Trump's Re-Election

[idhawkman]

So just over 2 years in,

ISIS crushed and totally defeated
Nuclear threat greatly decreased
Unleashed economy growing at rates the previous administration said was fairy tales
Unemployment at historic lows
Tax revenues at all time highs
Exonerated as a Russian Spy
Jewish voters flocking to his campaign because of his Israel stances
support among hispanic and black communities at all time highs for republicans "Walk Away" movement soaring
Democrats moving so far left they are alienating their historic core base
Democrats focused on investigation instead of legislation
Wall being built at record levels
MSM exposed and now not trusted to report actual news

Too much to love about what he's accomplishing and in such a short period of time.

[Aseahawkfan]

Nuclear threat greatly decreased? It was never high to begin with. That's some fluff there.

When did anyone say the economy growing at 3% was not thought possible? We never did reach the 4% you claimed a while back.

Unemployment is indeed at all time lows.

As far as the wall being built and the rest of it, I guess we'll see next election. Democrats don't seem to have a serious challenger yet unless Hilary runs again or Biden or Bernie jump in to see if they have the same support.

As far as ISIS goes, some new head will rise again. They just keep changing. It was Al Qaeda then ISIS and we'll see who is next.

Not seeing a lot of challengers at the moment. If life is good in the swing states with Trump being one of the only guys to truly be calling out companies for taking jobs overseas, he might win them again considering the swing states primarily vote for economic reasons.

[Aseahawkfan]

There really is no president that has empowered Israel more than Trump. He's not beating around the bush with this at all. He's just saying screw the Palestinians and being careful, we're backing Israel. I wonder how this will work out in the long run. Will future presidents backtrack or let Trump's moves stands? It will be interesting to watch because this is literally a historical change for America's relationship with Israel and the Middle East Muslim nations.

[Hawktawk]

One can quibble around the edges of what ID says here in term of the rosy pictures. Yes the economy is good but the market has basically been flat for a year, up down up down. The unemployment rate is very low but then again only a hair above 60% of working age people actual work, something candidate Trump pointed out when bashing Obama's number of 4.6% unemployment. Of course he bashed his excessive golfing too..... The soybean farmers who have been utterly wrecked to the point of bailouts in enough billions to fund the wall twice already might not agree. Nor Ford or GM who have lost billions in this idiotic trade war leading to the closing of numerous plants by GM and cancellation of an entire new model line by Ford. The economy that popped up to 4% in the second quarter of 2018 was actually created by the tariffs as companies stocked up to save money anticipating the price hikes. The economy is predicted to slow in 2019 and 2020. My job assembling large industrial construction machines for a worldwide manufacturer and seller has seen mass layoffs in the past year although I am still employed thankfully.His NK summit was a joke and really elevated a little sawed off dictator to global status while we got nothing in return.

But OK ID Ill give you the majority of your points here. Things are still pretty good. Isis has been a definite success. Whatever one thinks of a drunk rapist on the court and hundreds of lily white conservative judges throughout the nation some of whom were rated not qualified by the bar association hes kept those promises to the base.

Israel is no different. Trump doesn't give a hang about Israel any more than he cares about anyone or anything except himself and his next round of golf or pussy grab. He and his handlers understand that this all in for Israel is red meat for his evangelical base which is his only shot in 2020.


But here's the problem. Dude polls in the 40's..... Disapprove is in the 50s. "Strong Disapprove" is in the high 40s. Even his best poll Rasmussen had his "strong approve" at 38%!!!!!
Hes at 42% in Florida and losing ground in every Rust belt state he carried by a whisker.Polls show a surprisingly high number of Republicans would welcome a primary challenger depending on the state. IMO his only chance is a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren general election challenger. Of course he was counted out in 2016 too but I think enough folks have heard enough and seen enough of the crazy orange tweeter they will just be ready for someone else, anyone else.

[RiverDog]

Trump's poll numbers have remained amazingly consistent...consistently low. Most POTUS's see them skyrocket or dip depending on the Flavor-of-the-Day news cycle but Trumps have bounced around 38-50 percent approval and around 60% disapproval.

The economy is doing OK, but not the gangbusters predicted by Idahawk awhile back (what was it supposed to be by now? 4%?). Real GDP increased by 2.6% for the 4th quarter of 2018 and as Hawktalk said, is predicted to decline in 2019, to 2.1% according to the Fed, something that my financial advisor confirmed last week in my bi annual meeting with him as we made some adjustments to my investments. The trade deficit, even with China of which the tariffs/trade war were supposed to address, is at record highs despite the tariffs and we have yet to see any new steel and/or aluminum plants as was promised. People vote their pocket books. If the economy doesn't perk up in 2020, we can say goodbye to the real life SNL skit

What the election will come down to is who the Dems put up to confront Trump. IMO the country isn't ready for a super liberal candidate like Bernie, who currently leads the field of announced candidates although poll numbers show him beating Trump. However, if they nominate a moderate like Biden, a candidate that has a wider appeal, IMO the Dems will retake the White House, and indeed, the preliminary numbers show Biden doing better than any other candidate when matched up against Trump.

I read the other day where Trump is in real trouble in Florida, a state he won by just 1.3%, down to 40% that think he should be re-elected. There were 6 states representing 101 electoral votes that Trump won by 5% or less in 2016: AZ, FL, MI, NC, PA, and WI. Trump will have to win at least 3 of those to stay in office. Keep your eye on the poll numbers/events in those states. BTW, will Trump's constant obsession with defecating on John McCain's grave hurt him in Arizona?

[obiken]

The scary one for me River, is Mayor Pete. Because He IS the real deal: genuine, super intelligent, and idealistic. The problem is I can see him getting traction and winning. 3 BAD things. 1. He is new. New means unknown, that's just manna for Trump. Trump will make you afraid of it and blame it. He will make it part of the problem, not part of the solution. Because that's what Demagogues do! 2. he is mayor of South Bend in a solid Red state, that he could not get elected Dog catcher in. IF he ran for Congress won, then ran state wide, lost by 1 or 2% then I could see it. 3. He is gay. Like it or not, the American people are not ready for 37 year old Gay Male for President. Its hard enough for the voters in Western Pennsylvania to hold their nose, forget their guns and vote for their economic future, little own a Gay male. It will be hard enough to get all the Union Democrats that are beer swilling, gun totting, football watching, Steeler and Eagle fans. to vote for a Democratic Female. Gay? Not gonna happen!
Keep an eye on this guy River, not because he is bad, but because he is good.

