Warren vs Trump

  
By:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  164 comments

Warren vs Trump

Elizabeth Warren finds a way to appeal to enough Democratic moderates and she wins the Democratic nomination for president.  Donald Trump manages to stay out of jail and survives impeachment. They meet for the 2020 US presidential election.  There are no other realistic choices.   Which one are you voting for?

This question involves ONLY these two possibilities, Trump or Warren. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

800

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

Trump of course. Warren is much worse than HRC, if that's possible.jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one week ago
Simple answer is that I will most likely not vote for Trump and will definitely not vote for Warren or the other four Dems running. I voted third party in the last election and may do so again this one.
 
 
 
cjcold
1.3  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one week ago

I'll be voting for Bloomberg.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  cjcold @1.3    one week ago

There’s a good chance I would too. It’s still a little bit early, though.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.1    one week ago

Bloomberg's stance as a hard core anti gunner is is a no go for many law abiding conservative gun owning voters such as myself. That reason alone would keep me from voting for him.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.3  Tacos!  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.2    one week ago

It’s hard picking someone because there’s almost always going to be something you disagree with them on. I admit I haven’t studied where they all stand on the 2nd amendment.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @1.3.3    one week ago

I am pretty certain they are all pro gun control/anti gun. All have stated at one time or another that they favor the banning of any semi automatic rifles they consider to be assault weapons.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.3.5  Tacos!  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.4    one week ago

Sometimes on these issues I try to take a step back and ask what is it they realistically can do to implement whatever wacky point of view they have on a given topic. I remember everyone was very concerned about what Obama might do regarding guns, but after 8 years, he actually hadn’t done much of anything.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.3.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.2    one week ago
Bloomberg's stance as a hard core anti gunner is is a no go for many law abiding conservative gun owning voters such as myself. That reason alone would keep me from voting for him.

I respect that.

I don't think he would be able to get much done on that front, though.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.3.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.2    one week ago
Bloomberg's stance as a hard core anti gunner is is a no go for many law abiding conservative gun owning voters such as myself

384

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.3.7    one week ago

🤣

 
 
 
Krishna
1.3.9  Krishna  replied to  cjcold @1.3    one week ago
I'll be voting for Bloomberg.

Whoa-- wait a minute!

Aren't you aware that a policy he tried to institute  some time ago (the one re: large size sodas) is the most important issue facing America today?

/sarc

 
 
 
Krishna
1.3.10  Krishna  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.3.4    one week ago
I am pretty certain they are all pro gun control/anti gun. All have stated at one time or another that they favor the banning of any semi automatic rifles they consider to be assault weapons.

And worse yet,most if not all of them probably feel that it should not be possible to buy any sort of gun without an adequate  background check! .

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.3.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Krishna @1.3.9    one week ago
Aren't you aware that a policy he tried to institute  some time ago (the one re: large size sodas) is the most important issue facing America today?

OK...I actually support a big tax on sodas and junk food.

We spend $400billion/yr in healthcare specifically to treat obesity.  The fat people who are self inflicting their condition can certainly pony up more to pay for it.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Krishna @1.3.10    one week ago

I am all for background checks. I just feel they should not be so intrusive that it ensures nobody obtains a firearm. And there are progressive liberal politicians that desperately want that. Some of them are running for president.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.3.13  Heartland American  replied to  Krishna @1.3.9    5 days ago

I’m going to go to the store to buy a super big gulp (diet of course) now!  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opinion/trump-warren-2020.html

A   hard   but   necessary   choice   to   save   the   country .

This is  a  memo for  the  politically homeless. It's  a  memo  to  those of us who could never support Donald Trump  but  think  the  Bernie-Squad-Warren Democratic Party is sprinting too far left. It's  a  memo built around  the  following question: If  the  general election campaign turns out  to  be Trump vs. Warren, what  the  heck are we supposed  to  do?

The  first thing we could do, of course, is pray for  a  miracle. Maybe  the  Democrats will nominate one of  the  five B's or  the  K: Biden, Buttigieg, Booker, Bennet, Bullock or Klobuchar.

These candidates are pluralists, not purists. They make many voters who disagree with them feel heard and respected. They practice  the  craft of politics, building majority coalitions  to  get things done.

If  the  party nominated one of those six, you really could see  the  Democrats gather progressives and moderates into an enduring majority coalition as  the  Republicans recede into old, white, rural obsolescence. You could see movement on  a  range of issues where large majorities are already stacked on one side: guns, climate change, reducing income inequality, expanding health coverage.

But  right now, Elizabeth Warren has  the  momentum, and so those of us who feel politically homeless may face  a  stark  choice .

For many, supporting Warren is too high  a  price  to  pay, even for ousting Trump. "There is no universe where I will ever vote for Donald Trump, and there is no universe where I could ever vote for Elizabeth Warren," Jennifer Horn,  a  former chairwoman of  the  New Hampshire G.O.P., told  The  Washington Examiner.

And you can see why so many people have that reaction.

First, there are Warren's policies. On trade, she's  a  protectionist. Her 10-year, $34 trillion health care plan isn't paid for. Her student debt cancellation plan is  a  handout  to   the  upper middle class. Her campaign seems  to  not acknowledge  the  inevitable trade-off between economic growth and high spending, high taxes and high regulation.

Second, she's one of  the  few Democrats who could actually lose. As Yascha Mounk notes in  The  Atlantic, Democrats won in 2018 because they won back  a  lot of nonpartisan suburban office park workers who found moderates they could vote for. When you remind independents of Democratic support for abolishing private health insurance and decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing -- two key Warren policies -- they become six percentage points less likely  to  vote for  the  Democrats. Trump will tell voters: You may despise me,  but  she'll destroy  the  economy.

Third,  a  Warren presidency would be deeply polarizing and probably unsuccessful. Warren's policy ideas would make any progressive-moderate coalition impossible. She'd try  to  govern with her 40 percent partisan base, just as Trump has, which is no way  to  pass big legislation.

Fourth, there is  a  wave of insular intolerance coursing through parts of  the  American left. If given executive power, some progressives may use it  to  cancel any culture or faith other than their own.

