Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Thu Feb 20, 2020 7:32 pm

RiverDog wrote:I'm good for the bet. :D

I got the feeling in 2016 that a lot of Dem voters got blindsided by the media's outrageous reports on election day of Hillary having a 95% chance of winning and stayed home. I don't think they'll get caught by surprise this time around.

And as I told Idahawkman, Trump's not winning by a landslide. If he does win, it will be similar to his victory in 2016 were he lost the popular vote by a large margin but won the electoral college by 100k votes in 3 states. Trump's approval rating is the flattest in history. Nothing about his popularity has changed in 3.5 years so it's extremely unlikely that he'll suddenly surge this November to the degree where he wins easily.

One of the biggest group to stay home in 2016 was the black vote. Like a lot of people, blacks don't trust Hillary, ironic because they were one of Slick Willy's biggest constituencies. Biden does better with blacks than the others, mainly because of his time as Obama's VP. Bloomberg has a weak spot with blacks in the form of his "stop and frisk" policy and has been trying to address it. Bloomberg also has a bit of a problem with the #Metoo crowd as he's made some pretty insensitive remarks over the years, but once they get into the general election, they'll look like he was blowing kisses when compared to the "grab 'em by the p#$$y" Trump.


Thanks for stating my case. Bloomberg has all kinds of problems. He might be worse than Hilary, on top of his 2nd Amendment issues. Pro Gun people hate him, worse than Sanders. I think they're a strong voting group in a lot of swing states.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:03 am

RiverDog wrote:I'm good for the bet. :D

I got the feeling in 2016 that a lot of Dem voters got blindsided by the media's outrageous reports on election day of Hillary having a 95% chance of winning and stayed home. I don't think they'll get caught by surprise this time around.

And as I told Idahawkman, Trump's not winning by a landslide. If he does win, it will be similar to his victory in 2016 were he lost the popular vote by a large margin but won the electoral college by 100k votes in 3 states. Trump's approval rating is the flattest in history. Nothing about his popularity has changed in 3.5 years so it's extremely unlikely that he'll suddenly surge this November to the degree where he wins easily.

One of the biggest group to stay home in 2016 was the black vote. Like a lot of people, blacks don't trust Hillary, ironic because they were one of Slick Willy's biggest constituencies. Biden does better with blacks than the others, mainly because of his time as Obama's VP. Bloomberg has a weak spot with blacks in the form of his "stop and frisk" policy and has been trying to address it. Bloomberg also has a bit of a problem with the #Metoo crowd as he's made some pretty insensitive remarks over the years, but once they get into the general election, they'll look like he was blowing kisses when compared to the "grab 'em by the p#$$y" Trump.


Aseahawkfan wrote:Thanks for stating my case. Bloomberg has all kinds of problems. He might be worse than Hilary, on top of his 2nd Amendment issues. Pro Gun people hate him, worse than Sanders. I think they're a strong voting group in a lot of swing states.


Bloomberg is not worse than Hillary. Next to Trump, she had negatives that were higher by 10 percentage points than any other nominee since they started tracking it, which dates all the way back to the 50's. There was/is no more polarizing candidate on the Dem slate than HRC. She is a huge lightning rod for all voters on the right including the 2nd Amendment folks.

They all have their warts. Is an openly gay Mayor Pete going to be able to turn out the black vote in a way Hillary couldn't when you consider the fact that many blacks may vote Democratic but are social conservatives when it comes to their religious beliefs? Or how about some of Sanders old baggage, like supporting the Iranians way back in the 70's during the Iran Hostage Crisis? Will he be able to get the Democratic machine behind him even though he's an independent with wounds that are still festering over the 2016 nomination fight? Will women get behind Creepy Joe Biden when they find out about some of the stances he took during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings? And let's not forget about Elizabeth Warren and her false claims of native American ancestry.

Bloomberg isn't the perfect candidate, but neither are any of the others. As you yourself said about Trump, Bloomberg is from NYC and knows how to fight a dirty campaign. Anything that's even slightly negative that the Trump campaign says about him and he'll buy up a couple million in ads and hit back immediately. Did you see the response they gave when Trump mocked Bloomberg's physical height? I don't know if the others can do that in the same way he can.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:05 pm

RiverDog wrote:Bloomberg is not worse than Hillary. Next to Trump, she had negatives that were higher by 10 percentage points than any other nominee since they started tracking it, which dates all the way back to the 50's. There was/is no more polarizing candidate on the Dem slate than HRC. She is a huge lightning rod for all voters on the right including the 2nd Amendment folks.


We will see. I think Bloomberg has as many problems as Hilary.