[RiverDog]

The scary one for me River, is Mayor Pete (Buttigieg). Because He IS the real deal: genuine, super intelligent, and idealistic. The problem is I can see him getting traction and winning. 3 BAD things. 1. He is new. New means unknown, that's just manna for Trump. Trump will make you afraid of it and blame it. He will make it part of the problem, not part of the solution. Because that's what Demagogues do! 2. he is mayor of South Bend in a solid Red state, that he could not get elected Dog catcher in. IF he ran for Congress won, then ran state wide, lost by 1 or 2% then I could see it. 3. He is gay. Like it or not, the American people are not ready for 37 year old Gay Male for President. Its hard enough for the voters in Western Pennsylvania to hold their nose, forget their guns and vote for their economic future, little own a Gay male. It will be hard enough to get all the Union Democrats that are beer swilling, gun totting, football watching, Steeler and Eagle fans. to vote for a Democratic Female. Gay? Not gonna happen!
Keep an eye on this guy River, not because he is bad, but because he is good.

Buttigieg doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. There's over a dozen Dem POTUS candidates, and he doesn't even register on the radar. And unless one of the female candidates gets the nomination, he won't get on the ticket as a VP, either, as the Dem base has pretty much indicated that they have to have a woman on their ticket.

[Aseahawkfan]

I feel like all the main decider of the next election will be how the economy is doing at election time and if a Republican independent divides the Republican vote. The next election might be more interesting demographics than this last one. Personally, I wish Trump would decide not to run, but Trump's never been a quitter, even when it would be better to do so. Maybe the Dems or Republicans can push a backdoor deal to stop all investigations and let him wander back into his billionaire life. I can dream.

[idhawkman]

Nuclear threat greatly decreased? It was never high to begin with. That's some fluff there.

Maybe you missed the comment from Obama to Trump that N. Korea was the biggest problem Not to mention the missles he was lobbing over Japan and threatening Guam and the west coast of the US. Right now, that threat along with the Iranian threat of freely building Nukes in 7 years is gone at least for now.

When did anyone say the economy growing at 3% was not thought possible? We never did reach the 4% you claimed a while back.

It grew at 4% if you add back in the 1% rate hike from the fed.

Unemployment is indeed at all time lows.

As far as the wall being built and the rest of it, I guess we'll see next election. Democrats don't seem to have a serious challenger yet unless Hilary runs again or Biden or Bernie jump in to see if they have the same support.

...and the hits just keep on coming. The house failed to over ride Trumps veto today and the Pentagon announced the funding of over $1B for anti-drug roads, wall, etc. Woohooo!

As far as ISIS goes, some new head will rise again. They just keep changing. It was Al Qaeda then ISIS and we'll see who is next.

You may be right but after total annihilation of ISIS I bet they wait until the Trumpster is out of office to do it.

Not seeing a lot of challengers at the moment. If life is good in the swing states with Trump being one of the only guys to truly be calling out companies for taking jobs overseas, he might win them again considering the swing states primarily vote for economic reasons.

Agree with you on this. I also think that those dems who ran on a centralist theme in 2018 will be voted out in 2020 especially after watching this current crop of dems and how they are trying to lead in the house and the circus of clowns who are running for POTUS. Its like the keystone cops on the left.

[idhawkman]

Not only are the polls little more than SWAGs at this point, they were totally wrong when it comes to Trump. Keep watching the polls and reassuring yourselves.

[burrrton]

Not only are the polls little more than SWAGs at this point, they were totally wrong when it comes to Trump. Keep watching the polls and reassuring yourselves.

Actually the polls weren't that far off overall, but just far off *enough* in some key places.

It was the cocksure predictions ("HILLARY HAS A 99.8% CHANCE" before a single vote had been counted) based on that polling that were wildly inaccurate.

[idhawkman]

Until we know who the opponent is, the polls are a farce anyways.

[burrrton]

Until we know who the opponent is, the polls are a farce anyways.

That's true.

[Aseahawkfan]

Maybe you missed the comment from Obama to Trump that N. Korea was the biggest problem Not to mention the missles he was lobbing over Japan and threatening Guam and the west coast of the US. Right now, that threat along with the Iranian threat of freely building Nukes in 7 years is gone at least for now.

I have never worried about North Korea or Iran. More fake news rubbish and government propaganda to forward a militaristic agenda and keep providing the people a boogieman. They're about as dangerous as Iraq proved to be once we decided to take them out.

It grew at 4% if you add back in the 1% rate hike from the fed.

No, it did not. That is not how a Fed rate hike works. Not going to worry about arguing with you. I will simply tell you that the tax cuts juiced the economy last year and that juice only works so long. Invest at your own risk, but there are a lot of red flags indicating the economy will slow. Organic growth is not there. Lots of slowing in many markets. As an investor who follows economics and investing closely, I would hold off putting any serious money in until the second quarter to see how corporate profits look. Demand cycles seem to slowing and we're in for a down cycle, but Trump will likely see an up cycle the following year during the election year which may help him out. We're in for some choppy waters with growth going forward this year, but it should pick back up next year. Bull market been running for ten years, longest in history juiced by easy money policies during Obama and juiced tax cuts from Trump. But an economy has to adjust some and that is usually a down year as demand cycles reset or adjust.

This advice I give so you can manage your personal investments better. If you're long-term investing, stick with what you believe in. Long-term the US economy is good as long as the socialists don't take over and crush us into oblivion with taxes and regulation.

You may be right but after total annihilation of ISIS I bet they wait until the Trumpster is out of office to do it.

Why? Obama finished off Al Qaeda by killing Osama or so the press said, didn't seem to stop ISIS from rising. They don't care who is president over there. Terrorism and religious zealotry is a thing that brings you money and power, sort of like being a mob boss does in other nations. Religious zealotry is basically a free pass to be a scumbag criminal building up money and power in the Middle East. We have about as much a chance of getting rid of it as we do of getting rid of drug criminals.

As far as straight up truth though, Trump does stand a good chance of re-election with the Mueller probe producing nothing actionable.

[RiverDog]

Until we know who the opponent is, the polls are a farce anyways.

They are for the Democratic side because with two exceptions, Biden and Sanders, none of them have run in a nation wide campaign, so they don't have the name recognition yet. But the POTUS approval/disapproval polls are relevant as it shows their vulnerability. As a rule, if a sitting POTUS is below 50% popularity, it usually spells trouble for them: See Carter, Bush 41.

[RiverDog]

Not only are the polls little more than SWAGs at this point, they were totally wrong when it comes to Trump. Keep watching the polls and reassuring yourselves.

Actually the polls weren't that far off overall, but just far off *enough* in some key places.

It was the cocksure predictions ("HILLARY HAS A 99.8% CHANCE" before a single vote had been counted) based on that polling that were wildly inaccurate.

The polls nailed it nation wide. They had Hillary ahead by 2%, and that's almost exactly the margin she won the popular vote by.

But like burrton pointed out, what was off was these idiotic "90% chance" of winning percentages. Most people knew that the election was going to be close, so it's mind boggling why anyone would assign those kinds of odds to the outcome. Can you imagine assigning those kinds of odds in an athletic contest?

