Rdskns2000

Presidential Election :11/3/2020- Trump the Impeached vs Superplanner Lizzie & some other Dems

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Dems lack of support for Hillary?  They GIFTED her the nomination.  

I wasn't a Dem but one of the main reasons I didn't vote for Hillary (voted 3rd party) was because of the way she was gifted the nomination.  One, I felt like she hadn't really been challenged policy discussion wise.  Two, it felt to me like more of the same old DC insider games that I hate so much.  Now I will admit that I thought Hillary would comfortably win the elections so it made my protest vote easier.  I don't know if I would change it in hindsight but I would definetly give it a lot more thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I wasn't a Dem but one of the main reasons I didn't vote for Hillary (voted 3rd party) was because of the way she was gifted the nomination.  One, I felt like she hadn't really been challenged policy discussion wise.  Two, it felt to me like more of the same old DC insider games that I hate so much.  Now I will admit that I thought Hillary would comfortably win the elections so it made my protest vote easier.  I don't know if I would change it in hindsight but I would definetly give it a lot more thought.

 

This remains a contentious issue for entirely valid reasons, and so many talk without listening that we have nothing but noise anymore.

 

There's enough blame to go around, MORE than enough and I spend a lot of air deriding the Dems as much as I enjoy excoriating Trumpies, but at the end of the day I keep getting called back to Charley Reese's column about it. If you aren't familiar with it here it is (note the date), the names change but the song remains the same...........

 

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1984-02-03/news/os-ed-charley-reese-545-people-1984-073111_1_tax-code-president-vetoes-con-game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

 

This remains a contentious issue for entirely valid reasons, and so many talk without listening that we have nothing but noise anymore.

 

There's enough blame to go around, MORE than enough and I spend a lot of air deriding the Dems as much as I enjoy excoriating Trumpies, but at the end of the day I keep getting called back to Charley Reese's column about it. If you aren't familiar with it here it is (note the date), the names change but the song remains the same...........

 

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1984-02-03/news/os-ed-charley-reese-545-people-1984-073111_1_tax-code-president-vetoes-con-game

It is an interesting article though I'm pretty sure I have read it or something very similar before.  I have often argued a similar point.  Using two current hot button topics, I'm not sure how much the collective of politicians want to fix immigration or gun control.  Whatever their position is on it, if they got it passed they would lose that topic to run on.  I'm not saying they consiously don't fix things but it's my guess as part of the reason nothing really happens.  Like the article said, if both parties are against deficits, why do we have deficits?  Because it gives them something to campaign on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Springfield said:

Not that I think she should run, but I have no idea where else to post this thought:

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the Mother****in TRUTH.  She posts on twitter, the most profound **** yous to republican and it really steams my jimmies.

 

If she can get her facts straight on democratic socialism, she'd have my vote down the road.  Have to see how she governs, lotta raw potential 

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

If she can get her facts straight on democratic socialism, she'd have my vote down the road.  Have to see how she governs, lotta raw potential 

 

Well for somebody that isn't even sworn in yet she's doing a helluva job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Springfield said:

Not that I think she should run, but I have no idea where else to post this thought:

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the Mother****in TRUTH.  She posts on twitter, the most profound **** yous to republican and it really steams my jimmies.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-becomes-the-sarah-palin-of-the-left/

 

The Sarah Palin of the left. That's pretty funny. 

 

She's a bit of a dunce but I like some things she says. I admit I might vote for a democratic socialist one day, something I thought I'd never say. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LD0506 said:

 

Well for somebody that isn't even sworn in yet she's doing a helluva job

Talking, all she's doing is talking so far.  She needs to pass or lead bills and make sure her being as over opinionated as she is doesnt keep her from compromising.  Her feelings in capitalism concern me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

For the 40th time:

 

Same amount of Sanders supporters stayed home or voted Trump/3rd party as as every other major election in this country going back at least 2 decades. (primary voters of losing candidates) The majority of these people were not Democrats. (like myself) 

 

More Cruz/Rubio/Kasich supporters voted for Hillary Clinton then Sanders supporters voted for Trump.

 

More Hillary Clinton PUMAs voted for John McCain, then Sanders voters went Trump. 

 

 

People in this country are ****ing stupid. You're focusing on the 10% that is even dumber then the average American. 

 

That was just one example. The point is just that a lot of Dems weren’t enthusiastic about Hilary which was the original point of her not being supported. Turnout was low for her for several different reasons 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, FanboyOf91 said:

Probably a good thing.

 

Something both sides can agree on. 

 

Which I'm not rejecting. Actually getting some things done might be a great thing. 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


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

 

That was just one example. The point is just that a lot of Dems weren’t enthusiastic about Hilary which was the original point of her not being supported. Turnout was low for her for several different reasons 

 

Except it wasn't.  

 

Popular vote differences in US election

image.png.a5aa8544fd41a9579aeafd0640c58132.png

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, grego said:

 

Those are overall numbers. As a percentage (accounting, I'm assuming, for population growth) of eligible voters, turnout was down. 

 

https://www-m.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2F

 

That article is based on early results (it says "While election officials are still tabulating ballots ...") and says the number of votes cast will be 126 million, or 55%.

 

Post election results show 139 million votes, or around 60%.  

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/324206-new-report-finds-that-voter-turnout-in-2016-topped-2012

 

Quote

About 139 million Americans, or 60.2 percent of the voting-eligible population, cast a ballot in November’s elections, according to data compiled by the U.S. Elections Project. That compares with 58.6 percent of eligible voters who turned out in 2012, but it’s below the 62.2 percent who turned out to help elect Obama for the first time in 2008.

 

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html

 

Quote

In 2016, 61.4 percent of the citizen voting-age population reported voting, a number not statistically different from the 61.8 percent who reported voting in 2012.

 

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's weird. Articles written shortly after election day talk about poor voter turnout. Where did the additional votes come from? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, grego said:

That's weird. Articles written shortly after election day talk about poor voter turnout. Where did the additional votes come from? 

 

Provisional and absentee ballots, and California takes a long time to count votes because there are so many. 

Share this post


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

That's weird. Articles written shortly after election day talk about poor voter turnout. Where did the additional votes come from? 

 

Illegal immigrants voting in California. :) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Illegal immigrants voting in California. :) 

 

Voting repeatedly with different hats....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, volsmet said:

 

 

Ted Lieu dominates twitter.

 

So I had never even heard the name Ted Lieu until TODAY.  First from you, then this:

 

Quote

"I'm going to change one word. So I'm going to search for 'Congressman Steve King,' I'm going to hit the 'News' tab," Lieu said. "First article that pops up is from ABC News. It says 'Steve King's racist immigration talk prompts calls for congressional censure.' That's a negative article. But you don't have a group of people at Google sitting there thinking and trying to modify search results - every time Steve King comes up, a negative article appears. That's not what's happening, right?"

Pichai again said no, reiterating that Google does not manipulate results for people in that way.

"So let me just conclude here by stating the obvious," Lieu responded. "If you want positive search results, do positive things. If you don't want negative search results, don't do negative things.

"And to some of my colleagues across the aisle, if you're getting bad press articles and bad search results, don't blame Google or Facebook or Twitter - consider blaming yourself," he added.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/google-hearing-congress-ted-lieu-steve-king-2018-12

 

Steve King just got savaged by Lieu.  Fatality!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FanboyOf91 said:

Dumber than a bag of rocks.

That bar is pretty high for Steve King.  Gotta find something lower on the totem pole.

Share this post


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

 

 

Yuck.

 

Why you say that? 

 

She was one of the first ones in DNC to call out the obvious favoritisim for Hillary over Bernie, even resigned her position if I remember correctly.  She was also a combat medic in Iraq.  I'm not a fan of House members running as opposed to Governors or Senators, but I would not be against her showing what she has to see if someone will put her on a ticket or give her a cabinet position.

 

She's also smoking hot and pulls no punches, but I've seen her full-length interview twice, so again, curious why you're so against this, because from my perspective, that's what we need if we're going to have a progressive wing, ones with actual military experience, not just wishful thinking sunflowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Why you say that? 

 

She was one of the first ones in DNC to call out the obvious favoritisim for Hillary over Bernie, even resigned her position if I remember correctly.  She was also a combat medic in Iraq.  I'm not a fan of House members running as opposed to Governors or Senators, but I would not be against her showing what she has to see if someone will put her on a ticket or give her a cabinet position.

 

She's also smoking hot and pulls no punches, but I've seen her full-length interview twice, so again, curious why you're so against this, because from my perspective, that's what we need if we're going to have a progressive wing, ones with actual military experience, not just wishful thinking sunflowers.

 

Quote

In 2015, Gabbard was among a minority of Democrats who voted for additional restrictions on refugees entering the US from Syria and Iraq. She has also previously expressed “skepticism” that the Assad regime is behind chemical weapons attacks in Syria, and aligned herself with nationalist figures such as Narendra Modi of India.

Breaking with most Democrats, Gabbard has embraced the use of the phrase “radical Islam” – a phrase which to many Muslims has evolved into a dog whistle on the right intended to indict the entire Islamic faith. Gabbard has said she is mindful that most Muslims are not extremists, but joined Republicans in criticizing Clinton and Barack Obama for not employing the phrase, stating: “It’s important that you identify your enemy”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/10/tulsi-gabbard-how-a-progressive-rising-star-is-a-paradox-for-the-left

 

That's not going to win you a Democratic primary. I'm going with candidates who I don't think will be apologists for dictators. The whole DNC resignation seemed like a politician stunt that worked. She'll have support from Bernie folks but I don't know if that will last when others start bringing up some of the issues up on a debate stage

  • Like 1

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.