They all have their warts. Is an openly gay Mayor Pete going to be able to turn out the black vote in a way Hillary couldn't when you consider the fact that many blacks may vote Democratic but are social conservatives when it comes to their religious beliefs? Or how about some of Sanders old baggage, like supporting the Iranians way back in the 70's during the Iran Hostage Crisis? Will he be able to get the Democratic machine behind him even though he's an independent with wounds that are still festering over the 2016 nomination fight? Will women get behind Creepy Joe Biden when they find out about some of the stances he took during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings? And let's not forget about Elizabeth Warren and her false claims of native American ancestry.

Bloomberg isn't the perfect candidate, but neither are any of the others. As you yourself said about Trump, Bloomberg is from NYC and knows how to fight a dirty campaign. Anything that's even slightly negative that the Trump campaign says about him and he'll buy up a couple million in ads and hit back immediately. Did you see the response they gave when Trump mocked Bloomberg's physical height? I don't know if the others can do that in the same way he can.


I think Sanders is a wildcard with a message appealing to a lot of people. I don't think he can beat Trump, but he probably has the best chance because his base is spread and might come from surprising areas. I think he can pull more of the African ancestry and minority vote than any other candidate.

We'll see. We can argue until we're both blue in the face, but we won't know for sure until they go head to head. And I don't think Bloomberg can beat Trump. I think he has way too many problems with his own base and won't attract many votes from Trump.

Whereas Bernie I think would attract some Trump voters, galvanize the youth and minority vote, and offer some real change than the same old same old most of the Democrats. Say what you want about Bernie, but he has a strong vision and a lot of passion.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:32 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:We will see. I think Bloomberg has as many problems as Hilary.


The voters knew HRC for 24 years prior to the 2016 election. The right's hatred for her was already well developed. They barely know Bloomberg as this is the first time he's ever run for national office, and with the money he has to spend on advertising, he has a chance to shape his own image rather than letting others define him.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I think Sanders is a wildcard with a message appealing to a lot of people. I don't think he can beat Trump, but he probably has the best chance because his base is spread and might come from surprising areas. I think he can pull more of the African ancestry and minority vote than any other candidate.

We'll see. We can argue until we're both blue in the face, but we won't know for sure until they go head to head. And I don't think Bloomberg can beat Trump. I think he has way too many problems with his own base and won't attract many votes from Trump.

Whereas Bernie I think would attract some Trump voters, galvanize the youth and minority vote, and offer some real change than the same old same old most of the Democrats. Say what you want about Bernie, but he has a strong vision and a lot of passion.


I do think you're underestimating the problems Bernie is going to have putting together an organization that's going to be able to meld with the DNC and their large network of backers and party infrastructure. One of the problems he's going have is fundraising, and he needs the DNC's help. Bloomberg obviously doesn't need any help in that department, indeed, he's already said that he's not accepting any donations. Sanders and the establishment Dems might be able to put aside their differences after the nomination, but it won't be easy.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:06 am

[quote="Aseahawkfan"]



"Bloomberg's stance on the 2nd Amendment will have the Republicans and pro-gun groups out in droves. Bloomberg is right there with Beto O'rourke for 2nd Amendment attacks. He spent billions to attack the 2nd Amendment in nearly every state. You think Bloomberg looks ok right now, but if he gets the nomination he has so many chinks in the armor that Trump will easily rile up the right and many independents in this nation against him. He is one of the worst politicians in extreme attacks on the 2nd Amendment. I think that will rile up many states against him if he comes close to getting the nomination including borderline states like Texas and Florida."

"Bloomberg may look good to you right now, but I guarantee if he wins the nomination Trump will beat him. Bloomberg is a major threat to many of the important issues on the right and has a lot of problems in his background even for the left as he's another billionaire out of touch with the extreme left of his party."

"So if you want Trump to win, then push Bloomberg. Trump will welcome it. Bloomberg will set the right on fire if he gets the nomination and he will send 2nd Amendment activists to polls in droves in many key states, many of them independents."


" Trump wants Bloomberg to win the nomination. Read on Bloomberg quotes for the 2nd Amendment. Then imagine how that will play in key states like Florida and Texas. Also, you think the working class in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are going to buy into some billionaire looking to take their guns and tell them how life should be? I'm doubtful. Very doubtful"


I look at this gun debate much as I look at the abortion debate. Both parties use it to rile up the base. But what's the reality? Obama held the office for 8 years and nobody lost their guns. Reagan, GW held the office for 8 years and abortion remains the law of the land although this president has worked the hardest and Judge shopped the most to restrict it.

