HawkShack.com

I was surprised to read an article about DJT apparently resigned to losing the presidency to Joe Biden this November. It's been three straight months of nothing but bad news for the POTUS, topped off by a rally that Trump officials had boasted drew a million requests for tickets where less than 6200 attended in an arena that seats 19,000 in one of the reddest of red states, Oklahoma.

For the second time this week, President Donald Trump appeared almost resigned to the idea that former Vice President Joe Biden will beat him in November, telling Fox News’ Sean Hannity that Biden “is going to be president because some people don’t love me.” And he is going to be president because some people don’t love me, maybe,” Trump said.

During a town hall in key swing state Wisconsin, Trump fell back on his well-worn attack lines against his Democratic opponent, painting Biden as too old and suffering from cognitive decline.

“Whenever he does talk, he can’t put two sentences together,” Trump exclaimed. “I don’t want to be nice or un-nice. The man can’t speak.” At the same time, the president seemed to acknowledge current polling, which shows the ex-veep up by double digits nationally and leading in most battleground states—including Wisconsin, a must-win for Trump.

And he is going to be president because some people don’t love me, maybe,” Trump said. “And all I’m doing is doing my job.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

I had to laugh about Trump's mocking Biden for his inability to "put two sentences together". Pot calling the kettle black. Trump has made so many moronic, buffoonish statements over the past 4 years...from the Revolutionary Army storming airports to Colorado sharing a border with Mexico to ingesting disinfectants to kill the virus to slowing down testing because it makes us look bad, not to mention his grade school vocabulary...that he should be envious of Biden's public speaking skills.

What it does is raise the question about Trump's state of mind: Do you think that he'll ever get to the point where he declines the nomination ala LBJ?

Do you think that he'll ever get to the point where he declines the nomination ala LBJ?

LOL, no. But it'd be sweet if he did, there would actually be a decision to be made.

Do you think that he'll ever get to the point where he declines the nomination ala LBJ?

c_hawkbob wrote:LOL, no. But it'd be sweet if he did, there would actually be a decision to be made.

I, too, think the likelihood of refusing the nomination is pretty remote, but then again, I never thought I'd live to see the day when he would recognize that the majority of people "don't love" him. That's quite a big step for a confirmed narcissist.

Who wouldn't wear down running the presidency the way he runs it. President has enough stress and fights and he keeps adding to his unnecessarily.

c_hawkbob wrote:LOL, no. But it'd be sweet if he did,there would actually be a decision to be made.

I would think that a lifelong Democrat like you that the prospect of Trump refusing the nomination would be a case of being careful of what you wish for, you might get it. I don't know how many people there are like me out there, but the only reason I am voting for Biden is to oppose Trump. Depending on who the Republicans nominated in place of him it's highly likely that I would be voting for the R.

The entire dynamics of the election would be turned on its ear. It raises an interesting question: Who would the R's nominate? Pence doesn't have the muscle and Romney has broken with the party too many times. In the near term, I don't see anyone on the horizon that would be an obvious choice.

Oh for chrissakes I'm not a lifelong Democrat! I have voted republican in 3 presidential elections, Libertarian once and independent twice. As I have gotten older I have felt myself pushed farther and farther away from the Republican party, but in presidential elections especially I vote for the person, not the party. And I have written all of this right here in this forum, more than once before.

c_hawkbob wrote:Oh for chrissakes I'm not a lifelong Democrat! I have voted republican in 3 presidential elections, Libertarian once and independent twice. As I have gotten older I have felt myself pushed farther and farther away from the Republican party, but in presidential elections especially I vote for the person, not the party. And I have written all of this right here in this forum, more than once before.

Sorry, I didn't mean it as a criticism, you just gave me that impression.

My point is that anyone that leans left should not necessarily be hoping that Trump refuses the nomination.

c_hawkbob wrote:Oh for chrissakes I'm not a lifelong Democrat! I have voted republican in 3 presidential elections, Libertarian once and independent twice. As I have gotten older I have felt myself pushed farther and farther away from the Republican party, but in presidential elections especially I vote for the person, not the party. And I have written all of this right here in this forum, more than once before.

Sorry, I didn't mean it as a criticism, you just gave me that impression.

My point is that anyone that leans left should not necessarily be hoping that Trump refuses the nomination. Bidens warts suddenly become magnified when not contrasted with Trump's.

c_hawkbob wrote:Oh for chrissakes I'm not a lifelong Democrat! I have voted republican in 3 presidential elections, Libertarian once and independent twice. As I have gotten older I have felt myself pushed farther and farther away from the Republican party, but in presidential elections especially I vote for the person, not the party. And I have written all of this right here in this forum, more than once before.

