion, and distraction. I don't think Joe would handle that well, which is why I don't think he will be the Democratic nominee.
You diss polls but you don't offer any concrete analysis as to why you say they are garbage. I can guarantee you, if they were garbage, no one would be paying for them in this capitalist economy.He has solid numbers ranging from 43% to 58% in all critical areas..
I spent some time reviewing what is out there worth considering:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … ullbrowser
https://www.investors.com/politics/ibdt … f-country/
He would not lose an election today to anyone, the economy is solid right now. Sure he would lose badly in places like NY and CA, but he would win the national election, no one really likes Biden, polls telling you they do should be ignored, he was never a popular figure and isn't now.Rasmussen is a Republican polling firm. They always give Republicans high numbers because they poll a lot of Republicans.
Those numbers have no credibility."He would not lose an election today to anyone, the economy is solid right now."
Really? I just got a report in on my stocks. They are down right now. People are saying that we are about to go into an economic crisis.Stocks have a tendency to do that, go up, go down, nothing new there.
I dabble in trading myself, the stock market is at a record high right now... so yes, its going to have down days, especially with the China Trade war ongoing.
And yes all of Trump's haters and detractors are pushing the "looming recession" and "economic crisis" and they will continue to do so right up to the election... even if the economy is better a year from now than it is today.
Just like they will keep pushing the "Russian Collaboration" and all their other attacks.
Do what I do, ignore their incessant idiocy, and never watch another cable news show again... I don't, and my stress has depreciated immensely.
And yet, they are the only ones accurate enough to waste one's time on.
Lol, if only we could have an election today to prove who s right. And I don't think the evidence presented in your links is supportive of your position.
Please do a lot more research about polls.
They predicted Clinton would win the popular vote by 3.2%, and her final total was 2.1%, well within the margin of error.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -5952.htmlYou do a lot more research, that link only proves my point, its worthless.
Who cares if she won the popular vote.
Its doesn't matter if she won CA by ten million. So long as Ohio, Florida, Texas, etc. goes to Trump, he will win again, just like last time.
OMG! Can't believe we agree once again... In my opinion at this point, Biden would be the only candidate that might be competition for Trump. I think many independent would lean his way. Yes, Biden has made some goofy remarks. However, many are still not looking for a well-polished politician and prefer a human that is a bit transparent. Not always willing to go the way the wind is blowing.
I am going out on a limb here, but I think he will be the Dem's choice in the end.
Never get me wrong, Joe Biden is a likeable sort. In 2004, 2008 and even 2012 he would have fit well within the standard center left where the Democrats have been, but things have changed.
Mr. Biden likes to associate himself with the Obama administration partially as an attempt to get support from the African American voters. But to be honest, 2008 just as well be 1908 when considering all that has changed in the political landscape within the last few years.
The GOP is obstantly stubborn, which shown during the Obama administration as not giving an inch toward any meaningful compromise. The only way to deal with Republicans these days is to vote them out.
They elect and support their standard bearer as some sort of demogogue who can do no wrong. They are adamant in this support, so we on the left have to be just as determined and adamant.
In all respect to those that disagree, I believe that the problems in this society are more than merely cosmetic, remedied by just the removal of Trump.
I not so worried about Warren "going over the edge", more than I am worried about those candidates content to sit with status quo or take us in the wrong direction in regards to it.
I consider this a 1932 moment when the American people can opt for change, which as Warren says, attempts to level the playing field or satisfy oneself with more of the same? Why bother to go to the polls at all with the prospect of more of the same?I'd agree with you that Biden is not enough of a counter to Trump, nor is he capable of creating the necessary excitement for a win (especially in terms of attracting new, young voters). In addition to that, after the latest debates, I really don't feel that he's OK. The way he scrunches up his face and struggles to push out word salad is hard to watch. He's never been an eloquent speaker and calls himself a "gaffe machine", but IMO there's bigger problems than that at play. I'm no medical professional but have had close family suffer from dementia. I can't help but see the parallels. I certainly don't want to see four more years of Trump, but if Biden is the nominee, I fear that's exactly what we'll get.