And yet ....

And yet, if it comes  to  Trump vs. Warren in  a  general election,  the  only plausible  choice  is  to  support Warren. Over  the  past month Donald Trump has given us fresh reminders of  the  unique and exceptional ways he corrupts American life. You're either part of removing that corruption or you are not. When your nation's political system is in danger, staying home and not voting is not  a  responsible option.

Politics is downstream from morality and culture. Warren represents  a  policy wrong turn, in my view,  but  policies can be argued about and reversed. Trump represents  a  much more important and fundamental threat --  to   the  norms, values, standards and soul of this  country .

Last week, Trump all  but  greenlighted  the  ethnic cleansing of Kurds without an ounce of remorse. He normalizes dishonesty and valorizes cruelty. His letter  to  President Recep Tayyip Erdogan reminds us yet again that we have  a  president whose professional competence is at kindergarten level. Once  a  nation has lost its heart, mind and soul, it is very  hard   to  get these things back.

Furthermore, Trump is an unprecedented threat  to  democratic institutions. Over  the  past few years, I've thought  the  progressive fears of incipient American fascism were vastly overblown.  But , especially over  the  past month, Trump has worked overtime  to  validate those fears and  to  raise  the  horrifying specter of what he'll be like if he is given  a  second term and is vindicated, unhinged and unwell.

In their book "How Democracies Die," Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that authoritarians undermine democracy in several ways. They reject  the  democratic rules of  the  game,  the  unwritten norms we rely upon  to  make  the  political system work. They deny  the  legitimacy of their political opponents, using extreme language  to  deny them standing as co-citizens. They tolerate or even encourage violence, threatening  to  take legal action against critics in rival parties.

Trump has been guilty of all three sins, and given  a  second term he will feel free  to  stomp where up until now he has merely tread.

This election is about whether we can hold together as  a  functioning nation, across our economic, racial, geographic and ideological divides. In such circumstances,  a  bad option is better than  a  suicidal one.
 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
They reject the democratic rules of the game, the unwritten norms we rely upon to make the political system work. They deny the legitimacy of their political opponents, using extreme language to deny them standing as co-citizens. They tolerate or even encourage violence, threatening to take legal action against critics in rival parties.

Pot meet kettle. They just described the left and Democratic party to a T.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one week ago
A   hard   but   necessary   choice   to   save   the   country .

Nope.

That choice is only necessary if Warren wins the nomination. 

(Only time will tell but it seems unlikely at this point)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

Trump. He's more honest. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    3 weeks ago

You must be standing on your head when you say that. 

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.1  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago

No, he's being honest, logical, and realistic.

The Dems might have had a decent chance to win, but they have wasted all their time pressing for impeachment instead of finding an electable candidate

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    3 weeks ago
You must be standing on your head when you say that. 

No, there is a point to be made there....even acknowledging Trump's well documented history of saying things that aren't true.

When you're constantly selling snake oil you know full well won't work, that's dishonest.  In private industry, it would be considered fraudulent.  Warren and Sanders both do that regularly.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 weeks ago
'You must be standing on your head when you say that.'

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

So this 'president' and his administration are above the law and not subject to oversight?

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
3.1.5  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  WallyW @3.1.1    2 weeks ago
but they have wasted all their time pressing for impeachment instead

I do have to admit that impeaching and removing Trump is about as unpopular as Trump himself.

A look at the polling shows that support for impeaching and removing Trump seems to have peaked at just under 50% and then actually declined as the impeachment hearings proceeded.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

Oh, wait..

..The last few days of polling show its support rising back up to almost 49%.

Whatever. Unless support gets up to something like 60% or more these hearings are probably political suicide.

If the Democrats decide to censure and call it a day, I will support that.

I supported the opening of the hearings but seeing how they are backfiring politically, I'm not down for a glory ride.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    2 weeks ago
'Trump. He's more honest.'

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Krishna
3.3  Krishna  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    one week ago
Trump. He's more honest. 

Well-- at least you have a great sense of humour!

 
 
 
MUVA
4  MUVA    3 weeks ago

Anyone that votes for tax and spend grandma will reap the benefits for maybe 2 years then it's america down the tubes. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @4    3 weeks ago

You do know that "grandma" is 3 years younger than Trump don't you?

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.1  MUVA  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1    3 weeks ago

He is bombast and tweet grandpa she seems to be channeling Kate Hepburn I just waiting for her to call Trump old poop.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  MUVA @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    3 weeks ago

She can virtue signal all she wants. The Donald beats her in swing states by a mile.

Independents are opposed to impeachment 3 to 1 and the Donald is polling at 34% among African American voters.

What does it all mean?

It means the TDS will continue. Get your pink crotch hats ready there will likely be another march led by an Islamocommunist antisemite.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5    3 weeks ago

We will put you down as a Trumpster vote. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    3 weeks ago

I'm just telling you so you can emotionally prepare for another "I'm with her" electoral disaster.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.2  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    3 weeks ago

Put me down for 4 I'll vote early and often like I'm a democrat from Chicago.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

It is generally known that Republicans cheat more at the polls than Democrats do. 

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1.4  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

Sure I know you have a CNN NY times piece to prove your point or maybe the nation perhaps mother Jones ,MSN?  

 
 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    3 weeks ago
Elizabeth Warren finds a way to appeal to enough Democratic moderates and she wins the Democratic nomination for president.  Donald Trump manages to stay out of jail and survives impeachment

Honestly, the latter seems more probable than the former. Not to say that Warren couldn’t get the nomination, but there is a significant chance that won’t happen. Meanwhile, it’s all but certain that Trump won’t be removed from office or jailed. Anything is possible, of course, but the odds are similar to pigs flying or monkeys flying out of someone’s butt.

Meanwhile, Warren vs. Trump is basically the same choice we had last time - maybe worse. So, I don’t know why anyone thinks the result would be different.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6    3 weeks ago
Warren vs. Trump is basically the same choice we had last time - maybe worse. So, I don’t know why anyone thinks the result would be different.

