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.
I'll be voting for Bloomberg.
There’s a good chance I would too. It’s still a little bit early, though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I respect that.
I don't think he would be able to get much done on that front, though.
🤣
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
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! .
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.
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.
I’m going to go to the store to buy a super big gulp (diet of course) now!
Pot meet kettle. They just described the left and Democratic party to a T.
Nope.
That choice is only necessary if Warren wins the nomination.
(Only time will tell but it seems unlikely at this point)
Trump. He's more honest.
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.
[deleted]
So this 'president' and his administration are above the law and not subject to oversight?
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.
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.
Well-- at least you have a great sense of humour!
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.
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.
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.
Your question is worthless.
Prove it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Bugsy didn’t say “who cares.” You just made that up. And we’re supposed to be outraged because Trump lies?
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.
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 .
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?
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?
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.
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!
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.
You're damn right I do.
Exactly. And rather than answer the question, you invented a point of view for him.
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:
So, your position is America sucks and we should just turn it over to money-grubbing special interest groups and communists.
So you have not been affected. You just want to whine.
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".
Why do you always pout when the other person has a point you can't refute?
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.
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.
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
because the question is ridiculous.
Do you think that you are a good thinker Bugsy?
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?
I have to wonder about people who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
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.
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.
Stop asking me absurd questions or I will be inclined to lock the article.
You piss me off as much as stepping on a piece of gum on a sidewalk pisses me off. Not a whole lot.
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
Really don't need to be a good "thinker" to point out your bs. Even any standard liberal could do it.
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.
It's not. It speaks to the amount of your hysteria that is warranted vs. how much is all about your emotions.
The problem you have is what I do see that you wish I didn't.
You're comparing a federal crime with a legal activity.
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?
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".
Amen, brother,,,,amen.
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
Outline that for us. How have you personally been damaged? How have you seen other people damaged?
Coherence, my friend, coherence....We have spoken of this several times.
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.
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!"...
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.
So is your deflection.
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).
There are a lot of people I would vote for over Trump. None of them are named Elizabeth Warren.
I’d vote for presidential candidate Vermin Supreme who wears a boot for a hat over Warren.
Or John Mcafee over Warren.
Yes, your standards appear, uh, low.
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.
Mine are a bit on the low side, they just are nit so low that i would even consider voting for Warren.
You want to try to explain that?
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.
Thank you. I honestly didn’t who either of those guys was. I admit I kinda like his “hat.”
I won’t vote for him again...
Standards?
What standards?
Or even that weird Libertarian guy (what was his name?)
Why don't you like her?
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.
Well, so far I count seven right wingers/libertarians, a Randian , and an anarchist, all saying they pick Trump.
All to be expected.
You made judgments of all commenters you disagreed with and then set about labeling them. Sadly, all to be expected.
Judgements? lol. The positions of all of you are well known. I just counted them.
Only in your imagination.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody declares bankruptcy because they get sick.
They declare bankruptcy because they didn't plan for the eventuality.
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.
100% this. The "rich" can't fund the progressive welfare state.
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 !
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!
Feelings have nothing to do with it.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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...
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.
Sanders? He cannot possibly be that bad at math.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
are you insure...?
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.
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
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.
The laws are written. To change them takes votes from pols already bought
See....you understand the phrase "orders of magnitude".
Bernie supporters do not. They sorta heard that magnitude has to do with earthquakes. Maybe.
Magna magma attitudes
I said I was more of an incrementalist.
I think this might be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
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?
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.
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
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