[Aseahawkfan]

The polls nailed it nation wide. They had Hillary ahead by 2%, and that's almost exactly the margin she won the popular vote by.

But like burrton pointed out, what was off was these idiotic "90% chance" of winning percentages. Most people knew that the election was going to be close, so it's mind boggling why anyone would assign those kinds of odds to the outcome. Can you imagine assigning those kinds of odds in an athletic contest?

I didn't know the election would be close. Given how the press had aligned against Trump and the grab them by the p comment was being used, I thought Trump was done. Even the mainstream Republican base seemed divided on Trump. I thought the 99% prediction for Hilary was a shoe-in. They straight up character assassinated Trump with women, made him seem like a racist that hated all other groups, and pilloried him like I've never seen a presidential candidate attacked. I figured it had worked to bring him down with the swing voters. Apparently I was wrong. I even held money out of the market based on the election assumption of Hilary. Then surprise, Trump wins. I couldn't believe it.

Did you really think Trump had a chance on election day? I can't remember what you wrote. I know the mainstream news had him listed as losing in the polls and their assumptions. There was no more apparent left wing media bias showing than during the Trump election. They had Hilary crowned before the votes and did all kinds of dirty crap to take Trump down and push Hilary.

It's nice to see you analyze the polls after the fact and say they were right. I don't recall these polls being on TV during the election day. I recall polls showing Clinton winning, then the utter shock when their polls proved to be wrong as Trump took the swing states. It was the most shocking US presidential election upset in history.

[RiverDog]

The polls nailed it nation wide. They had Hillary ahead by 2%, and that's almost exactly the margin she won the popular vote by.

But like burrton pointed out, what was off was these idiotic "90% chance" of winning percentages. Most people knew that the election was going to be close, so it's mind boggling why anyone would assign those kinds of odds to the outcome. Can you imagine assigning those kinds of odds in an athletic contest?

I didn't know the election would be close. Given how the press had aligned against Trump and the grab them by the p comment was being used, I thought Trump was done. Even the mainstream Republican base seemed divided on Trump. I thought the 99% prediction for Hilary was a shoe-in. They straight up character assassinated Trump with women, made him seem like a racist that hated all other groups, and pilloried him like I've never seen a presidential candidate attacked. I figured it had worked to bring him down with the swing voters. Apparently I was wrong. I even held money out of the market based on the election assumption of Hilary. Then surprise, Trump wins. I couldn't believe it.

Did you really think Trump had a chance on election day? I can't remember what you wrote. I know the mainstream news had him listed as losing in the polls and their assumptions. There was no more apparent left wing media bias showing than during the Trump election. They had Hilary crowned before the votes and did all kinds of dirty crap to take Trump down and push Hilary.

It's nice to see you analyze the polls after the fact and say they were right. I don't recall these polls being on TV during the election day. I recall polls showing Clinton winning, then the utter shock when their polls proved to be wrong as Trump took the swing states. It was the most shocking US presidential election upset in history.

In the spring and summer of 2016, I thought that Trump would get killed. You can win a nomination by being extremely conservative or liberal, but as Richard Nixon once said, you have to move to the center in the general election.

Going into the election in November, I knew it would be relatively close. Not as close as Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry, but a lot closer than either of Obama's elections. The race really tightened up at the end, yet I still believed Hillary would win by a relatively comfortable margin, perhaps by 3 or 4 states. But on election night, once I heard that Florida fell for Trump, I started paying attention. I was surprised, but not nearly as shocked as many were. I was actually amused watching all these pro Hillary supporters crying their eyes out at the results.

I don't know where or how they came up with this winning percentage BS. Of all the elections I've followed, I've never heard of people assigning odds or percentages to the outcome of an election. If I were a producer at CNN or Fox, I'd ban any of my analysts from declaring winning percentages. It made them look like utter fools.

[idhawkman]

I have never worried about North Korea or Iran. More fake news rubbish and government propaganda to forward a militaristic agenda and keep providing the people a boogieman. They're about as dangerous as Iraq proved to be once we decided to take them out.

What would happen if he lobbed a nuke into Japan from a global financial perspective or even S. Korea?

Why? Obama finished off Al Qaeda by killing Osama or so the press said, didn't seem to stop ISIS from rising. They don't care who is president over there. Terrorism and religious zealotry is a thing that brings you money and power, sort of like being a mob boss does in other nations. Religious zealotry is basically a free pass to be a scumbag criminal building up money and power in the Middle East. We have about as much a chance of getting rid of it as we do of getting rid of drug criminals.

Remember, Obama took over after the "Surge" was put in place and he wanted to end that quicker than what he was eventually talked into. Obama was tested and after finding him to be unresponsive, ISIS declared their Caliphate. Had he responded, it would not have gotten to the level it did. They KNOW Trump will respond and has demonstrated that he will respond with examples like Syria stikes, MOAB use, 200 Russian Mercs enhilated, and the crush of ISIS. There's a new fear in them after experiencing what a true war can bring. The soft wars of the past with having to get WH approval for engagement are over.

As far as straight up truth though, Trump does stand a good chance of re-election with the Mueller probe producing nothing actionable.

Agree. The dems are scrambling so hard now. Obamacare suffered another huge blow yesterday in appeals court. I wonder if the dems will ever get around to putting something forward to address this or if they'll just keep it for a campaign issue. They are also scrambling and hoping for the full report to be delivered so they can find a morsel of something to use as an underlying predicate to open investigations but I doubt they get that morsel.

I also like how the legal advisors on the media are now coming to the conclusion that obstruction couldn't have happened since there was no crime to obstruct. Heck even Brennan and Clapper are singing a different tune now. They've really left the CNN and MSNBC folks holding the bag on all of this.

[Aseahawkfan]

What would happen if he lobbed a nuke into Japan from a global financial perspective or even S. Korea?

The scenario you listed has about as much a chance of happening as Iraq being a threat to America. You think China doesn't work North Korea even closer than America? I think they do. If North Korea causes headaches, China will take care of them without us.

Remember, Obama took over after the "Surge" was put in place and he wanted to end that quicker than what he was eventually talked into. Obama was tested and after finding him to be unresponsive, ISIS declared their Caliphate. Had he responded, it would not have gotten to the level it did. They KNOW Trump will respond and has demonstrated that he will respond with examples like Syria stikes, MOAB use, 200 Russian Mercs enhilated, and the crush of ISIS. There's a new fear in them after experiencing what a true war can bring. The soft wars of the past with having to get WH approval for engagement are over.