It's interesting that you think that someone who has lied to the public thousands of times SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE is fit to hold the position.  The idea that Warren would be worse than what Trump is is basically laughable. 

Warren would be unlikely to be able to pass any of her major policy proposals. So a first term of warren would be largely a placeholder. It is likely she would be able to replace Ginsburg with another liberal on the Supreme Court. It is clear she would be able to appoint liberal judges to whatever openings came up. 

A lot of conservatives dont care that Trump is a piece of shit human being. They want to keep those abilities to appoint judges into the next four years.  Thus the moral bankruptcy of the Republicans. 

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.1  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago
It's interesting that you think that someone who has lied to the public thousands of times SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE is fit to hold the position

You have been asked this before, and like most things you are asked about, you never answer, so, let's try it again.

What lie that Donald Trump may or may not have told affected you personally?

Be honest with your answer.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

Your question is worthless. 

 
 
 
WallyW
6.1.3  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago
lied to the public thousands of times

The public doesn't seem to care, because Dems lie just as much..

 
 
 
WallyW
6.1.4  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago
They want to keep those abilities to appoint judges into the next four years. 
Most important thing of all.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @6.1.3    3 weeks ago
Dems lie just as much..

Prove it. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.6  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
Your question is worthless. 

So a simple question of how a Trump "lie" has affected you, after you whine relentlessly about how many times Trump "lies", is worthless?

Seems to everyone here you just pick up talking points from liberal handlers and run with them, the hell with the facts.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @6.1.6    3 weeks ago

Even allowing for reruns (something that Trump lies about that he has lied about previously) , he has still lied , to the public, a few thousand times since becoming president. Your "position" on that is "who cares"? 

And you ask me why I call your question worthless. 

Bugsy, have you no shame? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago
It's interesting that you think that someone who has lied to the public thousands of times SINCE HE HAS BEEN IN OFFICE is fit to hold the position.  The idea that Warren would be worse than what Trump is is basically laughable. 

I am honest enough to admit that both of them have a rough history with telling the truth. Since they are both somewhat full of shit, I have to decide how to weigh it. What might be the impact? It’s well and good to be offended by the dissembling of politicians, but generic outrage isn’t very useful.

On Election Day, I have to look at other things, too. It does America no good to elect a less dishonest dictator. Warren’s policy promises are terrible. While a politically split Congress will limit her somewhat, she would not be without some power to accomplish her agenda. 

You claim that your voting choices are all about the quality of person the candidate is. I don’t think I believe you, but either way, you are free to set your own criteria. Other people will have their own criteria. I accept that. You just can’t seem to tolerate the idea that other people in the world will have different criteria than you, weigh factors differently than you, and reach different conclusions than you do. 

A lot of conservatives dont care that Trump is a piece of shit human being

Name one person who believes Trump is a pos human being and doesn’t care. Don’t bother naming me. I don’t fit that criteria. That might shock you. Voting for Trump doesn’t mean all the things you tell yourself it means.

You do a lot of judging of other people who disagree with you and from what I have seen, you are almost always wrong about your judgments, but you don’t want to hear it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.7    3 weeks ago
Your "position" on that is "who cares"?

Bugsy didn’t say “who cares.” You just made that up. And we’re supposed to be outraged because Trump lies?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    3 weeks ago

Bugsy asked me why I would let Trump's 10,000 lies bother me. 

I describe that as "who cares?". 

Anyone who read the comments would see it was not literally his words. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.11  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    3 weeks ago
Since they are both somewhat full of shit, I have to decide how to weigh it.

You people are unbelievable.  A flea and an elephant could both be described as full of shit at some point, but the shit quantity is not equivalent . 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.12  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.8    3 weeks ago

Tacos, you have excused every single thing Trump has done wrong since I saw your name first show up on this forum. As far as I am concerned your ability to accurately assess Trump is barely above zero. 

I have long ago accepted that the majority is at war with trumpism.  You excuse trumpism on a daily basis.  What else is there to say? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.10    3 weeks ago
I describe that as "who cares?".

Yeah, exactly. Rather than take someone at their word, you have to twist what they say so you can demonize them. It’s dishonest. And you complain about Trump. But I guess you’re not president, that makes it ok?

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.12    3 weeks ago
Tacos, you have excused every single thing Trump has done wrong since I saw your name first show up on this forum.

No, you haven’t. That’s either a lie or a delusion. You haven’t seen any such thing. 

I’ll tell you what I have seen, and I have seen it multiple times. Any time I have something to say that’s critical of Trump, you disappear. You have had several chances to acknowledge me disagreeing with him or saying something that you should agree with, but if you did, you might have to stop judging me.

Not that I worry about your judgment. It just ruins conversations. It also perpetuates this anger and frustration you express all the time - emotions you don’t need to feel.

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.15  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.11    3 weeks ago
the shit quantity is not equivalent

Nor is it relevant. If you have two tubs of ice cream you want to eat, I could put a gallon of hard Trump shit in one and I could stir in a half a cup of Warren diarrhea into the other. You still wouldn’t want to eat either one.

However, if that ice cream is the only food available, you might have to make a tough choice about the quality of the poop contamination. If it’s something you can spot easily so you can eat around it, you would probably go for that pot. 

The Warren diarrhea might be smaller in amount, but there’s no avoiding the contamination. It’s less than a year until Election Day. Bon Appetit!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.16  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.13    3 weeks ago

Tacos, he asked me why Trump's 10,000 lies bother me.  I didnt demonize him, I used a phrase "who cares" to summarize his comment to me. 

Do you have a guilty conscience because you support Trump and deep inside you know how ridiculous that is? 

Because you sure like to pick over most things that people say to you about him.  

"And you complain about Trump"

You're damn right I do. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
6.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.16    3 weeks ago
he asked me why Trump's 10,000 lies bother me.

Exactly. And rather than answer the question, you invented a point of view for him.

I didnt demonize him, I used a phrase "who cares" to summarize his comment to me. 

Supposed the rest of us start “summarizing” your content for you instead of responding to what you actually write? It might look something like this:

Do you have a guilty conscience because you support Trump and deep inside you know how ridiculous that is?