Regardless, Bloomberg's stance limiting or outlawing sale of assault style weapons is popular among well over half the population, a political winner and even some gun retailers have unilaterally stopped selling these weapons at great financial loss.There are already over 14 million of these weapons out on the street.70% including many NRA members have voiced support for tougher universal background checks and the organization itself is struggling with financial debt and declining membership.
Regardless there are over 300 million guns on the street in the hands of 150 million people give or take. It's a militia alright, one of the largest armies in the world, just unregulated. But nobody's taking your gun away unless it's necessary regardless of party in power and sadly many of the latest high profile shoots involved police not following up on existing laws beforehand and preventing these tragedies. I say these things as a kid who took hunters safety class and was shooting birds at age 14, in hindsight too young by far. But I'm a defender of the second amendment

I think the vicious attacks by his primary moderate competitors on this brusque tough talking billionaire are stupid as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump totally skated in the debate.He said afterward it "wasn't my best night" but also that "they were just yelling at each other and I didnt have a chance to say what I wanted to say."They should be focusing on Donald Trump" HEAR HEAR!!! :x :x

I thought he showed great restraint . Imagine trump's demeanor under such a withering attack.I think he will counterpunch hard next debate. Beyond that it was Bloomberg's money driving the midterm blue wave in the house and he's already committed to spending unlimited amounts of money in the general whether he's the nominee or not.Not the guy you want to p!$$ off :P

And the guy may be diminutive in stature but he's a bulldog who didn't go from unemployed at 38 to worth over 60 billion and 3 terms as NY mayor without some serious gravitas. Hit stop and frisk policies have been known for a while and yet he's pulling even with Biden among blacks who say overwhelmingly that beating Trump is their #1 qualification making them far more pragmatic than the liberal ninnies on the far left. And as crude and objectionable as some of his comments regarding women were there's no suggestion of sexual assault, porn stars, no taped bragging about being able to assault women.No business scandals Im aware of, no collusion .

And one more big difference. Bloomberg has apologized for these actions and just released 3 women from non disclosure agreements.I've never heard Trump apologize one time in his entire life. Painting MB with the same unequivocally brush as Trump is not accurate. Also very important he crushes Trump in the media every time he has an insult mocking his height on twitter. Others dance around the issue, criticize Trump's policies or demeanor. Bloomberg demeans him, denigrates him personally, his appearance, his intellect, beats him at his own game. He's leading or tied for the lead in quite a few Super tuesday states already as well and beats Trump in national polls. Not to mention Dirty Harry AKA Clint Eastwood just endorsed Bloomberg. Its a lock now :D

I think he would hold up in a debate really well with Trump, There wouldnt be any little Mike comments that go unchallenged and it would be a brutal counterpunch in the fat gut, far more entertaining than 2016. :D :D
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Sat Feb 22, 2020 11:16 am

I generally don't pay much attention to primary debates. If I see a candidate being interviewed on television I might tune in, but most of my information I get by reading news articles off my news feed on my tablet that I get from a variety of sources, including Fox News. Once the conventions are over and they've selected their nominees I'll start paying more attention. I'll also read their statements in the voter's pamphlet.

BTW, I just mailed in my vote earlier this week for the WA primary, and I voted for Bloomberg. IMO these primaries are a bunch of crap. With no one running opposite Trump, there's nothing preventing a hard core Republican from declaring themselves as Democrats and cast their vote for the candidate least likely to win. I'd rather they go back to some type of caucus system or just do away with the nominating process altogether and let the party bosses select their nominees. We got better choices out of smoke filled rooms than we have from the current primary system.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:10 am

Hawktawk,

I don't agree on the second amendment. Over half the country supports a ban on assault weapons, but most of them are in liberal states, not red states and likely not many of those independent states. California, New York, Massachusetts and, Washington may have huge numbers of anti-gun folks, but I'm doubtful Texas, Florida, and the South and Middle of the Country or Rust Belt will be supportive. So when you say half the country supports an assault weapon ban, you need to qualify that statement since we live in a Republic with a lot of State rights and powers. I'm betting the majority that you speak of is based in certain key states that already vote left. That's why a guy like Beto was kicked from the election early because his own state of Texas wasn't having none of that take your guns trash.

What's going to win this election? Swing states. The same states that put Trump into office. You guys are telling me those swing states are going to listen to some leftist billionaire who wants to take their guns, tax them more, and generally increase the power of the federal government? Let's just say I'm doubtful, real doubtful.

I think you guys like Bloomberg because he's a much better candidate than Sanders as far as his policy stances. I agree with that.

But this is crazy town right now. Bernie is part of Crazy Town.

