• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         4
      The Redskins have opened their 2019 season with two losses. Both against Divisional foes. Now they get to close out Week 3 at home on Monday Night against the visiting 1-1 Chicago Bears. The Bears don't have much of an offense but seem to have what may be an elite defense.
       
      On the flip side, the Redskins have a developing passing attack and a disastrous defense. The Redskins haven't had a Defense this vanilla since Mike Nolan received his ice cream. Oh, and the Redskins already have more guys on IR then any other team this season. 
       
      Will the Redskins finally put one in the win column? 
       
      As usual, poll closes at kickoff. Go vote!
Rdskns2000

Presidential Election 2020 - Baby Sharpie vs Batwoman or Batman

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, twa said:

 

Over Trump? Hell yeah! (Assuming she was magically eligible)  For all the criticism of her depth of knowledge I bet she'd do way better on a citizenship test than Trump would.

Irrelevant because it's going to be Hogg vs Sandmann anyway.

Edited by RedskinsFan44
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump being the President pretty much eliminates "person doesn't know enough about the issues" from consideration going forward, unless the country makes some kind of commitment to never doing this again.  (doubtful).

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Doesn't mean much at this point, but it is interesting to see.

Trump won the presidency with 46% of the vote. What matters is his opponents must have those leads in states that get them to 270.  Hillary didn't, will the nominee have it in 2020?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely not watching election coverage after the conventions. The media has learned nothing from 2016.

Share this post


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

Definitely not watching election coverage after the conventions. The media has learned nothing from 2016.

 

Given the backlash, it seems that most learned the lesson, just not Chris Cuomo.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Trump being the President pretty much eliminates "person doesn't know enough about the issues" from consideration going forward, unless the country makes some kind of commitment to never doing this again.  (doubtful).

 

We should never elect someone who doesn't either have a solid grasp on what's actually going on or how to get people who do. 

 

Trump's biggest problem wasn't that he wasn't up to speed, its that he no intent of doing so or getting people that were.  I can't confirm Henry Ford actually said it, but if you can surround yourself with people that are smarter then you you absolutely do that, especially as President of the United States. 

 

There's just no excuse there, too many people that know what they are talking about to not hire people on your administration that do.

3 hours ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

Over Trump? Hell yeah! (Assuming she was magically eligible)  For all the criticism of her depth of knowledge I bet she'd do way better on a citizenship test than Trump would.

Irrelevant because it's going to be Hogg vs Sandmann anyway.

 

I will never vote for her in a nomination, let alone a presidential election, until she clarifies what she means by Democratic Socialism and if that's her vision for the country. 

 

We've already had a thread about this, I love her, but I take messing with our economic system seriously.  It's not a toy where factual accuracy isn't  important because the heart is in the right place.

 

She gets the nomination as a democratic socialist, I'd seriously consider voting republican.

Share this post


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

 

We should never elect someone who doesn't either have a solid grasp on what's actually going on or how to get people who do. 

 

Trump's biggest problem wasn't that he wasn't up to speed, its that he no intent of doing so or getting people that were.  I can't confirm Henry Ford actually said it, but if you can surround yourself with people that are smarter then you you absolutely do that, especially as President of the United States

 

I strongly felt this when he was running, it was obvious he didn't care about what he didn't know because he has such high regard of himself.

 

26 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

We've already had a thread about this, I love her, but I take messing with our economic system seriously.  It's not a toy where factual accuracy isn't  important because the heart is in the right place.

 

She gets the nomination as a democratic socialist, I'd seriously consider voting republican.

But would you vote for Trump over her?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

But would you vote for Trump over her?

 

You won't like me answer. 

 

Trump represents the past trying to grab a hold of the future, a past that its very clear the future of our country does not want.  AOC represents framing the future around what people think they actually have to do in order to get what they want, a pandora's box that a lot of people won't realize they've signed up for until its too late.

 

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/

 

It's one of the reasons I haven't gotten rid of my Facebook, to keep my eye on the attempts of organizations like Millennials for Revolution that are clearly trying to attach common sense reforms to belief it can only be achieved via socialism.  Trump and his ilk are fighting gravity, but the difference between left and right changes from a sliding bar to a circle that met in the same horrible place when either goes too far.

Share this post


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

 

You won't like me answer. 

 

Trump represents the past trying to grab a hold of the future, a past that its very clear the future of our country does not want.  AOC represents framing the future around what people think they actually have to do in order to get what they want, a pandora's box that a lot of people won't realize they've signed up for until its too late.

 

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/

 

It's one of the reasons I haven't gotten rid of my Facebook, to keep my eye on the attempts of organizations like Millennials for Revolution that are clearly trying to attach common sense reforms to belief it can only be achieved via socialism.  Trump and his ilk are fighting gravity, but the difference between left and right changes from a sliding bar to a circle that met in the same horrible place when either goes too far.

AOC probably has enough of an open mind to listen to others. She is an idealist, and pretty young so I expect she will grow. Trump doesn't give a crap about our country. AOC does.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

AOC probably has enough of an open mind to listen to others. She is an idealist, and pretty young so I expect she will grow. Trump doesn't give a crap about our country. AOC does.

 

I don't think you get my point, so maybe I should step away. 

 

It doesn't matter if I like AOC more if her policies are being framed as better for the country via a manner that is not.  I won't vote for us to become socialist just because I like her. 

 

And this is purely hypothetical anyway, neither one should be president right now or in 2020.

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I don't think you get my point, so maybe I should step away. 

 

It doesn't matter if I like AOC more if her policies are being framed as better for the country via a manner that is not.  I won't vote for us to become socialist just because I like her. 

 

And this is purely hypothetical anyway, neither one should be president right now or in 2020.

I think I get your point, and it's valid. I am not super up on her policies. 70% top marginal rate does not bother me, it was higher back when America was "great". Free everything for everybody won't work. And I definitely agree that both should not be president at this point. Backlash from Trump may get us someone like AOC down the road though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

If Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) wins her party’s nomination to run against President Trump, she will have broken through one of the impenetrable barriers of modern politics.

She would not be her party’s first female nominee, nor its first African-American nominee.

Rather, Harris, or a few other candidates who face longer odds, would become the first Democratic presidential nominee from a state west of the Rocky Mountains in the party’s 191-year history, a geographic divide that even political powerhouses like former California Gov. Jerry Brown, former Sen. Frank Church (Idaho) or former Rep. “Scoop” Jackson (Wash.) could not bridge.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/426526-kamala-harris-faces-democrats-rocky-mountain-divide

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many GOP Presidential nominees were lefties whose last name was longer than 9 letters.  

 

Share this post


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

 

Given the backlash, it seems that most learned the lesson, just not Chris Cuomo.  

 

He talked about it on his show more than a few times if I recall correctly. I have stopped watching CNN all together since then, but im positive he got on a soap box at least once about the medias irresponsibility in 2016. So he learned the lesson. He just doesnt care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 5:51 PM, Larry said:

 

Why?  

 

How much will anybody with an R after their name actually differ from Trump?

 

 

For one, the person won't be a douche bag like trump.  I also think they will be more towards the center of things, more bipartisan on important topics. 

 

On 1/19/2019 at 1:37 AM, NoCalMike said:

 

in 2019, a lot of people might be considered middle class due to the tax bracket they are in, but by every other metric they don't seem to be.   How did this country go from a 1 income per family was enough to pay the mortgage, go on vacation, raise kids, etc etc to a country where dual income houses often are scraping by paycheck to paycheck or maybe a couple missed paychecks away from disaster.   We can skip the anecdotes about people living beyond their means or being irresponsible because there are those in every income level, but they aren't the majority.   

 

 

I've always looked at a few key areas for this, I think my response might include things you consider anecdotes, however, I feel relevant.

 

1.  Wages have been stagnant.  While I lean to the right, one thing that I wish more Rs would budge on is wages.  Moving minimum wage up should be done if done correctly (over time, not instantaneously).  I think most proposals do this, and all I ever see is people react as if it's happening overnight.

 

2.  Childecare.  Childcare is SO MUCH MORE now.  It's unreal the numbers I hear that people pay ($1,000+ a month).  Childcare wasn't really a big thing when people lived off of one income, one person stayed home.  Now this huge expense has people (technically) working for a few dollars an hour in some cases, or people continue to work to grow their earning power through a time when they are making the few dollars (this latter scenario is a small pop, i'm sure).

 

3.  I'd like to look into property taxes and home ownership more, to see how that fits into the equation.  Just looking at certain housing data and how much they sold for less than 30 years ago, they increased exponentially.  The values drives up taxes, and is this something that is costing more now vs. back then.

 

4.  Education.  I have so many friends in student loan debt, that pay RIDICULOUS amounts per month.  I'm going to differ with many people here I'm sure, but parents need to work with their kids - even adult kids - to help them identify what is right and wrong with kids and their careers.  I'll tell you my crew, all our parents were in the "YOU HAVE TO GO TO COLLEGE" because it's a thing that was punished in our heads.  Well not everyone of my friends was fit for it.  I have a friend who goofed off and played video games mostly throughout his first 2 years of college.  Barely getting by, and failing most classes.  Took 2 years in community college, lived at home, then 2 and a half years to finalize his degree.  He's 8 years removed from college and is in a job where he is satisfied, and doesn't exert the extra effort to have income growth as he should, with a $740 student loan payment per month.  In the meantime, there are so many jobs open not requiring college that pay very good wages, parents need to be accountable for assisting their kids in their direction in life without having that few hundred dollar per month expenditure.

 

5. I would disagree with the beyond the means "they aren't the majority".  I just think I have a different viewpoint, where many would argue the necessities of items and such.  There is so much more that we pay for today, that people previously didn't. Cable, Smart Phones and Smart Phone data plans, Internet, home security systems, memberships to different things etc that many people get, even though they might not have the means for it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, superozman said:

 

1.  Wages have been stagnant.  While I lean to the right, one thing that I wish more Rs would budge on is wages.  Moving minimum wage up should be done if done correctly (over time, not instantaneously).  I think most proposals do this, and all I ever see is people react as if it's happening overnight

I lean Right also.  I'm fine with minimum wage increases but it can't just be a blanket amount across the country.  It needs to be tied to cost of living in different locations.  $15/hr means a lot more in bfe, Idaho than in Key West. And the info is already there.  The military does a review every year to adjust cost of living allowances. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I lean Right also.  I'm fine with minimum wage increases but it can't just be a blanket amount across the country.  It needs to be tied to cost of living in different locations.  $15/hr means a lot more in bfe, Idaho than in Key West. And the info is already there.  The military does a review every year to adjust cost of living allowances. 

 

Absolutely.  Good point.  I would say though, $7.25 or whatever it is at the moment is low federally, and maybe $15 an hour might be a touch too high elsewhere.  A good point might be, that I didn't correlate was inflation effects different areas in much different ways.   I can't find it now, but national average from 2000-2018 was $92.  So $100 in 2000 was $192 today.  (again, i could have pulled this from a crappy source as i can't find it).  Well in Philly, it was $100-188, and in Seattle it was $100-233 or something like that.  So different areas are impacted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current Federal minimum wage is ridiculously low, it won't even rent an apartment in any state. Plus most of those jobs are part time so employers don't have to pay benefits, including health insurance, which is why ACA.

 

I will look for that map. Found it from a 2015 article, so you know it's more now.

 

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/05/mapping-the-hourly-wage-needed-to-rent-a-2-bedroom-apartment-in-every-us-state/394142/

 

 

 

1fe005e3c.png

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Anybody got an impression on this guy yet? Saw him talk on TV yesterday and he appeared sharp.

http://time.com/5510973/pete-buttigieg-mayors-president/

 

My impression is he's raising his national profile for future races, not a serious contender.  He's like the skinny, gay, funhouse mirror image of Richard Ojeda.  :)

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about it, a Harris/O'Rourke,ticket makes sense to me. Harris is more centrist, has that prosecutor's demeanor. O'Rourke has the youth, wide appeal, and energy to propel the Democrats forward.

 

Harris is a fighter and O'Rourke does the footwork. And eight years of that ticket positions O'Rourke for the presidency 2028.

 

It's going to take that long to fix the country after Trump and the Republican cabal.

  • Like 2

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