On a lighter note, if Corn Pop is giving you any trouble, Biden's got your back (with a rusty straight razor):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jOqbQC … 3GcLFRdMEEI like Joe Biden, and I'm not sure what you're seeing is early dementia, but I do believe he might not be as sharp and quick as he once was. He would still be a fine president, in my opinion. I'm just not convinced he is the right counter to Trump.
I'm not sure what it is exactly, but it is becoming more obvious that he is really struggling and grasping for words and thoughts in his speeches. Did you see the infamous "record-player" comments in the last debates by chance? That was the deal-breaker for me and the point where I was confident that this guy cannot go up against Trump (like him or not).
We're living in a time of populism. Trumps popularity started as an influencer on a TV show. Trump knows how to play the social media.
Compare this with Biden and it's clear that Biden will lose before he even started.
Biden would have been a great president candidate 15-20 years ago but not today.
Today you need to be good on social media. And not just with a professional team that is good on SM.
The sad point about Social Media having such an enormous influence on politics is that the politics we have right now is the politics of populism.
This will not change. So if you want to beat Trump, you have to beat him on the social media and in the news. The only way to do this is sadly enough by populism itself at the moment.Buttigieg is a easily rattled lightweight, and the Left doesn't want a hard-core prosecuter (Harris) as the face of the party.
Warren, Gabbard and Yang have good mixtures of experience, clarity and ability to present their vision. They come across as competent, unlike Biden or Booker who are just gaffes waiting to happen.That is interesting that you see Buttigieg as easily rattled. What have I missed? I agree with you about Warren, Gabbard, and Yang.
Unfortunately, not so easy for me to find, but its out there, if you watch enough of his coverage... this is a good video to watch on him to get a sense of his make-up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTfFMrfLjK0
You know he reminds me a little of Jimmy Carter, nice guy, might make a great mayor or Governor, but no way is he made of the material needed to be handling global issues.
You might think the same of Trump, but he is currently handling some of the toughest situations we have faced, a Nuclear North Korea, Iran commandeering ships and sending drones to bomb Saudi Arabia, China contesting the South China Seas.
China and its allies are pushing the envelope, and honestly, have already given excuses that some past presidents would have used as an excuse to go to war.
Mayor Pete isn't the person I want steering the ship through those waters.I watched the video, and I guess I interpret his emotion differently than you do. He doesn't seem rattled, but he is emotionally affected, as he should be by death and turmoil in his city. Quite the contrast from our current sociopathic president.
Unfortunately, for me, my enthusiasm for Biden is waning. It seems his entire platform is that he is an Obama clone, (in philosophies), and he can beat Trump.
Mayor Pete is growing on me. I am going to dig into him a little more.
GA
I'm with you guys on this. We need a candidate with a socialist agenda, spending promises that could bankrupt the nation and one who panders to everything the far left wants.
You go guys.Socialist agenda? Where? Who is proposing a government takeover of the production and distribution of goods? I thought I was paying attention but apparently I missed that.
A government takeover of production and distribution of goods is communism not socialism. Socialism consists of things that many of the candidates are proposing: medicare for all; free college tuition; federal money for housing; confiscating our tax money to pay reparations for things our ancestors did. There are more, but you need to learn the difference between communism and socialism to identify them.
"but you need to learn the difference between communism and socialism to identify them."
That was necessarily rude.
Socialism is commonly regarded as an economic system that seeks to achieve equality among members of society. Communism, on the other hand, is both an economic system that seeks equality among members of society and a political ideology that advocates a classless and stateless society and rejects religion. It is regarded as a more extreme form of socialism.
Socialism and communism both adhere to the principle that the resources of the economy should be collectively owned by the public and controlled by a central organization.
Read more: Difference between Socialism and Communism | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/busine … z5zpNTFWmX
In other words, draw straws among the current group, right?
Yeh. I'm rooting for Mr. "Hell yeh we're taking your guns" to win the nomination.
It kind of looks that way, but I'm hoping that LTL was just being tongue and cheek.
That doesn't sound like an "independent" perspective. But it does sound quite angry.