And another head will rise regardless of what Trump does. As I told you and you should already known given your age and background, the terrorists don't care who is president. They will just keep rising. It's become a part of Muslim culture. The only thing that will change it is a change in the economic circumstances of the area. Poverty, instability, and cultural factors drive Middle East terrorism. As I've told you many times, it's literally fueled by money and teachings from nations we call allies like Saudi Arabia.

1Agree. The dems are scrambling so hard now. Obamacare suffered another huge blow yesterday in appeals court. I wonder if the dems will ever get around to putting something forward to address this or if they'll just keep it for a campaign issue. They are also scrambling and hoping for the full report to be delivered so they can find a morsel of something to use as an underlying predicate to open investigations but I doubt they get that morsel.

The direction the nation is taking some kind of major change to medical coverage is coming regardless of what they call it.

I also like how the legal advisors on the media are now coming to the conclusion that obstruction couldn't have happened since there was no crime to obstruct. Heck even Brennan and Clapper are singing a different tune now. They've really left the CNN and MSNBC folks holding the bag on all of this.

The Democrats are digging wherever they can to take down Trump. The whole lot of them and their supporters are hypocrites at best and seekers of petty vengeance at worst. I watched some of these guys on TV and it's so obvious this is payback for Trump's attacks on Obama and Hilary that anyone that doesn't see it as blind as the folks that don't see Trump is a rude, womanizing, narcissistic, combative jackass that invites a lot of these attacks with his behavior.

Worst time in American politics in my lifetime. I despise both of these parties. I only hope that at some point a leader will come to take us in a completely different direction from these clowns.

[idhawkman]

The scenario you listed has about as much a chance of happening as Iraq being a threat to America. You think China doesn't work North Korea even closer than America? I think they do. If North Korea causes headaches, China will take care of them without us.

I left the intel community a number of years ago because I was disillusioned with their agendas, but I don't doubt their report that NK could have a ICBM and a Nuke mounted in the nose of one within a matter of months. I could be a hypocrit in thinking this but I'd rather err on the side of safety than to be found out later that I err'd on the side of disaster. This is exactly why we need to re-establish the trust in our government agencies as a whole to tell the truth.

And another head will rise regardless of what Trump does. As I told you and you should already known given your age and background, the terrorists don't care who is president. They will just keep rising. It's become a part of Muslim culture. The only thing that will change it is a change in the economic circumstances of the area. Poverty, instability, and cultural factors drive Middle East terrorism. As I've told you many times, it's literally fueled by money and teachings from nations we call allies like Saudi Arabia.

That's bunk and you know it. Religious ideology is not dictated or swayed by money at that level.

The direction the nation is taking some kind of major change to medical coverage is coming regardless of what they call it.

I agree especially with a million plus indigent people flooding the system every year without paying into it.

The Democrats are digging wherever they can to take down Trump. The whole lot of them and their supporters are hypocrites at best and seekers of petty vengeance at worst. I watched some of these guys on TV and it's so obvious this is payback for Trump's attacks on Obama and Hilary that anyone that doesn't see it as blind as the folks that don't see Trump is a rude, womanizing, narcissistic, combative jackass that invites a lot of these attacks with his behavior.

Worst time in American politics in my lifetime. I despise both of these parties. I only hope that at some point a leader will come to take us in a completely different direction from these clowns.

At some point, the right was going to get someone with a backbone to stand up and fight with the same vigor that the left has been using for decades now. The division and difference everyone sees is actually the right finally having a belly full and saying enough. There's only so far you can push a person or group of people before they stand up and fight and that is what everyone is calling "division." I suspect that by "leader" stepping up you mean someone who continues to cave to the idiotic ideas of the left just to make nice with them. Well, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[burrrton]

Religious ideology is not dictated or swayed by money at that level.

This. There is no correlation.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Wait a second fellas. Are you telling me that recruits flock to these terrorist organizations solely for religious reasons? It seems to me that throughout history religion has been able to more heavily influence people of low economic status and having little or no education than those further up the food chain. Whether it be the promise of bliss in the afterlife or providing better access to the necessities of living and even creature comforts not easy to come by, it is those of lower status that can be more easily swayed. I think Asea is saying that if the would-be rank-and-file members had a better standard of living, it would be harder for these terrorist organizations to rise up and swell. I would agree with that.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's bunk and you know it. Religious ideology is not dictated or swayed by money at that level.

Yes. It is. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. So tell me how the House of Saud came to power? Explain it to me Mr. I Know What I'm Talking About.

If you understood terrorism and what fuels it at all, you would understand better why this money is backing them. There is a marriage between the religious zealots and the powerful leaders of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is a prime example of this relationship that exists. The leadership makes deals with these religious zealots to accept and fund their religious extremism in return for these groups acknowledging their power. This relationship is a fundamental part of the Middle Eastern power structure. Look up what schools in Saudi Arabia teach, funded by the Saudi oil money and what that leads to.

I was clueless as to how this worked as well before I actually took time to study it. It was a pretty fascinating read if you ever feel like really knowing what's going on over there and why the terrorism and religious zealotry seems endless. It all dates back to how Islam rose, how Middle Eastern leaders take power, hold power, and exercise power. Islam is an inherent part of the culture over there and the leaders have to develop relationships with various religious leaders to maintain their power or they will be the focus of the terrorism and religious violence. Something they do not want.

It would be near impossible to elucidate this relationship in a few paragraphs, but suffice it to say you are way off. The funding for terrorism comes from "allied" nations. They don't tell you this and keep it out of the media because if the American people knew and understood how it worked, they wouldn't want anything to do with it (until the gas prices rose of course). It would take way too long to explain all the relationships in the Middle East to the American people they would understand or accept. They wouldn't be able to explain that Saudi money is funding instability in Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Somalia under the guise of Islamic Jihad as part of their relationship with the Wahhabi power brokers they made a deal with a long time ago to hold power in Saudi Arabia. And that America allows this because Saudi Arabia helps them maintain control over oil.

It's not a conspiracy. That's the funny part. It's literally documented history anyone could read if they felt like it. That's the part I find so astounding.

This information if you ever feel like trying to understand the religious insanity we have involved ourselves in to maintain power over oil is out there for your consumption. To put it simply, imagine if the American president lived in a nation surrounded by hardcore Christian conservatives that would murder him if they felt he went against Christianity. That is the situation many Middle Eastern leaders live in. They have to maintain that relationship to maintain power and any reasonable stability in their nation. Fortunately a few a few nations like Egypt maintain power and stability through a highly effective military that checks the religious extremism, but they know Saudi money is trying to mess them up and they keep them out.

If you feel like maintaining your ignorance, have at it. You and the majority of America have done it for years. It's why you think stuff like "religious ideology doesn't matter at that level." It very much does in the Middle East. They are at a stage in their cultural evolution similar to Europe when the Catholic and Protestant churches held real power that kings feared.