RiverDog wrote:Sorry, I didn't mean it as a criticism, you just gave me that impression.

My point is that anyone that leans left should not necessarily be hoping that Trump refuses the nomination. Bidens warts suddenly become magnified when not contrasted with Trump's.

Well to be fair I am now a registered Democrat and my default position has become to vote Democrat as a tiebreaker, but where possible I still vote for individuals I feel most deserving of my vote. A position that has taken me father left (voting Green for Nader in 96). Annnd I have moved farther to the left in my core ideology as I have aged ... so if you just replace "lifelong" with "registered" you'd be much more accurate.

I wish he'd resign immediately. He should be forced out under the 25th amendment today. Hes advocating stopping testing, ending federal help.He's looking the other way as russia pays bounties to have US troops in Afghanistan killed. He re tweeted a white nationalist screaming "white power" just today. He and Pence continue to flout CDC guidelines holding large meetings, Pence has a 100 person choir with no masks yesterday at an event.They are currently lying to the american people about this pandemic which is a silent tsunami I fear will wash across our medical facilities in the next few weeks.Pence praised the administration and "this president" for their response at "flattening the curve"as 130 K americans are dead and almost every state in the union is seeing cases and hospitalizations rise.

After very little deliberation I would note vote for Mike Pence any more than Trump but Id sure prefer to see him for the next 120 days. Trump is a menace to the entire world at this point.But the entire trumpanzee party need to be abolished from the political landscape and that includes Pence.Hopefully moscow Mitch And Lindsay Graham join him

chawkbob wrote:... so if you just replace "lifelong" with "registered" you'd be much more accurate.

Done. And I don't blame you for getting pissed off at me. I know that I get pissed when someone mischaracterizes me. It wasn't intentional.

chawkbob wrote:... so if you just replace "lifelong" with "registered" you'd be much more accurate.

RiverDog wrote:Done. And I don't blame you for getting pissed off at me. I know that I get pissed when someone mischaracterizes me. It wasn't intentional.

All good, sorry to have gotten short with you about it.

Yup Trump is done, stick a fork in him.

obiken wrote:Yup Trump is done, stick a fork in him.

Although I'm not ready to write him off, I think that Trump's re-election chances are fading fast. What he doesn't seem to recognize that simply motivating his base isn't going to be enough to do the trick this time around. His 4th of July speeches were evidence that he still does not understand that the political landscape has changed over the past 6 months. Although his team has changed gears and adapted an otherwise reasonable tactic of getting used to and living with the virus, the old man keeps making unforced errors, his latest that he's still clinging to being that we should slow down COVID testing.

If the election were held today, Biden would win by well over 100 electoral votes and 5-8% in the popular vote. He has a double digit lead in the nation wide polls and is well out in front in nearly all of the battleground states. What he needs do is to go into a 4 corner offense and run out the clock. Don't let him talk unless it is via a prepared speech or interviews that are highly choreographed in order to avoid the huge gaffes that he is so prone to making. He needs to get his VP pick right then coach them to do the exact same thing he's doing: Lay low and play defense. The Dems need to host a low key, safe and sane convention. No fiery speeches by the mad professor or stage appearances by the right's favorite punching bags like AOC. Deny the R's the opportunity to link Biden to the far left.

The election is Biden's to lose. Except for an unpredictable, once in a generation event like a 9/11 style terrorist attack, I can't see any other way for Trump to turn things around.

It's so strange to see the differing opinions.

Some think Trump is done.

Others think Biden has no chance.

We'll see in November. I know I wouldn't put money on this election one way or the other. This is going to be the most important VP pick I can recall in history. The Democrats choice of Vice President is more important than it has ever been. The Democrats can't pick some weak, careful, vanilla candidate who can't carry a heavy load this time around. Biden is not up to winning the presidency alone. They need a strong Vice Presidential pick that people feel won't take the country into further chaos or won't be able to support Biden if he goes senile or pushes an extreme leftist agenda that causes even more problems. Maybe the most important Vice Presidential pick in history.

Biden picks a bad Vice President, he is likely to lose. He picks a high quality Vice President, he is likely to win. This is where we're at right now. Even the Vice Presidential pick is of an importance level not seen before.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It's so strange to see the differing opinions.

Some think Trump is done.

Others think Biden has no chance.

At least the ones that think Trump is done have some evidence in the form the polls and a very close election in 2016. Those that think he's going to win are basing their assumption more on wishful thinking.