Regardless, Trump is doing a great job at bankrupting the nation right now -- thanks to his huge tax cut for himself and other rich people.
He's also doing a great job of pandering to everything the far right wants.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 589889002/Socialism. forget it
We do not need a socialist agenda. we need a green agenda.Vote Green party, the rest are all the same.
Most countries are sadly enough still divided in two political blocks. the left and the right. Here in Spain there isn't even a green party. The Germans are on the lead in this respect.
Is there such a thing as a green party in the US?The Green Party of the United States (GPUS) is a green federation of political .... The Green Party does not accept donations from corporations, political action committees.
The greatest disadvanage for Green party is the support from the greedy corporation lobbist. That tells you who is truely running this freaky ugly Showbiz.
There vote for US Green party is like 2% where in Canada is 6%.How many parties are there in the US. Is there a a member of the Green Party in parliament in the US?
I thought the US was pretty simple. You've got two parties. One ruling and the other in the opposition....
I thought as well that Canada was a green country. 6% is not much. a lot to do....UK Green party only got 1.6 % of votes the last election.
Several US Green Party members have been elected to state-level office.
State Upper House Seats : 0 / 1,972
State Lower House Seats : 0 / 5,411
Seats in the House : 0 / 435
Membership : ~250,000
You must be with us, you're supporting a candidate whose 29 billion dollar socialist policy is propping up the agricultural market, who is running a trillion dollar deficit that is bankrupting the nation, and panders to a base that could care less if he destroys the environment for the benefit of his wealthy friends.
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago0
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Democratic voters should completely ignore the advice and opinions of those who still, after all that has transpired, support and defend Donald Trump. I mean, let's get real.
Yes, everyone has one vote and should vote for the candidate they feel will benefit the country. This is how it is done in a fair democracy.
You're right, but that's not what I was addressing. I was addressing a person who still supports and defends Trump offering advice to Democratic primary voters.
Thank you, but no thank you.Not sure but I would think any that one that comments here on HP can make up their own mind as to the relevance of any others opinions? Seems odd you feel you have the right to dictate to users rights?
"I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Democratic voters should completely ignore the advice and opinions of those who still, after all that has transpired, support and defend Donald Trump. I mean, let's get real."
Although this is clearly your opinion, you have a right o it.
You are right, but we are a "democratic" republic, not a democracy. If we were a true democracy, Hillary would be sitting in that office today by 3,000,000 votes, and Al Gore would have been president instead of George W. Bush. That's the hell of it.
The biggest factor to Trump being elected was a very large number of Americans, Middle Class Americans, rejecting "normal politics".
Nothing represented "politics as normal" and "screw the middle class" more than Clinton.
Nothing represents a return to "politics as normal" and "D.C. corruption" more than Joe Biden.
People don't want an "Affordable Care Act" that is not affordable, that goes up 100% in price in a year, that forces you to pay a Tax if you do not have insurance.
People don't like it when they are told we will end the war in Iraq an eight years later we are still in Iraq... and added Syria and libya to the resume.
People are tired of politicians, 30 year 40 year politicians that have been lying about what they are going to do, and then don't do it.
Its why we have AOC, its why we have Trump, and its why we will continue to have "extremists" and "populists" voted in until D.C. starts putting the people first... or until the whole system blows up... one of the two is going to happen, sooner rather than later.I agree with much of what you said, but why do we have Trump supporters saying they would vote for Biden? That was where my comment was directed. If your rationale is correct a Trump voter who still likes Trump would NOT choose Biden.
I concur with your assessment, which leaves a couple of things to consider.
Did they really vote for Trump, or are they just saying that?
Have they had enough of Trump, the ceaseless coverage and complaints, and just want change?
Or do they still support Trump, and want Biden, who will be shredded by Trump in a campaign?All good questions. I can see a person who is sick of Trump maybe wanting to go back to normalcy, which perhaps Biden represents to some people. I just can't see a Trump voter who is still enthusiastically defending him suddenly thinking Biden is a good choice. It doesn't make any sense to me at all, given that their policies, character, and style are so completely different.
I agree 100%.