So, your position is America sucks and we should just turn it over to money-grubbing special interest groups and communists.

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.18  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.7    3 weeks ago
And you ask me why I call your question worthless. 

So you have not been affected. You just want to whine.

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.19  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.10    3 weeks ago
Bugsy asked me why I would let Trump's 10,000 lies bother me. 

Wrong!!! I asked you which of these "lies" affected you personally.

You deflect because you know you have not been affected. You just hate the President because he is not Hillary. It is you that doesn't care about some stupid "lies".

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.20  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
Your question is worthless.

Why do you always pout when the other person has a point you can't refute?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.21  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.20    2 weeks ago

He asked me if I have been personally effected by Trump's 10,000 lies.  It's a worthless question. If you can't see that, thats your problem. 

Bernie Madoff stealing a billion dollars from people didnt effect me at all. I didnt know any of them and didnt have any money in those funds.  Does that make what he did ok? It is ludicrous. 

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.22  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.21    2 weeks ago
He asked me if I have been personally effected by Trump's 10,000 lies. 

Well, at least you finally got what I asked you correct. Only took you several attempts.

Admit it...you hate Trump not for "lies" but for his name not being Hillary.

It's too obvious.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.23  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.21    2 weeks ago

I see the question went right over your head. I have asked the very same for a couple of years now only to get, basically, crickets. Your inability to give any examples of your personal life being negatively affected says a lot. 

And comparing some lies to what Bernie Madoff did is disingenuous. Mr. Trump's propensity to embellish the truth has no ramifications in your everyday life and you know it...........and they aren't illegal. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.24  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.23    2 weeks ago
I see the question went right over your head. I have asked the very same for a couple of years now only to get, basically, crickets. Your inability to give any examples of your personal life being negatively affected says a lot.  And comparing some lies to what Bernie Madoff did is disingenuous. Mr. Trump's propensity to embellish the truth has no ramifications in your everyday life and you know it...........and they aren't illegal. 

Your type of comments are what get me in trouble with perrie. They are ridiculous, and when I say so I get deleted or eventually suspended.  If I were you I wouldnt go around bragging that Trump's 10,000 lies dont effect people personally, so who cares?  It's absurd man. 

If Trump lies about a program he wants canceled and it gets canceled and people who depend on that program get negatively effected.  

I was just reading this morning that no refugees were being allowed into America last month because of something Trump did. I would bet substantially that Trump lied about something involved in that happening.  

He has lied publicly thousands of times. People dont have top pick through them and extract the ones that may have effected their lives specifically to know it is wrong and makes him unfit to be president of the United States, you just have to have a sense of decency. 

Trump lied about Obama's birth certificate. That effected Obama's reputation. Trump is currently lying about the 2016 DNC server being in Ukraine. He lied about his taxes. 

In fact, if Trump didnt lie so much he's probably be in prison now. And that effects everyone. 

And, please, nothing you say goes over my head. If I were you I'd be embarrassed that

I have asked the very same for a couple of years

because the question is ridiculous. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.25  author  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @6.1.22    2 weeks ago

Do you think that you are a good thinker Bugsy? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.26  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.24    2 weeks ago
I was just reading this morning that no refugees were being allowed into America last month because of something Trump did. I would bet substantially that Trump lied about something involved in that happening. 

What did he do and how does it affect you?

And that you can't answer isn't my problem. All it does is show your angst because he wasn't supposed to win. Sorry JR but you're just going to have to deal with it...........for another year minimum.

Tissue?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.27  r.t..b...  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.23    2 weeks ago
Trump's propensity to embellish the truth has no ramifications in your everyday life

The question was not addressed to me but let me give you an answer if I may.

The actions of this administration, and to a greater extent, the reactions of his advocates in ignoring his 'embellishments' and thus giving them tacit approval, has in fact had ramifications on all our lives. We now find ourselves living in a 'post-truth' age, where objective facts are less important than the emotional appeal in defending and/or promoting personal beliefs and partisan agendas. That is a dangerous way to govern, a dangerous way to enter into dialogue, and ultimately, a very dangerous lesson for our children.

So yes, it has had negative effects on at least this personal life, as the daily barrage of lies, disinformation and dysfunction leaves me thinking we are so much better than this.      Respectfully submitted. 

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.28  katrix  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.21    2 weeks ago
Bernie Madoff stealing a billion dollars from people didnt effect me at all. I didnt know any of them and didnt have any money in those funds.  Does that make what he did ok? It is ludicrous. 

I have to wonder about people who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.29  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  r.t..b... @6.1.27    2 weeks ago

Respectfully accepted. As they say, he who angers you controls you. Perhaps not so much in your case but SOME people revel in being controlled.......to the point that they hang on an anonymous comment board and constantly bitch about something they have no control of...........and THAT and only that pisses them off.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.30  author  JohnRussell  replied to  katrix @6.1.28    2 weeks ago

I'm sure that many of Trump's lies have effected me in a personal way and many other people in a personal way but I'll be damned if I am going to sift through all of them to satisfy an idiotic question. 

The president is not supposed to lie 10,000 times in office.  End of story. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.31  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.26    2 weeks ago

Stop asking me absurd questions or I will be inclined to lock the article. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.32  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.29    2 weeks ago

You piss me off as much as stepping on a piece of gum on a sidewalk pisses me off.  Not a whole lot. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.33  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.29    2 weeks ago

i revel in being controlled.

Here, take the remote, and take me or a spin, and we'll see how that goes for you. 

and oh yea,

as always, respectfully stated, while simultaniously almost unamously ,  hated

is what i luv.

.

also, if you can't see the damage this pos potUS has done, you have a very limited view and loose grasp 

my condolences

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.34  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.25    2 weeks ago
Do you think that you are a good thinker Bugsy? 

Really don't need to be a good "thinker" to point out your bs. Even any standard liberal could do it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.35  author  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @6.1.34    2 weeks ago

You think it is ok for a president to lie 10,000 times as long as people dont feel that the lying "personally" effected them.  That is ridiculous and anyone who says such a thing once, let alone repeatedly, should be completely embarrassed by themselves. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.36  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.21    2 weeks ago
He asked me if I have been personally effected by Trump's 10,000 lies.  It's a worthless question.