Aseahawkfan wrote:We'll see in November. I know I wouldn't put money on this election one way or the other. This is going to be the most important VP pick I can recall in history. The Democrats choice of Vice President is more important than it has ever been. The Democrats can't pick some weak, careful, vanilla candidate who can't carry a heavy load this time around. Biden is not up to winning the presidency alone. They need a strong Vice Presidential pick that people feel won't take the country into further chaos or won't be able to support Biden if he goes senile or pushes an extreme leftist agenda that causes even more problems. Maybe the most important Vice Presidential pick in history.

Biden picks a bad Vice President, he is likely to lose. He picks a high quality Vice President, he is likely to win. This is where we're at right now. Even the Vice Presidential pick is of an importance level not seen before.

IMO Biden only needs to avoid making a bad pick that would be a distraction. He's already way ahead so he doesn't need them for electoral support. He just needs to avoid putting someone on their that has a track record that Trump can attack, like Elizabeth Warren.

That's why I've been leaning towards Staci Abrams. So long as they do a good job vetting her to make sure that she doesn't have any skeletons in her closet, she doesn't have a legislative track record that could cause a distraction or allow critics to contrast her agenda with that of Bidens.

RiverDog wrote:At least the ones that think Trump is done have some evidence in the form the polls and a very close election in 2016. Those that think he's going to win are basing their assumption more on wishful thinking.

Maybe so. We'll know for sure in the coming months.

IMO Biden only needs to avoid making a bad pick that would be a distraction. He's already way ahead so he doesn't need them for electoral support. He just needs to avoid putting someone on their that has a track record that Trump can attack, like Elizabeth Warren.

That's why I've been leaning towards Staci Abrams. So long as they do a good job vetting her to make sure that she doesn't have any skeletons in her closet, she doesn't have a legislative track record that could cause a distraction or allow critics to contrast her agenda with that of Bidens.

I want to see how worried moderate white voters are with these racial movements that are tearing down all these statues and monuments. I want to see how concerned that white female group that helped Trump into office are concerned with this radical movement. I know the Trump followers are up in arms about it pushing the "these people are trying to destroy America and hate our nation" angle. I want to see how well they can sell that angle to the moderate voter. I want to see if their VP pick can handle the "You hate America" based on their race attacks. I can guarantee you Trump and his campaign are going to stoke the racial fears if Biden picks a female of African descent. I want to see how that works with voters.

I want to see how bad the death rate is for COVID19 near election time. If the death rate is low even with more cases and people are recovering with a strongly recovering economy, that should boost Trump. If COVID19 looks like it will naturally go away like Trump is indicating, all his followers will feel indicated. It seems at the moment Americas are very much becoming accustomed to COVID19 and the death rate is extremely low, much lower than originally sold. It is empowering the Trump follower "wearing masks is tyranny" crowd and turning people off to COVID19 talk as well. People are burned out on hiding from COVID19.

The stock market is blowing up. We're about to get a lot of key economy news including earnings this month. The Fed Bank and government are pumping money into the economy like money is free. Trump is fully backing this as a good economy will do one of the following: 1. Make people vote for Trump to keep the economy going. 2. Lower the motivation of anti-Trump voters to go against him because the bread and circuses are keeping them occupied.

The wild card will be all the bombs dropped during the election attacking each other. What can they dig up? What ammunition do the Dems have ready to drop come election time? What bombs do the Repub have on Biden? It's going to get real dirty the closer it gets to election day. I think both sides are building up ammo.

I find it odd that given the current polls how confident some people are that Trump will win. Some of them aren't even strongly Trump supporters and don't plan to vote for him or will vote for him over Biden because they view Biden as weak and as having no vision. And they just think once Biden and Trump go head to head Biden will look extremely weak and old with his senility making Dumb as Dirt look like a "stable genius" while Biden looks like a lost old man.

These debates will be real interesing.

Does anyone think any other past administration would handle a global epidemic with the same level of hubris, scapegoating, gaslighting, denial, and outright lies as this one? I cannot think of a single one of either party that would be this reckless, and the consequences are very real. Back in early June, I was hoping that I could drive across the border to see my family in Seattle, but that now seems like a far off fantasy. I can't believe anyone thinks this president isn't doing any real harm, and that any damage won't last beyond this election cycle. I have friends who actually said that to me about a year ago, but I can't bring myself to talk to them at this point, so I don't even want to hear their excuses. I know they were just happy to get their conservative judges, and they admitted they don't really care about anything else he does. Safe to say, it's hard to consider them friends at this point.