Riverdog, I'll make you a nice bet right now more millennial will vote for Crazy Bernie than any other Democrat. Not sure if you've heard of the Bernie Bros, but it's a lot of those same millennials that were protesting Wall Street. AOC and her squad supports him. He will get a huge turnout from minority women, minorities period, and that young college educated group that has been sold European style socialism is good. You really don't seem to be paying attention to who supports Bernie. He's huge with millennials who vote. He's that cool old man trying to bring European style Democratic Socialism to America with free education and free medical.

Why do you think Hilary had to go out of her way to torpedo Bernie last time? There was even speculation that more Bernie voters voted for Trump because they wanted a wildcard crazy man in office. They'll go back to Bernie in a heartbeat.

What will be interesting to see is the unions and big tech. That group of leftists might come out against Bernie since they don't want their union negotiated medical plans or the heavy taxes on tech Bernie will bring.

If I were the Dems, I'd still roll with Bernie. It's obvious after Trump's win that people are not looking for business as usual as much as some of us on here are. They're looking for crazy. Bernie brings the most crazy on the Dems side to go head to head with the crazy that is Trump. Centrist politics appear to be not what America is currently looking for.

At least that is my opinion. Even look on here, even a usually sensible poster like C-bob has full on embraced wealthy inequality. Who will sell him a better plan to fix that: Bloomberg or Sanders? I do wonder. What do the Democrats on here think? They think a centrist like Bloomberg or Biden can take down crazy Trump? Or do they want to give Crazy Bernie a run at it?

Trump took out all the centrist in the Republican Party. No one even tried to challenge him this time around. Trump supporters still seem to love the guy. He can do almost no wrong. They still hate the left. I don't think Biden or Bloomberg can bring out that hate the right vote more than Bernie. Bernie is the guy the Dems should ride in this crazy time. If he beats Trump, then they can work their compromises. If he loses, then they can forget about him forever. He's done.

Then they can groom the next smiling Clinton or Obama to take down the Republicans after Trump Exhaustion finally sets in. No Republican will be able to follow that loon. Very few of them likely even want to.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:47 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:Riverdog, I'll make you a nice bet right now more millennial will vote for Crazy Bernie than any other Democrat. Not sure if you've heard of the Bernie Bros, but it's a lot of those same millennials that were protesting Wall Street. AOC and her squad supports him. He will get a huge turnout from minority women, minorities period, and that young college educated group that has been sold European style socialism is good. You really don't seem to be paying attention to who supports Bernie. He's huge with millennials who vote. He's that cool old man trying to bring European style Democratic Socialism to America with free education and free medical.


The problem is that Millennials don't vote, at least not in the numbers that older generations do. There is a direct relationship between voter turnout and age. The Dems are going to need a candidate that energizes their base, and I just don't see Bernie being able to do that.

Joe Biden still has a huge lead over the rest of the field with black voters. There is some hope for Sanders and others in that blacks overwhelmingly support ANY Democratic candidate over Trump (I don't know where Idahawk gets this idea that blacks support Trump), but the big question is if they can get them to the polls. Who ever the Dem nominee is, they have to get that part of their constituency to turn out.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:49 pm

RiverDog wrote:The problem is that Millennials don't vote, at least not in the numbers that older generations do. There is a direct relationship between voter turnout and age. The Dems are going to need a candidate that energizes their base, and I just don't see Bernie being able to do that.

Joe Biden still has a huge lead over the rest of the field with black voters. There is some hope for Sanders and others in that blacks overwhelmingly support ANY Democratic candidate over Trump (I don't know where Idahawk gets this idea that blacks support Trump), but the big question is if they can get them to the polls. Who ever the Dem nominee is, they have to get that part of their constituency to turn out.


College educated millenials love Bernie in a way they never will with Hilary, Bloomberg, or Biden. I think he will also bring out the minority vote, not like Obama, but more than Biden or any other candidate, especially minority women when The Squad works to support Bernie.

I don't like Bernie just like you RD. But from a purely political perspective I think he has the best chance of unseating Trump after Trump's Biden Hit Job. If Biden wins at this point, Fox News and Trump's campaign will hammer Biden with Ukraine and bring out more and more information about it. Just like if Bloomberg wins, he'll be getting slammed for stop and frisk and everything thing he did that was messed up in New York which will likely alienate the minority vote and the female vote given the NDAs he had them sign due to his comments about women. It's obvious the left has less tolerance for "boys will be boys" than the right. Bernie has that wildcard "I'm bringing something new to the table platform" I think might get people charged up, even though I think he'll still lose.

All I know for certain is this is going to be one dirty election. I'm expecting some surprise information releases, possibly Trump using a racial slur or some other crap as the voting date gets closer. This is about as nasty as it gets in politics.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:12 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't like Bernie just like you RD. But from a purely political perspective I think he has the best chance of unseating Trump after Trump's Biden Hit Job.