It's not.  It speaks to the amount of your hysteria that is warranted vs. how much is all about your emotions.

If you can't see that, thats your problem. 

The problem you have is what I do see that you wish I didn't.

Bernie Madoff stealing a billion dollars from people didnt effect me at all. I didnt know any of them and didnt have any money in those funds.  

You're comparing a federal crime with a legal activity. 

Does that make what he did ok? It is ludicrous.

Well if the threshold for hysteria is "not ok", why aren't you all torqued up about any of the celebrity adultery scandals we hear about?  Why aren't you seeding incessantly about Elon Musk tweeting in violation of US securities laws?  Why, with all of the "not ok" things happening daily in the world are you so utterly fixated on what comes out of Donald Trump's mouth? 

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.37  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.35    2 weeks ago
You think it is ok for a president to lie 10,000 times as long as people dont feel that the lying "personally" effected them. 

Being sane means not really paying attention to sound bites that have zero impact on their lives.

I'm sure if you asked everyone around you if a Trump "lie" personally affected their lives, the sane ones will give you the honest answer of "no", the rest will rant on a little known blog site and post hundreds of articles, without proof, accusing he president of crap he did not do, all in the name of "he is not Hillary".

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.38  bugsy  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.36    2 weeks ago

Amen, brother,,,,amen.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.1.39  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @6.1.38    2 weeks ago

did Jack just so grace before lunch ?

cause i don't get it.

i know the point he attempts to make, but it is pointless.

.

there is, has been, and continues to be one hell of  a lot of damaged by this mental midget defended and elected, by mental midgets that dwarf over the giant mistake they enabled

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.40  Jack_TX  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.39    2 weeks ago
there is, has been, and continues to be one hell of  a lot of damaged by this mental midget

Outline that for us.  How have you personally been damaged?  How have you seen other people damaged?

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.41  bugsy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.39    2 weeks ago

Coherence, my friend, coherence....We have spoken of this several times.

 
 
 
bugsy
6.1.42  bugsy  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.40    2 weeks ago
Outline that for us

The only thing they can come up with is "he lies". Their hatred is so deep they don't recognize the positives he is doing for this country. Some of them still think that if he is impeached and removed (he won't), then Hillary will be installed.

 
 
 
arkpdx
6.1.43  arkpdx  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.1.39    2 weeks ago

Keeping hillary out if the white house was not a mistake but a very fortunate occurance. I for one am proud of those that kept her out

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.44  dennis smith  replied to  bugsy @6.1.18    2 weeks ago

Did you expect anything else from JR? 

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.45  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.24    2 weeks ago

Your type of comments are what get me in trouble with perrie. They are ridiculous, and when I say so I get deleted or eventually suspended. 

You have the option of leaving if you don't like getting deleted or suspended. Beating ones head against the wall only makes matters worse.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.46  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.35    2 weeks ago

Just more wash, rinse, repeat of tin foil hat Dem talking points.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.47  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.43    2 weeks ago
Keeping hillary out if the white house was not a mistake but a very fortunate occurance. I for one am proud of those that kept her out

"Thank goodness, we avoided picking up that soiled pair of underwear Hillary! Ewwww! Disgusting! And all we had to do was collectively eat this warm Trump 'fudge' brownie with corn kernels in it that smells like an outhouse. Sure, we know it full of chaos and corruption, but that's just every day life at the bottom so we've imported it to all you at the top! You're welcome!"...

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
6.1.48  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    2 weeks ago
Warren would be unlikely to be able to pass any of her major policy proposals.

She's also already told us that she won't even start to move on Medicare for All until the third year of her first term.

I think we are seeing her pivot to the sort of candidate who has "public vs. private" positions on the issues.

Not that this makes me dislike her. If Medicare-for-All turns out to be political suicide in the general election I think someone who has laid the groundwork to pivot is smart.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.1.49  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    one week ago

So is your deflection.

 
 
 
Krishna
6.2  Krishna  replied to  Tacos! @6    one week ago
Not to say that Warren couldn’t get the nomination, but there is a significant chance that won’t happen

In the words of a great yogi master:

Prediction is difficult--- especially about the future.

--Yogi Berra

I could be wrong, but my guess would be that:

1. Warren doesn't win the nomination.

2. Unless things change greatly, regardless of who the dem. nominee is, Trump will be re-eelcted (assuming he decides to run for a second term-- which he might not do).

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    3 weeks ago

There are a lot of people I would vote for over Trump. None of them are named Elizabeth Warren.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
7.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Tacos! @7    3 weeks ago

I’d vote for presidential candidate Vermin Supreme who wears a boot for a hat over Warren. 
https://verminsupreme2020.com

512

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
7.1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.1    3 weeks ago

Or John Mcafee over Warren.
https://mcafee2020.com

512

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

Yes, your standards appear, uh, low. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
7.1.3  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.2    3 weeks ago

Keep an eye on Vermin he has wide appeal attracting people like Tacos with his magic fairy dust that can turn people gay. He also has the Dems topped on giveaway programs as he promises to give every American a pony. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1.4  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

Maybe Evan Mcmuffin will run again.

 
 
 
arkpdx
7.1.5  arkpdx  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.2    3 weeks ago

Mine are a bit on the low side,  they just are nit so low that i would even consider voting for Warren.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.1.3    3 weeks ago

You want to try to explain that?

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
7.1.7  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.6    3 weeks ago

Sure if his magic dust works on people it might work on taco shells too and who wouldn't rather have a pony than a Obama phone. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7.1.7    3 weeks ago

Thank you. I honestly didn’t who either of those guys was. I admit I kinda like his “hat.”

 
 
 
Heartland American
7.1.9  Heartland American  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.4    3 weeks ago

I won’t vote for him again...

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

Standards?

What standards?

 
 
 
Krishna
7.1.11  Krishna  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1.4    one week ago

Or even that weird Libertarian guy (what was his name?)