There just is no way, unless they know very little about politics, know very little of Biden's background, and are just going off of "he seems like a nice guy" outlook.
Which unfortunately many voters do go off of... some do no research at all, and just vote along party lines, or vote based on how a person looks to them.
Or, as I said, they want him to win because he will be torn apart by Trump in a national race.I think that it is a ploy on the part of conservatives and GOP to divide Democrats. You are not going to peel away many die hard Trump supporters in favor of ANY Democratic candidate.
----------
"I believe deeply that most people are better than their worst behaviours," he wrote. "I also believe there are some who are simply irredeemable and evil. [Psychiatrist and author] Scott Peck called them 'People of the Lie'. They lack any conscience, as Trump does, and so they're almost purely evil. Trump is the most purely evil human being I've ever met, and also the most insecure."
The worst thing about working with Trump? "The shortness of his attention span and his utter lack of interest in anything but himself."
----------------
Conservative are a piece of work, why take a substitute when you have the real thing "Trump"."Conservative are a piece of work, why take a substitute when you have the real thing "Trump"."
Why not? All you need is someone that is not already a part of the ruling aristocracy of the Hill and you might find converts. Of course, that still leaves someone that is not all about massive wealth redistribution - playing Robin Hood and tying people to the chains of charity. Someone that is not about disarming the people for better control. Someone that is not about ever more government control over people's lives. Someone that is not about maximum government control that can be forced onto the population.
As these are all deeply rooted in the "progressive" philosophy you probably won't find a Democrat that will hole much interest for conservatives, but you can find a substitute for Trump that might pique that interest. It just won't be someone that projects these kinds of goals.
One main reason Clinton lost is that people did not trust her. They felt she was dishonest. This will be one of the main reasons Trump loses in 2020, should he avoid impeachment beforehand. There is a large portion of the country that recognizes his lies and the laws he continues to break for personal gain. Many Americans like having allies in England, Canada, and France as opposed to North Korea, Russia and protecting a murderer in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. And anyone who cares about the environment knows that Trump denies the science and has shredded all protections the US had towards the long-term health of the planet. Clean water and clear air - not something the Trump Administration cares about.
All this before the opposition candidate rolls out Trump's clearly racist statements. I'm sure there are many centrist Republicans who have turned away from Trump for this reason alone.
Related Discussions
- 86
Democrats, are we in a circular firing squad?
by Credence2 2 days ago
I can’t believe it, we have allowed the aura or stench of Trumpism to affect our own party with insiders leading the way.We are actually ready to throw President Biden under the bus for one poor debate performance?While, Trump has broken every rule in the book as a convicted felon and he gets...
- 104
Joe Biden Accused of Sexually Assaulting Aide in 1993
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
I had to post this since it appeared in a reputable left-wing source:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-bide … 6a7a2a88f2This is serious stuff and I don't care how long ago the accusation happened. It will be worth every Democrat's time to follow this issue and then decide if they can...
- 110
Is Joe Biden coming off as a "pusillanimous"?
by Credence2 2 years ago
Conservatives were quick to blame President Biden for our rather awkward exit from Afghanistan, I don't blame him as his predecessor set the stage and props that Biden had no choice except to follow through.I do not blame Biden for the inflation that we are experiencing as most of the...
- 25
President Donald Trump as Presidential Candidate or President ...
by Kathryn L Hill 2 weeks ago
If Trump had a crystal ball which showed he might (somehow) start a civil war here in the good ol' USA, would/should he decide not to run? - wondering.
- 133
Joe Biden- Activists Showing The World What They Are
by Denise 5 years ago
Does anyone else find this whole defense of creepy Joe by the activists weird as heck?I mean, seriously. He's being accused of groping women. We have video footage, we have eye witness testimony, we have a pattern of behavior, we have a fumbling progression of attempts by Biden to respond. But...
- 81
Biden Is He In The Early Stages Of Dementia?
by Sharlee 2 years ago
An Albatross In The Room.Many spent the last four years criticizing President Donald Trump in no small part for his mental state. At this juncture it is necessary we take a serious look at Biden's frequently, confused, irritability, and inability to complete a coherent thought. it's very clear that...