So why does the Trump camp want to run against Sanders? Why are the Russians trying to help Sanders win the nomination?
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby c_hawkbob » Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:40 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't like Bernie just like you RD. But from a purely political perspective I think he has the best chance of unseating Trump after Trump's Biden Hit Job.

RiverDog wrote:So why does the Trump camp want to run against Sanders? Why are the Russians trying to help Sanders win the nomination?

Who says he does? Him? Yeah that's a reliable source ...
And because they're trying to set up the most divisive race possible.

Bernie would have beat Trump in 16 if the DNC hadn't rigged the primary (superdelegates are BS, they just mean the DNC get's their way no matter what the voters say) and he'll beat him this time if he gets the nomination. He had my vote then and he has it now.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:19 am

Why is Trump denying Russian interference in his campaign but suggesting its in Sanders campaign? Oh nevermind :cry: The frog in the pot of boiling water is dead.

Nobody really cares that our greatest geopolitical foe with 7 K nukes pointed at us is pushing the orange baboon for another term and also once again boosting Sanders. One party does not care as long as their guy wins again. The other guys supporters probably feel the same way about this primary . Its up to the voters to stop this. What has happened to the american citizen? :oops: :oops:
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Mon Feb 24, 2020 7:35 am

RiverDog wrote:So why does the Trump camp want to run against Sanders? Why are the Russians trying to help Sanders win the nomination?


c_hawkbob wrote:Who says he does? Him? Yeah that's a reliable source …


I say he does.

I think you've read enough of my comments over the past few years to make it clear that I don't consider DJT to be a reliable source. But this one makes sense, as next to Warren, Sanders is the furthest to the left on the political spectrum and would be a lot easier for Trump to contrast a difference with. Additionally, Sanders has been around a long time and has plenty of baggage dating back to the '70's that the Trump campaign can use against him. That doesn't exist, at least not to the same degree, with a candidate like Buttigieg or Klobuchar.

c_hawkbob wrote:And because they're trying to set up the most divisive race possible.


Exactly. Politicians, especially incumbent presidents, always want to run against the candidate most furthest away from their own ideology. You're old enough to remember the 1972 election. Nixon wanted to run against George McGovern because he was by far the most liberal on the Dem slate, and going back even further, in '64 Johnson wanted to run against Goldwater because he was way more conservative than other Republicans.

c_hawkbob wrote:Bernie would have beat Trump in 16 if the DNC hadn't rigged the primary (superdelegates are BS, they just mean the DNC get's their way no matter what the voters say) and he'll beat him this time if he gets the nomination. He had my vote then and he has it now.


Neither you or me thought that Trump had a snowball's chance in hell of being elected at this point back in 2016, so I'm steering clear of any predictions or conclusive statements. But I do agree that Sanders or most anyone not named Hillary would have beaten Trump in 2016.

Besides, that wasn't my point. My point is that Sanders would be the easiest candidate for Trump to run against. He doesn't want to run against a centrist like Biden or Bloomberg. That doesn't mean that I think that Sanders can't win, nor does it mean that I think he would have lost in 2016 had he been the nominee. Sanders is the most problematic if the goal is to take out Trump.

I don't know how I am going to vote in November except to say that it won't be for Trump.
Last edited by RiverDog on Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:14 am

Hawktawk wrote:Why is Trump denying Russian interference in his campaign but suggesting its in Sanders campaign?


Because he wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He wants anything and everything about him and his campaign to appear as clean as a hound's tooth yet he wants to discredit his opponents and make them look like the filthiest, more corrupt people to have walked the planet. And the sad thing is that there's a lot of people out there that will buy both narratives simultaneously yet never see the hypocrisy.

Hawktawk wrote:Nobody really cares that our greatest geopolitical foe with 7 K nukes pointed at us is pushing the orange baboon for another term and also once again boosting Sanders. One party does not care as long as their guy wins again. The other guys supporters probably feel the same way about this primary . Its up to the voters to stop this. What has happened to the american citizen? :oops: :oops:


I'm not sure why you keep saying "nobody cares". I care. J/B some if not most aren't as passionate about it as you are doesn't mean that we/they don't care.
Last edited by RiverDog on Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby NorthHawk » Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:04 am

Here's an interesting column by William McRaven:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10693
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:21 am

NorthHawk wrote:Here's an interesting column by William McRaven:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html


Glad to see you dip your toe in here, but I can't read your link as it's from the Washington Post and they demand a paid subscription to read their content of which I'm not willing to pay.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby c_hawkbob » Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:52 am

NorthHawk wrote:Here's an interesting column by William McRaven:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

RiverDog wrote:Glad to see you dip your toe in here, but I can't read your link as it's from the Washington Post and they demand a paid subscription to read their content of which I'm not willing to pay.