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
7.2  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Tacos! @7    2 weeks ago

Why don't you like her?

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @7.2    2 weeks ago

We disagree on too many issues and even where we might have similar feelings about a topic, her tendency is almost always to force her position through the coercive power of government.

Time and again, it seems to me, she seeks to remove choice and freedom from our society. There seems to be no limit to the money she would spend or the requirements she would put on private businesses or individuals.

Rather than inspire America to greatness, she would compel us all to do as she thinks best. No thanks. I would vote for most other Democratic candidates before I would vote for Warren.

 
 
 
Goodtime Charlie
8  Goodtime Charlie    3 weeks ago

Pocahontas/B jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Goodtime Charlie @8    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_50_smiley_image.gif Buh bye!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Well, so far I count seven right wingers/libertarians, a Randian , and an anarchist, all saying they pick Trump. 

All to be expected. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @9    3 weeks ago

You are the biggest Trumper on the site and you may no even realize it.

It's almost like you are campaigning for him.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @9.1    3 weeks ago

There is no one who responded to this thread (except Paula) who does not promote Trump every day on this site. 

Hardly a representative sample. 

I dont have to look in the mirror and explain to myself why I support a national leader who has lied 10,000 times, but you do. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
9.1.2  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.1    3 weeks ago

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump tweets a thank you in the near future.

You're one of his greatest assets.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
9.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.1    3 weeks ago

Me?

 
 
 
Heartland American
9.1.4  Heartland American  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @9.1.2    3 weeks ago

Indeed!  If only he knew it, he’d stop being things to promote that fact.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
9.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @9.1    2 weeks ago

John has switched my vote over to Trump.

I was wrong to vote for whomever I thought was the best candidate regardless of party. John has proven to me that voting for the lesser of two evils is the only option. 

John should be on the Trump campaign pay roll.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @9    3 weeks ago
All to be expected. 

You made judgments of all commenters you disagreed with and then set about labeling them. Sadly, all to be expected. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @9.2    3 weeks ago

Judgements? lol.  The positions of all of you are well known. I just counted them. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
9.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.1    3 weeks ago
The positions of all of you are well known.

Only in your imagination.

 
 
 
Krishna
9.3  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @9    one week ago
Well, so far I count seven right wingers/libertarians, a Randian , and an anarchist, all saying they pick Trump. 

Kind of weird about Libertarians supporting Trump-- considering he keeps sending more troops abroad, refuses to end the War in Afghanistan, wants higher gov't spending (for defense)and want to increase the size and power of the government by expanding its size and power into a new area (regulting morality-- banning an individuals right to make their own healthcare decisions including the right to have an abortion being decided by the gov't not by the individual, etc.

 
 
 
Krishna
9.3.1  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @9.3    one week ago
sending more troops abroad

This isn't the first time:our Neo-con president has want to send more of our kids to die overseas. A "far left" Socialist media outlet reports:

Trump Administration Considers 14,000 More Troops for Mideast

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration is considering a significant expansion of the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East to counter Iran, including dozens more ships, other military hardware and as many as 14,000 additional troops, U.S. officials said.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
10  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    3 weeks ago

John I'm surprised you think Elizabeth Warren will win the primary. She's sinking in the totem polls.

Mayor Pete will likely win. He's the most skilled pole vaulter.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @10    3 weeks ago

 It is a hypothetical question to see if people who cant stand Trump would vote for him under some circumstance. 

Thus the opinion of those who have answered thus far is pretty much immaterial. 

Maybe Newstalkers doesnt get the question.  If no one wants to play I'll probably delete it later. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
10.1.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    3 weeks ago

Well that's ok, I found the Koala article much more stimulating anyway.

 
 
 
Krishna
10.1.2  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    one week ago

It is a hypothetical question to see if people who cant stand Trump would vote for him under some circumstance. 

Thus the opinion of those who have answered thus far is pretty much immaterial. 

Maybe Newstalkers doesnt get the question.  If no one wants to play I'll probably delete it later.

Here's a similarly relevant and extremely important question for you John:

Assuming you were in jail and given a choice-- you could choose to die either by hanging or firing squad. Which would you choose?

Think about it carefully-- its worth the time to be sure you'd choose wisely in this situation!

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.2  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @10    3 weeks ago

Wit.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.2.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TᵢG @10.2    2 weeks ago

Wit.

out

 
 
 
Krishna
10.3  Krishna  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @10    one week ago
ohn I'm surprised you think Elizabeth Warren will win the primary. She's sinking in the totem polls. Mayor Pete will likely win. He's the most skilled pole vaulter.

Pete is not Polish-- he is a member of two distinct ethnic groups (His father is from Malta of all places-- but Pete himself is also gay). 

Don't be impressed by my knowledge of these crucial facts-- I didn't actaully know these things, I had to google to get the information :-(

 
 
 
katrix
11  katrix    2 weeks ago

I can't see Warren getting the nomination. She's too far left for most independents, including myself.

But if she somehow did - I'd have to vote for her over Trump. I could simply never vote for this psychopathic megalomaniac who thinks he's above the law. Especially since his supporters refuse to do their jobs and provide oversight.

I don't understand why so many Republicans don't care at all about the ethics or honesty or integrity of our President. Even if I supported a person's policies for the most part, I couldn't vote for someone so morally and intellectually bankrupt - but these people don't seem care at all about any of those things. As long as they're "making liberal heads explode" they apparently don't give a crap what Trump does or says, or what this is doing to our reputation in the world.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  katrix @11    2 weeks ago

Your comments about Trump and his supporters are of course 100% correct. 

With the filibuster rule in effect in the Senate, Warren would be unable to pass any "radical" legislation. Her term would be more of a placeholder until the composition of the Senate changed.  (If it ever does). 

We should have universal health care along the lines of medicare for all. All of the other countries in the developed world have a form of universal health care and it doesnt seem to drag them into an abyss. No one should have to declare bankruptcy because they get sick . She is also correct about the need to tax extreme wealth. The society does not need all sorts of billionaires. 

