Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Putin's Impeachable Puppet vs The Rise of BootyWalker & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I'm pretty sure that Medicare operates on a much lower overhead% than the private insurance industry does, though.  Like, less than half.  Might be an exception to that oft-stated bit of "everybody knows".  

 

 

I think this is true, but things change when you scale them way the hell up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

 

This is what they should focus on and this is actually what resulted in the massive midterm victory for Dems. You're not going to convince republicans, even never trumpers to vote Dem. Forget them. Obama brought out voters. The progressive policies, the anti-trump sentiment and the grassroots work efforts brought out voters in the midterms. that's the plan. 

 

 

These are all popular winners except for gun control. It would impact messaging too much imo and not worth running with it on the platform. 

 

Medicare for all

70% tax rate on the rich as well as estate/wealth tax

climate change/green new deal

legalize marijuana

 

Those are winners. Get those implemented and watch the quality of life and happiness of americans improve. That makes passing something like gun control easier down the road. Also, passing these especially medicare for all and mj is a red ribbon gold star sticker that stays attached to the Dem party forever. They can't go back and take that away from people, it would be political suicide and it's something that would stay with Dems throughout history much like civil rights has. 

 

Gun control is a winner too.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

 

image.png.e3326515b5ffd970d348cf44ddef9d13.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

He doesn't want to lose in the primary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#NeverTrumpExceptTheTwoElectionsHeIsRunningIn

 

And therein lies the myth that the Dems could run a moderate an win over a significant amount of the GOP.  I bet the guy would would say the same thing about Biden.   Here is the other thing, whoever would possibly beat Trump is only guaranteed 1 term of 4 years.  If you don't think you could handle a moderate Democrat over Trump for a single term before the GOP hopefully gets their act together?  Don't give me your #NeverTrump BS anymore. 

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what Kamala and Bernie would do to Colorado to. Improve things and stuff. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, clietas said:

I know what Kamala and Bernie would do to Colorado to. Improve things and stuff. 

 

It's that stuff that keeps 'em awake at night....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Gun control is a winner too.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

 

No, it's not.  

 

Because while a lot of people favor more gun control, they won't change their vote because of it.  They'll say they support it, on a public opinion poll, but it won;t change their vote in the ballot booth.  

 

Whereas there's a bunch of people who will change their vote, because they oppose it.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Gun control is a winner too.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

 

image.png.e3326515b5ffd970d348cf44ddef9d13.png

 

 

it's not if gun control is a winner it is what is the actual policy being proposed.  If you make gun control a platform item but are associated with extreme restrictions (ie not being allowed to transport it legally - New York?). It becomes can become a loser. Same with your other any policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hersh said:

He doesn't want to lose in the primary. 

And in doing so he'll just be another Dean Heller. The D presidential nominee probably gets over 50% of the vote there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nonniey said:

it's not if gun control is a winner it is what is the actual policy being proposed.  If you make gun control a platform item but are associated with extreme restrictions (ie not being allowed to transport it legally - New York?). It becomes can become a loser. Same with your other any policy. 

 

Right.  But in the context of the 2020 Presidential Election (i.e., the thread topic), what will be interesting is that every candidate will fall somewhere on the spectrum between doing nothing and doing something extreme ... for every topic.  

 

Specific to gun control, doing nothing is a losing position.  In the context of the Democratic primary, I bet you can get pretty close to BAN ALL GUNS and it not be a loser.  In the general election, it will be somewhere in the middle.  

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

No, it's not.  

 

Because while a lot of people favor more gun control, they won't change their vote because of it.  They'll say they support it, on a public opinion poll, but it won;t change their vote in the ballot booth.  

 

Whereas there's a bunch of people who will change their vote, because they oppose it.  

 

 

Do you have any evidence of this position?  I think that, if a Democratic candidate's position was, "I will not change the gun laws" that person will not win.  

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I think that, if a Democratic candidate's position was, "I will not change the gun laws" that person will not win.

 

Lord knows, we've seen lots of Democrats get elected who don't actually change gun laws.  Not sure whether they promised to do so, before they got elected or not.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be mad if a candidate for President was just honest about an issue like guns and say, "Look, this is what I believe, but I am not a king, if you agree with me, do your part to get like-minded individuals into the legislative branch so we can make this a reality" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

#NeverTrumpExceptTheTwoElectionsHeIsRunningIn

 

And therein lies the myth that the Dems could run a moderate an win over a significant amount of the GOP.  I bet the guy would would say the same thing about Biden.   Here is the other thing, whoever would possibly beat Trump is only guaranteed 1 term of 4 years.  If you don't think you could handle a moderate Democrat over Trump for a single term before the GOP hopefully gets their act together?  Don't give me your #NeverTrump BS anymore. 

Who is this directed at?  I think most of the non-Dems here have said they would vote Dem if they are moderate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Who is this directed at?  I think most of the non-Dems here have said they would vote Dem if they are moderate.

 

It was a knee-jerk reaction to the tweet from the Colorado Gov saying he had to support Trump due to what Kamala Harris would "do to Colorado"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that is rubbing me the wrong way about Schultz's possible running as an (I):

 

1) He claims to be a life-long Democrat, but voting records show he doesn't really vote much at all

 

2) He says the party has gone too far left, but his only further comment is to name some tax proposals by a couple Democrats. It isn't like the 70% marginal rate is the official stance of the DNC.  I imagine there will be a candidate or two or more who simply would want to rescind Trump's tax cuts.

 

3) I haven't heard much from him about what he is actually in favor of.  He said he doesn't like Trump, and also that the Democrats have moved too far left.  So why has been mum on what his actual policy positions are

 

If I was interviewing him, I would first want to get more details on what he thinks the tax policy should be.  We know he is not a fan of the 70% thing, but right now I consider that a pie in the sky suggestion anyway.  I would ask him about the Trump tax cuts themselves, cite the many articles showing that they failed in just about everything they were promising.  Then follow-up that question by asking if rescinding the Trump cuts and doing nothing else on taxes would be "too left" for him.

 

It sounds like to me he is running as an (I) because he knows the GOP is not a popular national brand at the moment, but by calling himself a life-long Democrat that left the party, he thinks he can draw from both sides.  It won't work, it never does, but  he sure as hell can draw enough to play spoiler in a close election.

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Gun control is a winner too.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

 

image.png.e3326515b5ffd970d348cf44ddef9d13.png

 

 

 

Its funny you posted this poll as support for gun control being a “winner”

 

Because I basically used this exact poll to show that it’s a complete loser 

 

 

On 5/31/2018 at 7:43 PM, tshile said:

I’ve posted something similar in the past. 

 

You have to think about what the divide is on the issue then look at the numbers. Compare general statements to specific ones. 

 

56% favorbanning ar-15’s effective to prevent mass school shootings. 48% favor arming teachers 

 

meanwhile 47% think arming teachers would be effective in some level and 64% think banning ar-15’s would be effective. 

 

So someone is for something they don’t think is effective and a lot of someones are not for something they do think is effective. 

 

Also how is training police to better respond to active shooter supposed to prevent active shootings? 90% think it will be effective. It doesn’t even sound like a logical question....

 

Only 46% are dissatisfied with current gun laws and want more strict gun laws. Not even half. 

 

71% against a handgun ban

 

The ideas that poll high enough to indicate broad support from both sides (which in this case means most dems and a good chunk of republicans, since most dems favor gun control to begin with, which I feel like should be 60% minimum, and would suggest more like 70%) on mass shooting are the ideas that are about things other than controlling guns or ammo, with the exception of background checks. 

 

For general gun control it’s about registering and background checks. 

 

More are against banning assault weapons than for (although it’s only by 1%)

 

with the the exception of background checks I don’t see broad support for changing anything soon. 

 

 

 

And while background checks gets broad support, they don’t specify what

 

start polling in what items in a background check should and shouldn’t block the purchase of a gun and you’ll see that broad support vanish. 

 

 

 

There was a whole discussion on it here https://es.redskins.com/topic/393762-the-gun-control-debate-thread-say-hello-to-my-little-thread/?page=226

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Its funny you posted this poll as support for gun control being a “winner”

 

Because I basically used this exact poll to show that it’s a complete loser 

 

There was a whole discussion on it here https://es.redskins.com/topic/393762-the-gun-control-debate-thread-say-hello-to-my-little-thread/?page=226

 

 

 

Not really sure what to say, but if you looked at that poll and came away with "Only 46% are dissatisfied with current gun laws and want more strict gun laws. Not even half. " then you read the poll wrong.  

 

Edit:  Your discussion happened in 2015, so you may have been right at that time.  Since then, there have been over 1000 mass shootings and several infamous massacres. 

 

image.png.e3326515b5ffd970d348cf44ddef9d13.png

 

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, visionary said:
 

🤔

 

Classic Tucker Carlson, instead of being honest about what the situation is, he turned it into a "Doesn't he have a right to run?" issue, as if anyone was ever claimed he doesn't have the right to run for the office.

 

Interesting that he doesn't have anyone on talking about Kaisich's right to run.

 

The issue isn't 3rd party candidates.  The issue is the system itself, which is not conducive to 3rd party candidates.  If Tucker wanted an actual discussion on this, he would be bringing on experts in electoral systems and debate the merits of changing the "winner take all" system of our elections.   That is what responsible media would do as a way to tackle the subject.

 

Tucker knows damn well that if Schultz runs, there is a likely scenario that once again the Dem will still win the popular vote, but lose the election.  (That could happen even if Schultz doesn't run of course, but denying that a Schultz run would increase those chances, is being dishonest). 

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think Tucker has ever tried to have an honest conversation on his show. Now, that may not be fair as I have never watched a full show, just the really bad bits that make it to youtube on MSNBC. But even he calls his show entertainment and not news when confronted about it. So its not him. Hes just taking advantage of the stupids that watch him. Making money. The problem is that he is allowed to be on a channel that calls itself a news network. He should be on comedy central. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An egomaniac billionaire running after Trump isn’t going to play well. I think there is a lot of hyper ventilation over Schultz. The people who will vote for him were never going to vote Democrat. 

 

The same honestly goes for Jill Stein. 

 

If you vote for anyone but the Democrat in the coming election, you’ve taken the position that Donald Trump as the US President is a tolerable event, despite the erosion of institutions, decency and norms. 

 

The 2020 election has two options: help to re-elect a clearly insane person or vote to return decency to our politics by picking the party that still wants a well functioning government.

 

The irony of non-Trump conservatives voting third party is that it will only embolden the GOP to become even more Trumpy. A Democrat isn’t going to run on your conservative platform, but a victory for liberals will ensure that your party re-evaluates what a cesspool or terrible people it has become. Your wasted third party vote will accomplish absolutely nothing, just like it accomplished nothing in 2016. You can scream at the top of your lungs that third parties matter or that they should matter. Decades of political science research tells us that they don’t and likely never will unless we adopt Maine-style ranked choice voting. 

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Your wasted third party vote will accomplish absolutely nothing, just like it accomplished nothing in 2016

Let's say hypothetically that Kasich runs as an independent.  That would probably split the GOP enough to cause a Dem win and send a message to them that they have gone too far Trumpy.

 

Would you support a 3rd party vote in that scenario?  (Asking if you would agree with people voting that way, not if you personally would. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.