At some point, the right was going to get someone with a backbone to stand up and fight with the same vigor that the left has been using for decades now. The division and difference everyone sees is actually the right finally having a belly full and saying enough. There's only so far you can push a person or group of people before they stand up and fight and that is what everyone is calling "division." I suspect that by "leader" stepping up you mean someone who continues to cave to the idiotic ideas of the left just to make nice with them. Well, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

No. I mean someone that doesn't build his reputation on birtherism, then gets mad when they make up some BS on him after he spent much of his time making some BS up on the previous president. That doesn't respond in an immature manner on Twitter to every perceived insult. Someone that manages the nation in a mature fashion in line with our Constitution, not grandstanding and abusing his position by commenting on every little thing he disagrees with. Someone that can determine the difference between science and ideology enough that he doesn't dismiss all science as some kind conspiracy and push his own ideology as truth. Someone that doesn't have a history of sleeping around on every wife and sitting on a gold throne.

Someone that doesn't attract mindless zealots like yourself with no interest whatsoever in truth or values. People that seem to want to back some guy they think is part of the winning team without regard to the real effect on the nation. Your lot are as tiresome to me as the mindless left wing zealots. There are better ways to do things.

As far your sad little narrative of getting kicked around by the left. I see very little evidence that Trump has stopped it. In fact, I think he has empowered them further and it will be even worse when the left sends the real lunatic fringe into power as an answer against Trump. Then I guess you'll be to your impotent whining. I'll be looking to move somewhere quiet from the overly numerous fools supporting these two ridiculous and awful ideological shifts.

[Aseahawkfan]

Wait a second fellas. Are you telling me that recruits flock to these terrorist organizations solely for religious reasons? It seems to me that throughout history religion has been able to more heavily influence people of low economic status and having little or no education than those further up the food chain. Whether it be the promise of bliss in the afterlife or providing better access to the necessities of living and even creature comforts not easy to come by, it is those of lower status that can be more easily swayed. I think Asea is saying that if the would-be rank-and-file members had a better standard of living, it would be harder for these terrorist organizations to rise up and swell. I would agree with that.

That's part of what I'm saying. Poverty and instability put people in positions to buy into these ideologies when they offer some kind of way out or sense of purpose that they hope leads to a better life. Mohammed is beloved in the Middle East. Many folks over there dream of following in the footsteps of Mohammed and his dream of Islam as the ultimate truth. The names many of the Jihadists choose are based on the names of the prophets first four companions and his Uncle Hamza, who was a famous soldier in Islam's beginnings.

I have no idea how to convey what took me years to learn in a few simple paragraphs. It all started for me after working with an educated Shia Iraqi about 8 years or so ago. He started to explain the Middle East and break things down. He directed me to specific history sources, some well-documented in United States history and some foreign, discussion boards, and he told me about the history himself of the Shia-Sunni conflict, the battle between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia for control of the Islamic world. He told me about the House of Saud and their rise to power. And on and on and on. It was an amazing history lesson we don't often get in America, all confirmed by various official sources. It's basically a wide and varied education source that I explored over the years. It's pretty amazing dating back to the beginning of Islam. I found it a highly valuable education. It really helped me understand that whole area much better. When I read other historical documents like Churchill's biography, I better understood who the people were Churchill dealt with when he was leading British policy on the Middle East. The current Middle East was highly influenced by European decisions made after World War 1.

I don't think the general American public will ever quite understand the complexity of Middle East politics. Our government focuses on oil control and its relationship with Israel, which keeps gas prices low, which keeps the people as happy as they can manage. It's another one of those vile moral situations you end up with when dealing with human power structures and insanity.

[burrrton]

*sigh*

University of Chicago:

No, poverty isn’t a cause of terrorism

http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economic ... -terrorism

Oxford University:

The alleged linkage between poverty and terrorism generated extensive academic research on this relationship. The well-being of a country’s citizens generally is measured by income per capita or the average income earnings of its citizens, which is total gross domestic product divided by population. Low income per capita is equated to poverty because the typical person has little to live on.

When researchers explored the relationship between terrorist attacks and income per capita, their findings were inconclusive.

https://blog.oup.com/2018/10/does-pover ... terrorism/

Noted right-wing house organ The New Republic:

But a careful review of the evidence provides little reason for optimism that a reduction in poverty or an increase in educational attainment would, by themselves, meaningfully reduce international terrorism. Any connection between poverty, education, and terrorism is indirect, complicated, and probably quite weak. Instead of viewing terrorism as a direct response to low market opportunities or lack of education, we suggest it is more accurately viewed as a response to political conditions and long-standing feelings of indignity and frustration (perceived or real) that have little to do with economics.

https://newrepublic.com/article/91841/d ... -terrorism

National Bureau of Economic Research:

In Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism (NBER Working Paper No. 10859) Alberto Abadie explores this link in greater detail and finds that the risk of terrorism is not significantly higher for poorer countries, once other country-specific characteristics are considered.

https://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w10859.html

That's just the first four hits on Google- there are endless other links. There is no evidence poverty leads to terrorism (nor crime, by the way- another mistaken trope). You can find people who assert it does, but the weight of research asserting otherwise is overwhelming.

[RiverDog]

Flocking directly to terrorism, perhaps not. But I can see what Mack and ASF are saying as it relates to an attraction to political and religious beliefs.

Many people suffer from an ego defense mechanism that prohibits them from accepting responsibility for their own plight and/or that someone else or some other group must be responsible for their dire circumstances, and as such, it is entirely possible that in some instances, membership in radical Islam, white supremacy, and other hate/terrorist groups, can be driven by a person's economic status.

For example, Hitler took advantage of an economic situation in post WW1 Europe to appeal to desperate Germans that were suffering economically and build his network of dedicated followers and instilled them with a deep hatred of Jews. I can see that same principle being applied in the Middle East.

[burrrton]

it is entirely possible that in some instances, membership in radical Islam, white supremacy, and other hate/terrorist groups, can be driven by a person's economic status.

Of course- that doesn't make it the, or even a, primary driver of it, though.

I can see that same principle being applied in the Middle East.

Maybe for some, but go read the links I posted (or google it). This isn't a daring new assertion- it's been studied six ways to Sunday, especially in the wake of 9/11.

[RiverDog]

Of course- that doesn't make it the, or even a, primary driver of it, though.

Which is why I said "in some instances."

I can see that same principle being applied in the Middle East.

Maybe for some, but go read the links I posted (or google it). This isn't a daring new assertion- it's been studied six ways to Sunday, especially in the wake of 9/11.

Again, I'm not suggesting that economics is the root cause or a primary cause. I'm saying that it has been a factor in past situations and that may or may not be applicable, to some degree, in this one.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's just the first four hits on Google- there are endless other links. There is no evidence poverty leads to terrorism (nor crime, by the way- another mistaken trope). You can find people who assert it does, but the weight of research asserting otherwise is overwhelming.

First, I'm going to reiterate that poverty is but one factor with terrorism. Anyone that dismisses it should be taken about as seriously as flat earth theory people.

If I said poverty alone causes terrorism, then your articles would at least have some merit. It is but one factor of many. These articles appear to be specifically written citing "factual evidence" that is supposed to contradict some left leaning group's "factual evidence." As in they are written specifically to attack people saying poverty is the main cause or what not. When it is one of the factors that helps criminal activity such as terrorism by creating an environment where terrorists can thrive due to all the other factors poverty leads to like lack of protection from criminal terrorist organizations, ability to bribe people to ignore the actions of the terrorists, the ability to build belief structures within impoverished areas to support their beliefs with monetary aid creating a sympathetic environment, and other factors that impoverishment opens the doors for.

If you build a nation's wealth and a middle class, you also build up all the organizations that protect a nation's communities whether it be police forces, intelligence organizations, and the like that protect the community from the infiltration of criminal and terrorist organizations that use impoverished communities as a base of operations. It is not a surprise for example that even in America gang organizations thrive in impoverished communities with overworked police and citizens that are easily intimidated or paid off by criminal organizations. Though poverty doesn't itself create criminals and I would be false to say so, poverty does create communities unable to protect themselves from the depredations of larger criminal organizations like terrorist organizations.

One thing I learned about terrorism in the years of study is that they are not just these political organizations forwarding a political agenda. They are more like Mafia organizations disguised as religious organizations. Their agenda is to accumulate power, wealth, and control under the guise of jihad. Recruiting based on religion in the Middle East is like recruiting based on someone taking away Liberty or Freedom in America. They even teach these young men that as long as they are fighting for Islam, they can do anything and get a free pass into heaven. Deal drugs, murder people, rape women, it all doesn't matter because in the eyes of Allah someone dying for jihad is always going to paradise. The reality is a lot of these sick terrorist organizations are just there to empower their leaders and let them live like Sultans with servants, drivers, wealth, harems, and the like.

As far as the reasons for terrorism, ideology is probably number one. Throughout the Islamic world the ideology of terror has become part of the culture, even when dealing with each other. It is tied to Islamic history and the notion of martyrdom in Islam. You always need an ideology supporting a behavior in place for something as vile as terrorism to happen. After that the reasons vary by region including factors such as regional conflicts, culture, poverty, and politics. If we didn't have the relationship we do with oil, we would treat that area of the world like we do Africa meaning let them kill each other if they feel like it. Oil and Israel are all that keeps us engaged in that area of the world as much as we are. It's a vile moral situation, but we are so dependent on oil I see why both parties turn their minds off when it comes to dealing with Saudi Arabia. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is how we control oil. If we remain as dependent on oil as we are, we need that relationship. Since I don't want to have to pay 10 dollars a gallon for gas, I guess I'm part of the game.

[Aseahawkfan]

To bring it a little bit back, I don't see any Democrats capable of defeating Trump right now. Seems like I'm going to have to deal with the Twitter King for another six years barring some new information coming out. There's no real good alternative to Trump right now. And as much as I don't care for him, I see why his followers like him. I don't think I've ever seen a president try harder to fulfill campaign promises than Trump. That guy is trying anything and everything to get done what he said he would get done. He is flipping the middle finger at Democrats and Republicans. He just doesn't care. We like to pretend he's a Republican and right wing, but in reality he has pissed off just about everyone including the Republican Party. He insulted John McCain and guys like Corker as much as he insulted Warren and Schiff. He's a guy that is doing it his way because he can. He just don't give a damn. Never seen anything like it in my life.

[RiverDog]

To bring it a little bit back, I don't see any Democrats capable of defeating Trump right now. Seems like I'm going to have to deal with the Twitter King for another six years barring some new information coming out. There's no real good alternative to Trump right now. And as much as I don't care for him, I see why his followers like him. I don't think I've ever seen a president try harder to fulfill campaign promises than Trump. That guy is trying anything and everything to get done what he said he would get done. He is flipping the middle finger at Democrats and Republicans. He just doesn't care. We like to pretend he's a Republican and right wing, but in reality he has pissed off just about everyone including the Republican Party. He insulted John McCain and guys like Corker as much as he insulted Warren and Schiff. He's a guy that is doing it his way because he can. He just don't give a damn. Never seen anything like it in my life.

Joe Biden IMO can defeat Trump. Although he hasn't announced yet, he's the only candidate that hasn't been driven off to the edge of the spectrum by the liberal wing of the party. He could appeal to the anti Trump moderates while still getting nearly all of the liberal base on board. Biden isn't my favorite candidate by any standard as I would prefer either a challenge from within the R's or someone like Bloomberg. Biden would be able to get a good share of the Obama voters that stayed home in 2016.

Although I can still be had and will listen to what they have to say, it's likely that if they trot out someone like Sanders or Warren, I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate like I did in 2016. It will be a cold day in hell when I vote for Trump.

Next to Donald Trump, the most concerning thing in American politics is how far left the Democratic party has shifted.

[burrrton]

First, I'm going to reiterate that poverty is but one factor with terrorism. Anyone that dismisses it should be taken about as seriously as flat earth theory people.

It's not a factor worth noting, and people who insist it is are ignoring the mountains of research that have been conducted looking for, and failing to find, a causal relationship.

Next to Donald Trump, the most concerning thing in American politics is how far left the Democratic party has shifted.

Agreed!

[Aseahawkfan]

It's not a factor worth noting, and people who insist it is are ignoring the mountains of research that have been conducted looking for, and failing to find, a causal relationship.

We can go back and forth all day for years with Google articles. And we'll both be able to find statistical evidence to support our assertions.

Suffice it to say I very much is a factor worth noting. I do not see mountains of evidence that indicate it is not a factor, especially in other nations without the wealth to build nationwide law enforcement organizations. There are mountains of evidence that you ignore linking poverty and crime because it suits your viewpoint. not because it has factual support other than articles it seems written to resist the tax and spend approach the Democrats want to take to fix the problem in America.

Like I said, not acknowledging the relationship between poverty, political instability, and a plethora of other problems associated with poverty that support crime such as terrorism is flat earth theory at its finest.

https://vittana.org/26-poverty-and-crime-statistics

https://www.childinthecity.org/2018/11/02/study-links-childhood-poverty-to-violent-crime-and-self-harm/?gdpr=accept

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

An article discussing why the articles you posted may lack data capable of supporting their conclusions, though I saw very little data in the articles you posted: https://www.city-journal.org/survival-crimes. When you decriminalize crime, of course you can make it look like there is no link between poverty and crime.

Here is an article supporting your assertion when it comes to America, which doesn't apply to the Middle East given America is a very wealthy nation with very powerful law enforcement controls. Where as a truly impoverished nation would have a much harder time enforcing the rule of law within its borders and defending its borders, which is why Jihadists from other nations can flock into impoverished destabilized nations to create terrorist networks like they do:

https://newrepublic.com/article/80316/relationship-poverty-crime-rates-economic-conditions

As i doubt I will change your mind, I will put this out there for others to read and decide for themselves. I'm firmly in the camp that poverty creates very bad environments for crime. Looking at statistics on a national level in a wealthy country in no way is a good way to analyze the link between poverty and crime. You also have to look at how and if crime is reported.

I know in Washington State in Seattle many property crimes aren't reported because of the city's stance on homelessness and crime. Where I work multiple people have had their cars broken into multiples times and they never bothered to report it to the police after the first time. The person never gets caught. Insurance company premiums usually exceed the amount to fix the window and the minor items stolen, so they don't bother to report it. They just consider it part of working in Seattle.

Everett is growing the same way as homeless camps increase in size there boosting the crime rate. I talk to cops around where I'm at, there is a definite push to decriminalize homelessness and the crimes associated with it like shoplifting and the like. I wonder how much unreported crime driven by the behaviors impoverished folk would boost the crime rate.

In actual impoverished third world nations, not even sure how you track crime or terrorism statistics with any kind of reasonable accuracy. I have no idea why you would think extrapolating statistics loosely generated by Western nations using western population data without access to accurate data in Middle Eastern lands would be applicable. But hey, you do you. Ignore the fact that the terrorists build camps in heavily impoverished nations for reasons other than impoverished nations can't defend themselves very well. I guess you have data showing terrorist camps in equal number in Middle Class communities hanging about local restaurants and bars attending PTA meetings.

And let's not forget American intelligence agencies would disagree with you. American foreign policy itself is a testament to the ability to take advantage of impoverished nations with huge sums of money for access. We've supported numerous dictators in impoverished nations that do all types of crimes to hold power while we overlook them because "He's our bastard." But hey, I guess our intelligence agencies were wrong to think that huge sums of money to pay for corrupt leaders in impoverished third world nations works. All those years of doing something that doesn't work, imagine that.

[Aseahawkfan]

Joe Biden IMO can defeat Trump. Although he hasn't announced yet, he's the only candidate that hasn't been driven off to the edge of the spectrum by the liberal wing of the party. He could appeal to the anti Trump moderates while still getting nearly all of the liberal base on board. Biden isn't my favorite candidate by any standard as I would prefer either a challenge from within the R's or someone like Bloomberg. Biden would be able to get a good share of the Obama voters that stayed home in 2016.

Although I can still be had and will listen to what they have to say, it's likely that if they trot out someone like Sanders or Warren, I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate like I did in 2016. It will be a cold day in hell when I vote for Trump.

Next to Donald Trump, the most concerning thing in American politics is how far left the Democratic party has shifted.

We'll see if Biden throws his chit in the hat. If so, we'll see what happens. I don't think Biden has the charisma to beat Trump. He has too much of the baggage from the Obama administration that Trump could use as ammunition against him. People can try to build up the Obama presidency as much as they want, but it is the dissatisfaction with his presidency that brought Trump to power. Trump built his name criticizing and attacking Obama. I would say a lot of his presidency has been tearing down what Obama did. Biden is highly associated with Obama and Hilary. I'm not sure how much that will benefit him.

As far as Bernie, I still don't think Bernie beats Trump in the last election. I don't think he can this election either. Democrats may have moved heavy left, but I still think there are a lot of independents in swing states that have no interest in moving that far left.

Trump is looking pretty strong. I think the Dems know they can't beat him, which is why they are looking to take him down using other means.

[RiverDog]

We'll see if Biden throws his chit in the hat. If so, we'll see what happens. I don't think Biden has the charisma to beat Trump. He has too much of the baggage from the Obama administration that Trump could use as ammunition against him. People can try to build up the Obama presidency as much as they want, but it is the dissatisfaction with his presidency that brought Trump to power. Trump built his name criticizing and attacking Obama. I would say a lot of his presidency has been tearing down what Obama did. Biden is highly associated with Obama and Hilary. I'm not sure how much that will benefit him.

All indications are that Biden will run, although he's now fighting off an extremely lame accusation, ie kissing some lady on top of her head 4.5 years ago, and of course, Elizabeth Warren and others are seizing on the opportunity. But we'll see.

As far as Bernie, I still don't think Bernie beats Trump in the last election. I don't think he can this election either. Democrats may have moved heavy left, but I still think there are a lot of independents in swing states that have no interest in moving that far left.

Agreed. We'll have to see just how strong the anti Trump sentiment is. If it's strong enough, middle of the road voters might set aside their politics in order to get Trump out. I consider myself one of those independent voters, and as it stands now, I wouldn't vote for Bernie.

Trump is looking pretty strong. I think the Dems know they can't beat him, which is why they are looking to take him down using other means.

I disagree. IMO Trump is extremely vulnerable. First of all, Trump won the last election by less than 200K votes in 3 states, and considering how badly his opponent ran her campaign and the fact that she had the most negative popularity numbers of any POTUS nominee (except Trump) since they started doing the polling, he was very lucky to win. Don't count on the Dems making the same mistakes again.

Secondly, Trump's popularity numbers have been under 50% for every week of his presidency, and although that doesn't necessarily spell defeat, it does indicate that he has work to do. And the midterm elections was a huge win for the Dems, particularly in swing states like MI, PA, and WI where his margin of victory in 2016 was closest. Plus as I stated earlier, Trump is in deep caca in FL.

Certainly the Dems think that they can take him down as there's a huge flock of candidates vying for the nomination, more than I can ever recall. IMO there wouldn't be half that many candidates that have announced if they thought that their chances weren't good.

[Hawktawk]

A woman who was a democratic political candidate at the time has come out publicly saying Biden kissed the back of her head inappropriately. And get ready for more, I've seen video of him touching little girls as young as 10 or 12 on the back or shoulder etc and making them look uncomfortable during ceremonies etc. There are also rumors he liked to swim nude in his pool with female security present in the Obama administration. I've suspected its why he hasn't jumped in and I think he wont. One would think with the admitted pussy grabbing sexual assault poster boy infesting the west wing it wouldn't matter but it so does in the me too party. So cross off Biden IMO. Even if he runs he will fade fast and big time fund raisers have already told him they will not back him.

Sanders or Warren are recipes for Trump to win, as is the gay mayor whose name escapes me for the reasons mentioned by others. Gay is accepted in society overwhelmingly but its not an asset when your talking about the POTUS in my opinion.Warren will forever be Pocahontas which she cemented with her idiotic DNA stunt. Sanders lost to the absolutely worst Democratic candidate ever and preaches a philosophy that has 18% public support. Trump would kill him.

Forget Klobnuchar or whatever the hell, Hickenlooper and anyone else with weird as F#@k names. Put president in front of any of those names and just listen to how ridiculous it sounds Im only kind of joking. Kamela Harris can get some traction. Good name, attractive(yes it matters)has a more balanced record as a former prosecutor, not a wild eyed leftist. I'm still betting on Beto to gain some traction but he will need to come down off the mountain and put some meat on the bones instead of speaking in lofty platitudes and not saying anything or saying stupid S#!t about taking down the wall.The democratic hard core base may want a socialist bleeding heart but AMERICA wants someone who can beat trump.

Right now I'm backing William Weld. After a run as the libertarian VP hes winding up to challenge Trump in the primary and polls show a great deal of interest among republicans to see a primary challenger. I hope for someone stronger to emerge but Weld is a no nonsense physically inmposing tall man who i beleive would absolutely disassemble Trump on a debate stage and remind republicans of what a real repuiblican is supposed to sound and act like.

As for Trump the dude is so wacky and out of his mind I'm really owed an apology Ill never get from this forum. Don't take my word for it, ask George Conway . Just in the last week hes announced hes going to finish killing obamacare with no plan for replacement causing freaked out Republican Senators to call him. Hes threatening to close the southern border entirely over the migration crisis which would lead to immediate economic devastation that would make his idiotic government shutdown look like a cakewalk. I have no sympathy for his handlers and enablers dealing with this unstable increasingly erratic POS. He got his *supposed* "exoneration" polls disagree with but he just cant take a *victory* without tripping over his mushroom the next time he tweets or opens his stupid ugly fat mouth Not surprising hes Mr 40%

[RiverDog]

A woman who was a democratic political candidate at the time has come out publicly saying Biden kissed the back of her head inappropriately. And get ready for more, I've seen video of him touching little girls as young as 10 or 12 on the back or shoulder etc and making them look uncomfortable during ceremonies etc. There are also rumors he liked to swim nude in his pool with female security present in the Obama administration. I've suspected its why he hasn't jumped in and I think he wont. One would think with the admitted pussy grabbing sexual assault poster boy infesting the west wing it wouldn't matter but it so does in the me too party. So cross off Biden IMO. Even if he runs he will fade fast and big time fund raisers have already told him they will not back him.

IMO kissing someone on the head and/or touching little girls on the shoulder or back isn't going to cause a lot of concern IMO, but we'll see. Swimming nude in a private swimming pool, even in the presence of female security guards, isn't a big scandal, either, so long as he didn't have any women in the pool with him. Had the POTUS been a little more respectable citizen, he/she might be able to make some hay with these revelations, but about all Biden's indiscretions would do would be to neutralize Trump's pornstar banging.

Sanders or Warren are recipes for Trump to win, as is the gay mayor whose name escapes me for the reasons mentioned by others. Gay is accepted in society overwhelmingly but its not an asset when your talking about the POTUS in my opinion.Warren will forever be Pocahontas which she cemented with her idiotic DNA stunt. Sanders lost to the absolutely worst Democratic candidate ever and preaches a philosophy that has 18% public support. Trump would kill him.

Sanders might be able to get some traction if he modified some of his stances and played things a more towards the middle, but he's such a firebrand that I doubt that he'll be swayed to adapt a more moderate message. The other problem with him is that he's not a Democrat and might not be able to appeal to Dem donors in the same way HRC did. You're right about Pocahontas. Her latest excuse is that her parents lied to her about her heritage. Besides, she's almost as liberal as Sanders. The gay mayor you are referring to is Pete Buttigieg.

We'll have to wait and see how the primaries sort themselves out, but at this point, it looks like either Sanders or Biden.

Right now I'm backing William Weld. After a run as the libertarian VP hes winding up to challenge Trump in the primary and polls show a great deal of interest among republicans to see a primary challenger. I hope for someone stronger to emerge but Weld is a no nonsense physically inmposing tall man who i beleive would absolutely disassemble Trump on a debate stage and remind republicans of what a real repuiblican is supposed to sound and act like.

Unless Biden or a more moderate stance by one of the other candidates materializes, it's looking like I'll be voting for someone other than the two major party candidates, too. It's hard to believe that the Dems don't have anymore sense than they are showing with as many of them embracing the left wing of the party as there are. They have a golden opportunity to win in 2020 if they don't nominate a radical socialist. Howard Schultz is right, the party has taken a huge swing to the left.

[burrrton]

All indications are that Biden will run, although he's now fighting off an extremely lame accusation, ie kissing some lady on top of her head 4.5 years ago, and of course, Elizabeth Warren and others are seizing on the opportunity. But we'll see.

He's not *close* to being left enough for the Dem party in 2019. He's going to have to adopt every batsh*t crazy stance the rest of them have or he'll get dragged to h3ll and back.

You're right about Pocahontas. Her latest excuse is that her parents lied to her about her heritage.

It's FAUXcahontas (just because Trump continually botches it doesn't mean we need to ), and yeah, this disqualifies her.

The gay mayor you are referring to is Pete Buttigieg.

And I'd vote for him if he ran.

[Hawktawk]

I see Bidens problem in the primaries as opposed to the general election. This is a big deal.His actions with many women and girls are on film for all to see. He really has done some weird stuff. And I staunchly disagree that its OK for the man to get naked with a female secret service agent present just to go swimming. You have to remember this is the party that ran off Al Franken for a few side of boob brushes and rear end pats during photo ops and some suggestive comments and advances to a female reporter traveling overseas to a war zone with him. Were he a republican with a make america great message why he could brag about sexual assault on tape and they would love him even more

And there a big part of the party that doesn't want an old white centrist guy as the nominee regardless of his peccadilloes or lack thereof. Its the same with the Beto haters.Notice how all the hit pieces have come out about him, the DUI in 98, the complaints about his lack of positions and experience, his whiteness and straightness. Trump also attacked him, saying he uses his hands so much in his speeches he looks "crazy" LMAO nobody self owns like Trump.

Beto worries him as does Biden but that doesn't matter if they don't get to the general.I heard somewhere that Iowa primary voters overwhelmingly prefer a candidate who is a minority, a woman or gay. Its what has actually given mayor Pete whatever credibility in the party as much as his ideas.

Its as stupid as drafting for need instead of BPA

Sanders gets a pass from the hysterical leftist base because hes a socialist/communist true believer but beyond those general election fatal flaws hes a gnome like old man who combs whats left of his hair with a rock. Appearance does matter in the general and not that I'm a fan of Trumps appearance but he looks better and more presidential than Sanders. Biden looks the part and has the experience but I just see him fading fast with the radical base of the party.

America has never needed a centrist third party as much as it does now.