However, because of the need to get rid of Trump , Warren's big ideas will have to wait until they gain more of a consensus. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
11.1.1  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    2 weeks ago

Countries with health care for all also have all sorts of billionaires. Why shouldn't that be allowed in the US? 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
11.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    2 weeks ago
No one should have to declare bankruptcy because they get sick .

Nobody declares bankruptcy because they get sick.

They declare bankruptcy because they didn't plan for the eventuality.

 
 
 
MUVA
11.1.3  MUVA  replied to  dennis smith @11.1.1    2 weeks ago

The thing that some American liberal's don't understand or will not admit is in Europe everyone pays higher taxes even the low earners. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    2 weeks ago
th the filibuster rule in effect in the Senate, Warren would be unable to pass any "radical" legislation

But that's part of the problem and why a Warren Presidency is so risky.  Democrats keep making noise about repealing the filibuster rule in the Senate. If they get 50 Senators and a President, there's a good chance the rule is discarded.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
11.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  MUVA @11.1.3    2 weeks ago
nderstand or will not admit is in Europe everyone pays higher taxes even the low earners

100% this.  The "rich" can't fund the progressive welfare state. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
11.1.6  dennis smith  replied to  MUVA @11.1.3    2 weeks ago

Yep

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.2  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @11    2 weeks ago
But if she somehow did - I'd have to vote for her over Trump.

So ....you'd vote for someone that wants to "Bankrupt" the country so everyone "Has", over someone that hasn't hurt this country ….One Time ?

By the way …… "Hurt Feelings" don't count as "Hurting" the country !

 
 
 
Krishna
11.3  Krishna  replied to  katrix @11    one week ago
I don't understand why so many Republicans don't care at all about the ethics or honesty or integrity of our President

But they do care-- its just that they see his cionstant lying and dishionesty as a plus-- which they believe make the U.S. more powerful!

 
 
 
Tessylo
12  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

Feelings have nothing to do with it.  

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
13  Gulliver-Swift    2 weeks ago

I think Bernie is a safer bet for the general election than Warren, but I'm not about to piss on any of the candidates who are running to unseat Trump. Bringing a sense of civility back to American politics begins with Democrats treating other Democrats well. And in the general election it would serve Democrats well to not give into the temptation to characterize Trump supporters as "deplorables." 

Biden concerns me that he is not up to the task of defeating Trump or even running the nation if he actually wins. But if we have learned anything watching the government continue to function with Trump in the WH, it should be that the WH will be just fine with Biden in it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @13    2 weeks ago

First of all, good to see you again Gulliver.   

I would like to see Bloomberg somehow get the nomination.   Then we have an individual who not only has a good chance to displace Trump, but who brings competence and dignity to the office of PotUS.

Biden would be presidential but I am not thrilled by any other attributes he offers.    Warren or Sanders are too left (and have unrealistic plans) to be effective (and I doubt either could survive the general election).    Mayor Pete, et. al. are at best running mates.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
13.1.1  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  TᵢG @13.1    2 weeks ago

I personally don't think Bloomberg is right for America but he would certainly be a vast improvement over Trump. And he does have his redeeming qualities. Speaking as a New Yorker, I don't like how the city changed under his watch. He's particularly unconcerned with income inequality and the lack of affordable housing. Don't expect these national trends to get any help from him. But like I said, he has his redeeming qualities too. I wouldn't write him off. If he can get to the convention with a portfolio of delegates and make it to the second round of convention voting, I can think of 50 billion reasons why he might get the top spot on the ticket.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
13.1.2  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  TᵢG @13.1    2 weeks ago
First of all, good to see you again Gulliver.   

It's good to see you too. Glad to see some familiar handles here from Newsvine. I kind of miss that place (before that last upgrade).

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @13.1.1    2 weeks ago

We have to pick from what we have.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
13.1.4  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  TᵢG @13.1.3    2 weeks ago
We have to pick from what we have.

We do, which is why I have promised myself to not be too disparaging of any of the Democratic choices. None is perfect and they all have a flaw which could do them in.

I keep an eye on the polls which give clues as to who is viable in the general election.

 
 
 
Split Personality
13.2  Split Personality  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @13    2 weeks ago

Likewise if Warren were, in some alternate universe, elected, she would not get any of her policies passed in anything close to their current versions.

And welcome 'back" to the show that never ends GS...

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
13.2.1  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Split Personality @13.2    2 weeks ago
Likewise if Warren were, in some alternate universe, elected, she would not get any of her policies passed in anything close to their current versions.

Even as a Sanders supporter (but not without a reservation here or there) I have to view his proposals as opening positions in  process that will ultimately dilute them.

What he has going for him is that he comes across as a politician who means what he says. Give me one of those and we can take the journey together.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
13.2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @13.2.1    2 weeks ago
What he has going for him is that he comes across as a politician who means what he says.

Sanders?  He cannot possibly be that bad at math.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
13.2.3  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Jack_TX @13.2.2    one week ago
He cannot possibly be that bad at math.

It's not like he is telling us M4A won't involve a tax increase.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
13.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @13.2.3    one week ago
It's not like he is telling us M4A won't involve a tax increase.

He's telling us it's a small tax increase.  Which is unbelievably ridiculous.  He's also telling us other people will pay it, which is also ridiculous.

M4A is going to cost $4trillion/yr total.  We currently spend about $1.1 trillion/yr on healthcare, so we're going to need an additional $2.9 trillion. 

The total tax receipts of the US Government in 2018 were about $3.3 trillion.  So you're basically looking for an 87% increase in revenue.

Bernie pretends US corporations will pay most of that, which we all know is a massive lie.  US employers are not going to sit still for a 1000% tax increase.  

Bernie supporters like M4A for two main reasons:  it's simple enough for them to understand and they love the idea of somebody else paying their bills.   Bernie is quite happy to sell that snake oil for as long as people continue to be terrible at math.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
13.2.5  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Jack_TX @13.2.4    one week ago

Personally, I am more of an incrementalist than a rip the bandage off all at once and switch us over to M4A type of guy.