I don't subscribe and I can read it. All you have to do is minimize the subscription prompt.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:15 pm

Thanks for the hint, but I don't seem to have an option to minimize the subscription prompt. However, I opened a different browser and was able to read the article.

It's a good read, but I don't see what it has to do with the OP, seems like it deserves its own thread. Or did I miss something?
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby NorthHawk » Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:36 pm

RiverDog wrote:Thanks for the hint, but I don't seem to have an option to minimize the subscription prompt. However, I opened a different browser and was able to read the article.

It's a good read, but I don't see what it has to do with the OP, seems like it deserves its own thread. Or did I miss something?


It's in response to the nobody cares comments and how people should care.
I use Firefox and I had no problem reading the article - I'm not a subscriber either.
NorthHawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 10693
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:44 pm

NorthHawk wrote:It's in response to the nobody cares comments and how people should care.

I use Firefox and I had no problem reading the article - I'm not a subscriber either.


I used Microsoft Edge, and after C-bob's comment, tried Google Chrome and was able to read it. Usually when I see an article I want to read out of the Post and if it's a big enough story, I'll go into my news app and find it there. NY Times has the same annoying problem.

There's a difference between not caring about a subject and not being able to do something about it. I always try to reference the "Courage/Serenity/Wisdom" prayer over such subjects, advice I think that a lot of us could use from time to time.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Hawktawk » Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:04 pm

RiverDog wrote:
There's a difference between not caring about a subject and not being able to do something about it. I always try to reference the "Courage/Serenity/Wisdom" prayer over such subjects, advice I think that a lot of us could use from time to time.


You sort of have a point there. The people with the power to do something aren't doing it. The congress has oversight of this and every president and they gave it away .
There's been a hundred times in this administration I was sure he had committed egregious enough crimes or made big enough gaffes the leadership of the party of lincoln and Reagan would say enough is enough. I've contended he should have been removed under the 25th amendment early in his term and it later was learned it was in fact discussed at length by members of his cabinet and abandoned due to the fear of the constitutional crisis it would create. Its as true now as it was then though. The guy is not psychologically fit for office and proves it daily.

I've contended he should be impeached through midway of the mueller investigation as his clear obstruction and witness intimidation was on twitter and the media constantly.

I definitely felt he should be removed from office following the Mueller testimony. While Mueller "was not able to establish a CRIMINAL conspiracy" he detailed over 140 separate contacts, exchange of polling data broken down to precincts, willing acceptance of and knowledge of Russian Interference and yet brazen enough to ask for Russia ind Wikileaks help from the stump. Muller called his actions "unamerican" and stated in response to a congressman's question that his written answers on collusion were "not truthful, generally speaking". A written test and he still committed Perjury. :D :D :D Mueller went too easy on him frankly with what's known but still not even the Dems in the house including Pelosi wanted anything to do with impeachment. I was angry that they wimped out then :twisted:

Only after Ukraine, the smoking cannon with 17 corroborating witnesses, respected career people, war heroes I said for sure this is it. Everybody gets this. In the end everybody did. Lamar Alexander, in voting against witnesses said it was because the Dems had "proven their case already." Marco Rubio said he assumed it was true and was impeachable conduct but that it would be to hard on the country. Even Joni Ernst of the Impeach Obama for too many executive orders campaign :lol: :lol: :lol: had to admit it "wasn't something she would have done".

Mitt Romney :)First Senator in American history to buck his party in an impeachment. It tells you all you want to know about the case for removal. He didn't make that decision lightly. He gives me just a glimmer of hope in our democracy. God Bless he and his family.

The american people got it too. An overwhelming majority thought the president committed wrongdoing. 70+%wanted witnesses. Most polls showed a tie or a plurality favoring removal.
And still the repubs acquitted the guy and now look. Hes mocking our intelligence again, actually firing people who report intelligence to the congress in their constitutional responsibility and I dont hear a G D work out of these guys or "hes learned a lesson" Susan Collins ROFLMAO.
Boy he sure has learned a lesson, he can do anything he wants. Dems have impeachment fever, any hearings they hold will be stonewalled anyway, elections too close. Were being sold out by every politician in every party.
Hawktawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 8481
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:57 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:53 pm

RiverDog wrote:
There's a difference between not caring about a subject and not being able to do something about it. I always try to reference the "Courage/Serenity/Wisdom" prayer over such subjects, advice I think that a lot of us could use from time to time.


Hawktawk wrote:You sort of have a point there. The people with the power to do something aren't doing it. The congress has oversight of this and every president and they gave it away.