I-5 wrote:Does anyone think any other past administration would handle a global epidemic with the same level of hubris, scapegoating, gaslighting, denial, and outright lies as this one? I cannot think of a single one of either party that would be this reckless, and the consequences are very real. Back in early June, I was hoping that I could drive across the border to see my family in Seattle, but that now seems like a far off fantasy. I can't believe anyone thinks this president isn't doing any real harm, and that any damage won't last beyond this election cycle. I have friends who actually said that to me about a year ago, but I can't bring myself to talk to them at this point, so I don't even want to hear their excuses. I know they were just happy to get their conservative judges, and they admitted they don't really care about anything else he does. Safe to say, it's hard to consider them friends at this point.

No. No one would have handled this pandemic or running the nation like Dumb as Dirt. No one I can think of. It would have been handled a lot better, especially the public message.

I don't know. Some of what Trump "inspired" may improve the nation in the long run as simmering problems get taken care of. In spite of Trump, America may end up better. People have learned to take care of things around Trump and Americans have stood up more than they have at any point I've seen in my life for wrong things. I'm hopeful it will make things better, not worse in the long run. Trump's lack of action and general combativeness seems to have caused Americans to rise up and take more action to fight against him. If we had a president that was good at careful speech, people might not have been so inclined to rise up and make their will known.

And as far as the economy, sheesh, they are pumping so much money into it they are not allowing it to fail. We're going to have to pay for it at some point. But right now money is being pumped into the economy like welfare became the law of the land. It's keeping the stock market and economy afloat. We basically have the equivalent of Universal Basic Income right now with unemployment and stimulus. We'll see how long that can keep up.

The doom and gloom isn't there. I see more and more people actively making their will known in America. It's been a long time since I've seen Americans this empowered to enact change. When you see even NASCAR banning The Confederate Flag and so many people of all differing groups taking a stand to improve the equity in our society, how can that be a bad thing? Even Trump has been unable to stop it.

I think things may be better than you believe after he is done. More in spite of him than because of him.

I'd like to believe your optimism, but just based on what's happening with one issue, COVID, it's unbelievable to watch the level of denial not just in the president, but in the huge gatherings of people that are driving the numbers higher and higher. Only if the ultimate goal is to lower the population, then maybe it's working. Right now, no one wants to see any americans in their country, Mexico, Canada, Europe, even Asia (where there is currently a second wave, but they actually do contact tracing to mitigate it, along with universal mask wearing). One of our friends in Vancouver posted a photo of a car parked on her street that had California plates, and she was freaking out that someone may be in her area exposing her family to what potential disease. We calmed her down and told here there are multiple legit scenarios why a car with those plates might be on her street, but what's remarkable is the level of mild panic it raised, just because it was an American license plate. Who woulda thunk?

The economy won't be allowed to fail, until it does. Every empire has its day. Why should we be any different?

I fully agree things will be better after he's gone. One thing I'm hoping for is new requirements for incoming presidents, like full financial disclosure, if not to the public, then to both parties in the Senate and House, mental (and physical) health exams. Trump never really divested from his companies, it was all lip service.

Yes, the BLM movement has taken root, and appears to have staying power that it never had before....but police brutality has been building up through every modern president regardless of party. If you want to say that Trump's piggishness has accelerated it, then I'll give him 'credit' for that. Not a good reason to have someone as president, though. I haven't forgotten the #metoo movement either.

Maybe one more thing we can 'thank' him for is the complete destruction of the Republican Party. That might be a good thing too if a more centrist party emerges from the rubble. I might even consider being a part of it.

I-5 wrote:I'd like to believe your optimism, but just based on what's happening with one issue, COVID, it's unbelievable to watch the level of denial not just in the president, but in the huge gatherings of people that are driving the numbers higher and higher. Only if the ultimate goal is to lower the population, then maybe it's working. Right now, no one wants to see any americans in their country, Mexico, Canada, Europe, even Asia (where there is currently a second wave, but they actually do contact tracing to mitigate it, along with universal mask wearing). One of our friends in Vancouver posted a photo of a car parked on her street that had California plates, and she was freaking out that someone may be in her area exposing her family to what potential disease. We calmed her down and told here there are multiple legit scenarios why a car with those plates might be on her street, but what's remarkable is the level of mild panic it raised, just because it was an American license plate. Who woulda thunk?

The economy won't be allowed to fail, until it does. Every empire has its day. Why should we be any different?