But if you are going to talk arithmetic, we pay for more per person in this country, cover fewer people and have poorer outcomes than the rest of the developed world. There is enough money being spent in this country to provide adequate healthcare for every last American but our system is a predatory scam.

If you want to know why the system is so bad at delivering heathcare, cast a glance at your heart surgeon's yacht.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
13.2.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @13.2.5    one week ago
But if you are going to talk arithmetic, we pay for more per person in this country, cover fewer people and have poorer outcomes than the rest of the developed world.

The idea that M4A fixes that is utter and complete lunacy.

It's like saying "Ohio State wears red jerseys, if WE wear red jerseys we'll be as good as they are".

There is enough money being spent in this country to provide adequate healthcare for every last American but our system is a predatory scam.

Nearly 1/3 of that expenditure is already funneled through government plans.  If single payer were actually going to produce better outcomes for less money, we'd see people on government plans with better outcomes and lower costs.  But we don't.  In fact they have much worse outcomes than the population at large and they cost more.

If you want to know why the system is so bad at delivering heathcare, cast a glance at your heart surgeon's yacht.

Exactly.   For example......

US Medicare pays American physicians more than double what Canadian Medicare pays Canadian physicians for the same procedures.

NHS in England covers Remicade infusions for u/c and Crohn's patients.  Their cost on that is about $1200 GBP ($1575 USD) per year.  Medicare pays $200 per HOUR for infusions, plus the cost of the drug, which is about $45,000/yr for most patients.

The problem is not who processes the claims.  It's how much we pay the providers.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
13.2.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @13.2.6    one week ago

The problem is not who processes the claims.  It's how much we pay the providers.

are you insure...?

 
 
 
Tacos!
13.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @13.2.6    one week ago
The problem is not who processes the claims.  It's how much we pay the providers.

This is exactly it. I want to go postal watching candidates argue about who should pay for this overpriced system. All of their arguments about vouchers and Medicare and Obamacare, etc ad nauseam completely ignore the fact that procedures, services, and medicine in the U.S. are orders of magnitude more expensive than the same procedures, services, and medicine in other countries.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
13.2.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @13.2.8    one week ago

When you allow corporations to be people too,

when the amount donated outweighs the concern for the constituent

that is supposedly who they are supposed to represent, is it really what our founders meant...?

When the lobbiest bought candidate,  bought by monetary "contributions", also called bribes, gets to decide what uis best, for so few, and only due, to a system they created to bypass any with heart, we have a country of re pop and ma Tarts, not sweet and low, as their bottom line is a predicted by a prophet we shouldn't believe in,

yet when their A Greed upon ore not is the irony of what is not is the driving force,

due to ignorance

of course, ours is difficult to right             or correct          or not           my striped post is a spot

on

 
 
 
Tacos!
13.2.10  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @13.2.9    one week ago
When the lobbiest bought candidate,  bought by monetary "contributions", also called bribes, gets to decide what uis best

Do we? I mean for real, do we? I get why people would be concerned about that, for sure. But what's the reality in actual practice? And when we spot genuine favoritism, bribes in actions, etc., we always respond with investigations, prosecutions, and so on, don't we? I don't think it serves us to accuse and be paranoid about conflicts of interest, double dealing, and corruption unless it's actually happening.

What do we say about lobbyists and corporate contributors when those sources represent the poor or the environment? i.e. constituencies and issues that matter but aren't good at generating income to donate to politicians on their own? The rich will always find a way to try to grease politicians. Poor people with medical issues need lobbyists and concerned or generous corporations to fight for them.

So back to the issue, if the providers are getting special treatment, we don't need to shut down their contributions. We need to prosecute the corrupt people and get the corrupt politicians out of office.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
13.2.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @13.2.10    one week ago

So back to the issue, if the providers are getting special treatment, we don't need to shut down their contributions. We need to prosecute the corrupt people and get the corrupt politicians out of office.

The laws are written. To change them takes votes from pols already bought

 
 
 
Jack_TX
13.2.12  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @13.2.8    one week ago
are orders of magnitude more expensive

See....you understand the phrase "orders of magnitude".

Bernie supporters do not.  They sorta heard that magnitude has to do with earthquakes.  Maybe.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
13.2.13  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @13.2.12    one week ago

Magna magma  attitudes 

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
13.2.14  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Jack_TX @13.2.6    one week ago
The idea that M4A fixes that is utter and complete lunacy.

I said I was more of an incrementalist.

The problem is not who processes the claims.  It's how much we pay the providers.

I think this might be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
13.2.15  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  igknorantzrulz @13.2.9    6 days ago
when the amount donated outweighs the concern for the constituent that is supposedly who they are supposed to represent, is it really what our founders meant...?

just curious, how do you feel about unions doing the same thing?

ive got friends in unions... (plumbers and electricians), their dues are donated to the left and it pisses them off to no end. but nothing they can do about it.

should we end donations to political parties from corporations and unions? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
13.2.16  igknorantzrulz  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @13.2.15    6 days ago

should we end donations to political parties from corporations and unions? 

 yes

ALL MONEY

In Britain, i'm pretty sure the candidates all get equal air time and the campaign season is limited to, i think, 6 months. To me, that sounds reasonable.

I know many in the trades as well, and many voted for Trump, a known Union dismantler, and screwer over of ( Atlantic City for example )

Influence is Bought, and we ALL lose from it.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
13.2.17  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  igknorantzrulz @13.2.16    5 days ago
ALL MONEY

I'm down with that. but we have to include lobbyists and such as well.

"remove all money from politics"   (  I said that over 30yrs ago. )

I'm still an old school liberal.  today's left is a whole nother animal.

Cheers :)

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
13.2.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @13.2.17    5 days ago
I'm down with that. but we have to include lobbyists and such as well.

allocate X amount of dollars for each and every candidate, and thats it

best arguments/view points put forth during X amount of debates

Solve most of this countries problems, imho

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Snuffy
bugsy
Just Jim NC TttH
Kavika
Wishful_thinkin
Gordy327
Ozzwald
Sunshine
Ronin2
SteevieGee

Freefaller
Texan1211


46 visitors