I wouldn't blame it all on Congress. The American people have some responsibility in this, too. Congress is simply doing our bidding. There was never a clear majority that supported removing Trump from office, and as a result, not nearly enough Congressional support to meet the threshold.

Hawktawk wrote:There's been a hundred times in this administration I was sure he had committed egregious enough crimes or made big enough gaffes the leadership of the party of lincoln and Reagan would say enough is enough. I've contended he should have been removed under the 25th amendment early in his term and it later was learned it was in fact discussed at length by members of his cabinet and abandoned due to the fear of the constitutional crisis it would create. Its as true now as it was then though. The guy is not psychologically fit for office and proves it daily.


He wasn't anymore stable during the 2016 campaign than he is now, yet one helluva lot of people still voted for him. And as I said above, Congress is following the masses, not leading them, so we can't lay it all on them. I would have preferred that some of the R's suck it up and denounce Trump, but that isn't how our political machine works. It wouldn't have been any different if the Dems had their man/woman under attack. After all, they were able to rationalize perjury by saying it was only about sex. It's all about party affiliation, not about what's right.

Hawktawk wrote:Boy he sure has learned a lesson, he can do anything he wants.


Which is why it was foolish to advocate impeachment when everyone and their dog knew from the start that they could never get to him. The result is that we've enabled him with even more power than he had before. Trump now feels that he's bullet proof, that the Dems have used all the ammunition they had available and he's still standing up there giving them the middle finger. He could bribe another 10 countries and there's nothing anyone can do about it whereas before, he didn't know if he could get away with it. Now he knows.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby idhawkman » Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:10 am

RiverDog wrote:
No, of course, not. Losing 10 states doesn't come close to equating losing one (and DC) by .2%. It would be more accurate to compare a 40 state win to what Bush 41 did in 1988, and no one equated his win to Reagan's '84 victory. Besides, the number of states won is just one criteria of an election landslide ala Reagan in '84. There's also the percentage of popular vote and the most important measure, the number of electoral votes.

There's too many states, specifically CA, OR, WA, HI, NY, IL, MD, MA, VT, DC, and NJ, all states that Trump lost by double digits in 2016, that are off the table for him to claim an electoral vote landslide. I'd bet some major money that Trump won't get to 400 electoral votes except I wouldn't be able to find anyone stupid enough to take me up on it.

You're truly living in a fantasy world, ignoring or rationalizing all the facts and events of the past 4 years if you think that Trump is going to win the election by as much as you are claiming that he might. I don't doubt that he might cobble together enough electoral votes to get re-elected, but the fact is that he's by far the most unpopular POTUS in at least the past 70 years. It's the Democrats election to lose, not Trump's to win.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/02/19/chris_matthews_bernie_sanders_is_full_of_it_would_lose_49_states_to_trump.html

Popular vote doesn't elect presidents. Just ask Gore and Hilary

Fact is that Trump will get more electoral votes than he did in 2016 the only question remaining is how many more which is going to depend on who the dems ordain to lose against him.
Last edited by idhawkman on Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby idhawkman » Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:18 am

NorthHawk wrote:Here's an interesting column by William McRaven:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

FYI, the rank and file SOF folks hate that guy for what he has done to SOCOM?

Almost everyday I see more complaints about him in the private forums on Facebook. (Note, the private forums of which I speak are private groups where someone in the group has to vouch for you that you served in one of the SOF groups providing dates, teams and other verifiable info.)
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:11 pm

Hawktawk wrote:Why is Trump denying Russian interference in his campaign but suggesting its in Sanders campaign? Oh nevermind :cry: The frog in the pot of boiling water is dead.

Nobody really cares that our greatest geopolitical foe with 7 K nukes pointed at us is pushing the orange baboon for another term and also once again boosting Sanders. One party does not care as long as their guy wins again. The other guys supporters probably feel the same way about this primary . Its up to the voters to stop this. What has happened to the american citizen? :oops: :oops:


C'mon Hawktawk. the Russian interference thing wasn't put there by Trump. It was the Democrats putting it out there to torpedo Bernie a second time. I don't mind you blaming Trump for what he does, but the Russians supporting Bernie is more Democrat torpedoing Bernie to stop a socialist from representing their party. Are you really surprised? The Democrats torpedoed Bernie last year and they don't want him as the face of their party. The Russian Boogieman will be called out for anyone they can stick it to at this point to try to get rid of them.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby idhawkman » Tue Feb 25, 2020 7:36 pm

Breaking tonight....

8 elected officials leave the democrat and independent parties tonight in Mississippi.