My feeling on why COVID19 is being ignored is a combination of factors:

1. Dumb as Dirt taking it lightly is one reason and slowing down any talk of it.

2. Death rate is super low, not even 1/10 of 1% of population with a huge number of asymptomatic carriers or people outright immune to it. If people were dying like this was Ebola, I can guarantee everyone would be following the mandates or even more extreme measures to the tee. When you can barely see anyone really troubled by it, then people have a hard time remaining scare.

My work is an example. When the corona virus first hit, people were scared. Some workers thought they would die if they get it. They were getting freaked out. Now we've had three positive corona virus tests at my location. You want to know what the symptoms were? One guy had a headache for a day. The other two had next to no symptoms and returned to work in a few weeks completely fine. Now people are not worried about it much, though at least the business is enforcing anti-corona measures.

You also have a lot of publicized cases now. Very few are extreme. Even Tom Hanks and his wife Rita Wilson had extremely mild symptoms for a few weeks. Most athletes are barely feeling anything, almost asymptomatic.

It's hard to remain afraid of a virus with a low mortality rate, mild symptoms for 80% plus of people, and just not the Armageddon scenario originally sold.

3. Young people don't like being locked down and are careless to begin with.

4. It's being overly politicized where some people are dismissing it as a Democratic, anti-Trump political attack and an attack on liberty.

5. States can't afford to lock down again. People are focused on the impact of COVID19 on the private sector, but it hit the public sector just as hard or harder. Government can't afford to lock down again. Not at all. They are so screwed right now with all the lost tax revenues, coming bankruptcies, and economic damage that it would take a mortality rate in excess of 1% for them to even think of locking down again as another lock down would likely start a full scale rebellion on top of impoverishing the government further.

People are mostly on their own at this point. They need to understand that the world has absolutely no choice but to move again, mask or no mask. They can't lock up even 1% of the population for not wearing a mask or even fine that many. If they try, they will start a full on rebellion. Best avoid the loons thinking masks are about liberty, maintain your distance, and hope you're not one of the people COVID19 hits like a mack truck.

I-5 wrote:I fully agree things will be better after he's gone. One thing I'm hoping for is new requirements for incoming presidents, like full financial disclosure, if not to the public, then to both parties in the Senate and House, mental (and physical) health exams. Trump never really divested from his companies, it was all lip service.

Yes, the BLM movement has taken root, and appears to have staying power that it never had before....but police brutality has been building up through every modern president regardless of party. If you want to say that Trump's piggishness has accelerated it, then I'll give him 'credit' for that. Not a good reason to have someone as president, though. I haven't forgotten the #metoo movement either.

Maybe one more thing we can 'thank' him for is the complete destruction of the Republican Party. That might be a good thing too if a more centrist party emerges from the rubble. I might even consider being a part of it.

More financial transparency would be nice. This nation doesn't feel like America any longer to me. It feels like a media driven Oligarchy where corporations control the flow of information as well as the majority of jobs and have become essential to government tax revenues and operation. Our culture is now being enforced by corporations versus the people.

Seems there no nation that can resist eventually becoming dependent on large institutions whether public or private. How do you remain a free people if this is your reality? I don't know.

Seems there no nation that can resist eventually becoming dependent on large institutions whether public or private. How do you remain a free people if this is your reality? I don't know.

Some are suggesting splitting up some of these large companies who have a virtual monopoly on their products/services and are gobbling up smaller companies
who challenge them fairly often. Would that fix it? Probably not in and of itself, but it might be a start.

Seems there no nation that can resist eventually becoming dependent on large institutions whether public or private. How do you remain a free people if this is your reality? I don't know.

NorthHawk wrote:Some are suggesting splitting up some of these large companies who have a virtual monopoly on their products/services and are gobbling up smaller companies
who challenge them fairly often. Would that fix it? Probably not in and of itself, but it might be a start.

Campaign reform. Prohibit campaign donations from corporations and special interest groups (PACs and Super PACs). Let the people decide on the merits of the candidates without the millions of dollars worth of misinformation ad campaigns coming from all sides.

c_hawkbob wrote:Campaign reform. Prohibit campaign donations from corporations and special interest groups (PACs and Super PACs). Let the people decide on the merits of the candidates without the millions of dollars worth of misinformation ad campaigns coming from all sides.

And remove benefits from being tied to your job. At least things like healthcare. I don't want to continue to be forced to work for some corporation I don't like or agree with just to keep healthcare. I'm tired of that crap. Just like if you have a terrible boss or you have something you have to take care of. I wouldn't be surprised if part of the resistance to a national payer system is because corporations know they force us to work for them to get healthcare. Whereas if we had healthcare all the time, we'd tell them to F-off and move to a company that treats people more humanely or we would be able to take time off without losing healthcare for ourselves and our family. Tired of that hamster wheel.

c_hawkbob wrote:Campaign reform. Prohibit campaign donations from corporations and special interest groups (PACs and Super PACs). Let the people decide on the merits of the candidates without the millions of dollars worth of misinformation ad campaigns coming from all sides.

Did you leave out unions on purpose or was it just an oversight?

I said special interest groups, that should be inclusive. Pacs and Superpacs wasn't meant o be the entire list.

c_hawkbob wrote:I said special interest groups, that should be inclusive. Pacs and Superpacs wasn't meant o be the entire list.

OK, thanks. I just wanted to make sure that I understood you correctly. So even if a union has written authorization from their membership, they should not be allowed to use union dues they collected, in many if not most cases mandatory union dues, and use them to contribute to a politician's campaign as they are, at least by your definition, a special interest group. Is that what I am hearing you say?

c_hawkbob wrote:I said special interest groups, that should be inclusive. Pacs and Superpacs wasn't meant o be the entire list.

RiverDog wrote:OK, just wanted to make sure. So even if a union has written authorization from their membership, they should not be allowed to use union dues they collected, in many if not most mandatory union dues, to contribute to a politician's campaign as they are, at least by your definition, a special interest group. Is that what I am hearing you say?

Wherever you're going with this it sounds like you've got an agenda. why don't you just say what's on your mind.

c_hawkbob wrote:I said special interest groups, that should be inclusive. Pacs and Superpacs wasn't meant o be the entire list.

RiverDog wrote:OK, just wanted to make sure. So even if a union has written authorization from their membership, they should not be allowed to use union dues they collected, in many if not most mandatory union dues, to contribute to a politician's campaign as they are, at least by your definition, a special interest group. Is that what I am hearing you say?

c_hawkbob wrote:Wherever you're going with this it sounds like you've got an agenda. why don't you just say what's on your mind.

Where I am going with this is that there are a number of people, mainly from the Democratic/liberal side of the spectrum, that do not like individuals or corporations donating to political campaigns as most of them tend to favor Republican/conservative causes, yet they are OK with unions financing mostly Democratic/liberal agendas.

I'm delighted that you are not one of those individuals.

A lot of Americans are just too immature to see past the obnoxiousness of Trumps persona to see that his policies have been good for America.

And if Biden wins the election, he won't be leading the nation, his handlers will because Biden is not capable intellectually and cognitively to handle the job. Either way, the age of the two individuals concerns me. IMO, we need younger candidates to vote for who still have some gas in the tank.

But the bigger issue than the man or any of the other personalities involved in the political theater is the disparity between the two party's platforms. And IMO, the Republican party platform is far superior to the Democratic party platform. If you want to slide faster and faster into full blown socialism, if you want more and more government control over your everyday life, more money taken out of your paycheck, further erosion of public morality and more chaos, then vote for dems in November.

trents wrote:A lot of Americans are just too immature to see past the obnoxiousness of Trumps persona to see that his policies have been good for America.

And if Biden wins the election, he won't be leading the nation, his handlers will because Biden is not capable intellectually and cognitively to handle the job. Either way, the age of the two individuals concerns me. IMO, we need younger candidates to vote for who still have some gas in the tank.

But the bigger issue than the man or any of the other personalities involved in the political theater is the disparity between the two party's platforms. And IMO, the Republican party platform is far superior to the Democratic party platform. If you want to slide faster and faster into full blown socialism, if you want more and more government control over your everyday life, more money taken out of your paycheck, further erosion of public morality and more chaos, then vote for dems in November.

This is the perfect example of right wing thinking. I want to see if there are enough of them to propel Trump to another victory.

And the Republican Party does seem to me to have a better, more pragmatic platform.

RiverDog wrote:Where I am going with this is that there are a number of people, mainly from the Democratic/liberal side of the spectrum, that do not like individuals or corporations donating to political campaigns as most of them tend to favor Republican/conservative causes, yet they are OK with unions financing mostly Democratic/liberal agendas.

I'm delighted that you are not one of those individuals.

Is this true? Corporations tend to fund both parties and lobby both parties. No one likes to pick the wrong horse and end up screwed. So they tend to fund and lobby both parties to always keep their foot in the door. Privately that may be different. Publically corporations seems to play the careful game.

Unions tend to solely fund and vote for Democrats as Republicans are clearly anti-union.

RiverDog wrote:Where I am going with this is that there are a number of people, mainly from the Democratic/liberal side of the spectrum, that do not like individuals or corporations donating to political campaigns as most of them tend to favor Republican/conservative causes, yet they are OK with unions financing mostly Democratic/liberal agendas.

I'm delighted that you are not one of those individuals.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Is this true? Corporations tend to fund both parties and lobby both parties. No one likes to pick the wrong horse and end up screwed. So they tend to fund and lobby both parties to always keep their foot in the door. Privately that may be different. Publically corporations seems to play the careful game.

Unions tend to solely fund and vote for Democrats as Republicans are clearly anti-union.

I am making an assumption on both statements. As a rule, most companies/businesses, large and small, tend to favor Republicans while most labor unions tend to favor Democrats. I know for a fact that that there are at least some exceptions to these assumptions. For example, the Teamsters, led by Jimmy Hoffa, endorsed Richard Nixon for President in 1960 and 1972 but endorsed Humphrey in 1968. That union also endorsed Ronald Reagan in both 1980 and 1984, the only major labor union to do so.

Police unions tend to favor R's. The International Union of Police Associations has already endorsed Donald Trump for the 2020 election:

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/pol ... -election/

trents wrote:A lot of Americans are just too immature to see past the obnoxiousness of Trumps persona to see that his policies have been good for America.

I'm of the opinion that a lot of Americans are too immature to see past their infatuation with Trump to see that his management of the country has been bad for America, the coronavirus crisis being the most recent and blatant example. IMO Trump's obnoxiousness and persona has had a tangible effect on the nation as it has contributed to the veracity and duration of the protests that continue to wrack our country.

trents wrote:And if Biden wins the election, he won't be leading the nation, his handlers will because Biden is not capable intellectually and cognitively to handle the job. Either way, the age of the two individuals concerns me. IMO, we need younger candidates to vote for who still have some gas in the tank.

The question for me with regard to the cognitive and intellectual ability of the two candidates is a choice between the frying pan (Biden) and the fire (Trump). A rational, reasonably competent person cannot possibly conclude that Donald Trump is intellectually more capable than even an age compromised Joe Biden when the man places Paris in Germany, the Mexican border extending to Colorado, and has the Revolutionary Army storming airports. Biden isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but Donald Trump is a true moron. Trump once told the PM of India that at least they didn't have to worry about having China on their border when the two countries share a 2500 mile border, longer than the border we share with Mexico. Having that man represent our nation is a complete and utter embarrassment.

I agree that we need younger candidates and would be open to a Constitutional amendment establishing a maximum age for an elected POTUS/VP, ie age 70. We already have a minimum age, 35.

trents wrote:But the bigger issue than the man or any of the other personalities involved in the political theater is the disparity between the two party's platforms. And IMO, the Republican party platform is far superior to the Democratic party platform. If you want to slide faster and faster into full blown socialism, if you want more and more government control over your everyday life, more money taken out of your paycheck, further erosion of public morality and more chaos, then vote for dems in November.

I have enough differences between today's Republican Party, which has essentially become Trump's party, to cause me not to support the party in general. However, I do not want to see the Democrats control both the Executive as well as the Legislative branches of government. IMO the degeneration of morality and the chaos the country has been plunged into has been driven more by DJT than any other single individual. As General Mattis put it, Donald Trump doesn't even try to unite us.

RiverDog wrote:Where I am going with this is that there are a number of people, mainly from the Democratic/liberal side of the spectrum, that do not like individuals or corporations donating to political campaigns as most of them tend to favor Republican/conservative causes, yet they are OK with unions financing mostly Democratic/liberal agendas.

I'm delighted that you are not one of those individuals.

I really wish you would stop trying to fit me into one of your preconceived categories based on how you can redirect whatever I actually say. Reality is not that simple.

In this case I think in a perfect world only individuals should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns and that those donations should have a very low cap, as low as $10 or $100. All qualified and carefully vetted candidates should get free and equal air time and print media coverage. completely eliminate corporate and special interest group donations and lobbyists.

No I don't have the answers to a bunch questions about details, suffice it to say there would be a lot of work to be done implementing such a system.

c_hawkbob wrote:I really wish you would stop trying to fit me into one of your preconceived categories based on how you can redirect whatever I actually say. Reality is not that simple.

You asked me to say what was on my mind, so I did. I wasn't trying to fit you into any preconceived category, actually it was quite the opposite. I asked you the question to keep from making an assumption as to your sentiments on campaign finance reform.

c_hawkbob wrote:In this case I think in a perfect world only individuals should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns and that those donations should have a very low cap, as low as $10 or $100. All qualified and carefully vetted candidates should get free and equal air time and print media coverage. completely eliminate corporate and special interest group donations and lobbyists.

No I don't have the answers to a bunch questions about details, suffice it to say there would be a lot of work to be done implementing such a system.

I agree, but the problem is that we start bumping up against the 1st amendment of free speech. The Supreme Court has been pretty consistent in the concept that money equals speech. Placing a monetary restriction limits what a person or group can say about a particular candidate or initiative, especially if it is as low as ten bucks. I wholeheartedly agree that there's too much influence of special interest groups in our political process, but like you said, there are no easy answers. I'm not sure how we can regulate it and still stay within the framework of the 1st amendment.

But IMO the much greater threat to our democracy is the gullibility of the American public to believe what they want to believe. We are truly a country of idiots and morons if 30% of us can't find the Pacific Ocean on a world map. I do not believe in one person, one vote as it stands today where all you have to do is prove your age and citizenship. I believe that a voter should demonstrate some degree of competence before being allowed to cast a vote. If an immigrant has to pass what is basically a civics test before they are granted citizenship, then something similar should be administered to a prospective voter before they are allowed to participate in our political process. But of course, that concept runs counter to our Constitution as well.

RiverDog wrote:I agree, but the problem is that we start bumping up against the 1st amendment of free speech. The Supreme Court has been pretty consistent in the concept that money equals speech. Placing a monetary restriction limits what a person or group can say about a particular candidate or initiative, especially if it is as low as ten bucks. I wholeheartedly agree that there's too much influence of special interest groups in our political process, but like you said, there are no easy answers. I'm not sure how we can regulate it and still stay within the framework of the 1st amendment.

But IMO the much greater threat to our democracy is the gullibility of the American public to believe what they want to believe. We are truly a country of idiots and morons if 30% of us can't find the Pacific Ocean on a world map. I do not believe in one person, one vote as it stands today where all you have to do is prove your age and citizenship. I believe that a voter should demonstrate some degree of competence before being allowed to cast a vote. If an immigrant has to pass what is basically a civics test before they are granted citizenship, then something similar should be administered to a prospective voter before they are allowed to participate in our political process. But of course, that concept runs counter to our Constitution as well.

This is part of the reason we're a media driven oligarchy. When Americans as a whole are being given their opinion by agenda-driven news for profit corporations easily swayed by every threat to their ratings and social media platforms filled with short-form, sensationalistic, often dishonest political commentary, then you basically have Americans that are voting for candidates and ideals they're not even sure they support or understand. It's pretty sad.

It's maddening for someone like me who spends a great deal of time consuming information from quality primary or secondary source material, preferably absent an agenda.

Aseahawkfan wrote:It's maddening for someone like me who spends a great deal of time consuming information from quality primary or secondary source material, preferably absent an agenda.

We discussed this issue in another thread a number of months ago. I get the majority of my news from my Microsoft news feed on my Surface tablet. I can pick out the sources that are used and have intentionally selected both conservative sources as well as liberal. I want a wide viewpoint from multiple angles. I'll watch the local news on our NBC affiliate in the mornings and I get a digital replica of our local newspaper. When I'm at my gym, I'll watch either Fox or MSNBC on the TV as those are the only two national news syndicates available.

The problem with the media isn't the accuracy or reliability of their reporting. They can't afford to put out a story that hasn't been thoroughly checked out as it would damage their credibility. They don't want a scandal like CBS had to endure with the Bush Air National Guard story or CNN experienced with the Operation Tailwind story. That's why I insist on seeing a story in one of the major news services or some other source I trust before I'll believe it as although it won't necessarily be an objective report, they won't publish 'fake news.'

The problem is the stories they choose to report on. As I noted, when I exercise on an aerobic machine at the gym, I can watch either Fox News or MSNBC and will alternate between the two. On one particular day, Fox was reporting on a female college student from Iowa that was murdered by an illegal alien. I turned the channel to MSNBC and found that their lead story was the Ukraine scandal. News services are for-profit, so they will show stories that will attract and retain viewers so they will select stories that they feel will appeal to their core viewers as advertisers look at the size and demographics of the viewers that are watching a particular station. Even non profits like NPR will feature stories that appeal to their audience as they, too, have a vested interest in attracting and retaining viewers. The same is true with print media. You want a liberal spin, read the Washington Post. You want a conservative spin, read the Washington Examiner.

I'll also look for the sources reporters are quoting. A named source always carries more weight than "sources close to the President".