Hmmmm.... I wonder why. /sarcasm
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:22 pm

idhawkman wrote:Popular vote doesn't elect presidents. Just ask Gore and Hilary


Would you PLEASE read what I posted: There's also the percentage of popular vote and the most important measure, the number of electoral votes.

The point we were arguing was that you said that Trump might win in a fashion similar to Reagan in '84. If Trump is to come anywhere close to a comparable Reagan-'84 victory, he's going to have to get north of 55% of the popular vote and not lose more than a couple of states in the electoral college. And I'll repeat what I said: You're living in a fantasy world if you think Trump's going to win by that kind of margin no matter who the Dems nominate.

idhawkman wrote:Fact is that Trump will get more electoral votes than he did in 2016 the only question remaining is how many more which is going to depend on who the dems ordain to lose against him.


Interesting use of the term "fact". Do all your opinions qualify as "facts"?

But nevertheless, even though you've come down by 200 or so electoral votes, we have you down as Trump racking up 305+ of them in November. Let's bookmark the page.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:42 pm

I would vote for Darth Vader over Trump. That would be awesome. Could you imagine that booming voice and Jedi sway at the debates? I would watch that all day, every day.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:45 pm

idhawkman wrote:Breaking tonight....

8 elected officials leave the democrat and independent parties tonight in Mississippi.

Hmmmm.... I wonder why. /sarcasm


Isn't Mississippi a red state?
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby idhawkman » Wed Mar 04, 2020 11:44 am

RiverDog wrote:I generally don't pay much attention to primary debates. If I see a candidate being interviewed on television I might tune in, but most of my information I get by reading news articles off my news feed on my tablet that I get from a variety of sources, including Fox News. Once the conventions are over and they've selected their nominees I'll start paying more attention. I'll also read their statements in the voter's pamphlet.

BTW, I just mailed in my vote earlier this week for the WA primary, and I voted for Bloomberg. IMO these primaries are a bunch of crap. With no one running opposite Trump, there's nothing preventing a hard core Republican from declaring themselves as Democrats and cast their vote for the candidate least likely to win. I'd rather they go back to some type of caucus system or just do away with the nominating process altogether and let the party bosses select their nominees. We got better choices out of smoke filled rooms than we have from the current primary system.

Oops! Too late to change it now though.

What's amazing is that Trump had more turnout than Bernie and Biden combined yesterday. That's even after you figure the number of "operation Chaos" votes for the dems from Repubs and that Trump is running unopposed with no real urgency for the voters to even show up to vote.

I also think that Biden sunk his boat this past week when he said he would put O'rourke in charge of his gun policy. As someone said earlier, that is going to energize the right's vote in the general (yeah, i'm pretty sure it will be biden who wins the dem nomination now that little mike backed out.)
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 3012
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Wed Mar 04, 2020 1:05 pm

RiverDog wrote:I generally don't pay much attention to primary debates. If I see a candidate being interviewed on television I might tune in, but most of my information I get by reading news articles off my news feed on my tablet that I get from a variety of sources, including Fox News. Once the conventions are over and they've selected their nominees I'll start paying more attention. I'll also read their statements in the voter's pamphlet.

BTW, I just mailed in my vote earlier this week for the WA primary, and I voted for Bloomberg. IMO these primaries are a bunch of crap. With no one running opposite Trump, there's nothing preventing a hard core Republican from declaring themselves as Democrats and cast their vote for the candidate least likely to win. I'd rather they go back to some type of caucus system or just do away with the nominating process altogether and let the party bosses select their nominees. We got better choices out of smoke filled rooms than we have from the current primary system.


idhawkman wrote:Oops! Too late to change it now though.


Yup. Had I known then what I know now, I would have voted for Biden. That's one of the things I don't like about vote by mail. An election should be held at a specific point in time so as to incorporate the most recent events. I received my ballot nearly a month before our primary. I have a habit of dispositioning my mail immediately rather than risk forgetting about a bill or payment.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby Aseahawkfan » Wed Mar 04, 2020 2:43 pm

RD's vote don't matter now anyway. Election time is when it will matter, though this state is going blue anyway.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: Democrat party candidates for POTUS

Postby RiverDog » Wed Mar 04, 2020 4:23 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:RD's vote don't matter now anyway. Election time is when it will matter, though this state is going blue anyway.


I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here, but I don't like the vote-by-mail, for the reason I experienced and several more. What's to stop me from selling my ballot to my neighbor for $10? People are so worried about election security, but I don't get a good answer when I ask that question. I can understand making some limited exceptions for things like home bound people, the military, and a few others, but if a person is too damn lazy or doesn't care enough to put down their tv remote to walk or drive a few blocks to the grade school or fire station, then I don't give two hoots in hell what their opinion is.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests