• 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

One thing about Kamala's town hall that still has me thinking Donald wins.   The Democratic positions on the issues.  Any Dem candidate is going to have to go left, to win the nomination.  I'm not so sure in 2020, that wins them the election.  Maybe 2024 or 2028 but will that win them in 2020; against Trump?

5 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

Who is she?  Do I even list her as a candidate?  They are over 500 people who probably run for President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

you want to tax the rich and spend that on research or infrastructure or something like that sign me up... but giving it to people who are poor and have no ability to use what money they do have wisely.... no thanks

 

Are you saying people are poor because they can’t manage money?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Are you saying people are poor because they can’t manage money?

 

Sure sounds like it.

 

As if rich people know how to manage money. See Snyder, Dan.

 

Their accountants on the other hand generally know how to manage it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Any Dem candidate is going to have to go left, to win the nomination. 

 

Not sure why so many people think this. Do we not acknowledge the fact that there is a large population of conservatives AND independents who will be running from the republican candidate in 2020? The fact that we might have a strong indi running would pull people towards the center to get votes by itself. You dont have to be the most left to win the nom unless the DNC is actively trying to lose again by forcing a particular candidate no one wants. Again. 

 

No, I dont think the only way to get the dem nom is to be the most left candidate out there. Im not sure why anyone does. 

 

And EVEN if that ends up being the way it goes I still dont see how any of you can justify that equating to a Trump win at this point. He has isolated himself to his base and is even losing them. No way he can win. Its over. Seriously, this shut down finished it for him. He lost in all phases on that one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

No, I dont think the only way to get the dem nom is to be the most left candidate out there. Im not sure why anyone does. 

 

 

The Democratic party is the party of left wing extremists like Beto and Harris. At least that's what some "news" outlets want people to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

The Democratic party is the party of left wing extremists like Beto and Harris. At least that's what some "news" outlets want people to believe.

 

Yea I get that people say it but that doesnt make it any more true. Im just wondering why people think that (assuming they are more informed than folks watching fox). Not being confrontational just really wondering why people think that. Cause it looks to me like the exact opposite is a much bigger possibility 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Who is she?  Do I even list her as a candidate?  They are over 500 people who probably run for President.

 

Ok, didn't recognize the name and I had the same question, soooo, Google!

 

Get ready to be dismissive and condescending, she is the dingbat, jade egg in your cooch candidate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

it’s like comma with a la at the end of it...  I don’t think you can ever give people “enough” free money...

 

 

Isnt she the the one that wants to tax rich people’s wealth?

 

If you want to tax the rich and spend that on research or infrastructure or something like that sign me up... but giving it to people who are poor and have no ability to use what money they do have wisely.... no thanks.   Most everything else she said is OK with me. 

 

Yanno, I honestly try not to respond to you directly because I end up coming off as some snotty asshole, and while I can easily be that that isn't my intention.

 

You're parroting something you heard without understanding it or thinking exactly what that means beyond some narrow soundbite.

 

Here's the thing, every single time without exception that society or government or whoever tries to apologize for their utter lack of humanity by injecting resources, time, effort, money, whatever into the lowest strata in society by helping "poor" people, it moves. Poor people just squander that money right away on heating oil or groceries (the baztuds!), the grocer buys stock, the oil company services its fleet, etc., etc., until it pops right back out on top in taxes, fees, whatever. It never just sits there, "poor" people can't just squirrel it away because they are living under the shadow of hunger every damned day, so whether they like it or not, even when they might want to save $2 they can't.  That money is invested, it churns the market, bubbles up and stimulates additional economic activity and stability and PAYS FOR ITSELF!

 

When you slather that same money or resources on the top of the economic torte, it DOES get squirreled away, in material goods or offshore accounts. It doesn't go anywhere, do anything or benefit the rest of the economy, unless you think that mega yacht is justified by the blue collar workers that got to build it. You're taking money out of circulation and not getting any concomitant benefits from it. It is a net loss.

 

 

Image may contain: 1 person, hat and text

Edited by LD0506
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LD0506 I don’t think your response is a response to what I said. Actually, you could argue what you are saying makes taxing the rich to give it to the poor is a fruitless endeavor.  If it is just going to be spent as soon as they get it it and go right back to the top, what is the point?

 

I’m not sure why we would want to double down on something that’s not working. 

 

I didn’t say “don’t tax the rich”....

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<uhhhhh>

 

Yes it ends up back on top but along the way it generates additional growth and economic activity...................... 

 

*

*

*

 

 

<stfu Dave, just let it go......>

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

@LD0506 I don’t think your response is a response to what I said. Actually, you could argue what you are saying makes taxing the rich to give it to the poor is a fruitless endeavor.  If it is just going to be spent as soon as they get it it and go right back to the top, what is the point?

So they can have breakfast or give their kids warm clothes or not die from a treatable disease.

 

Here’s a question... Trump and the GOP are happy to tell you that this is the strongest economy in history and that he has all but eradicated unemployment. Why should anybody who is willing to work 40 hours a week in a **** job in the wealthiest nation in the history of civilization have to worry about their electricity being shut off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Good old Will Rogers. He never met twa.

 

Well I'm not that old.

 

What would ole Will say about poor folk spending what ya give them on empty calories, booze and drugs?

 

It still trickles up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

I understand it generates economic growth. But for who? The economic growth isn’t distributed equally. If it was, this wouldn’t be true:

 

7 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Here’s a question... Trump and the GOP are happy to tell you that this is the strongest economy in history and that he has all but eradicated unemployment. Why should anybody who is willing to work 40 hours a week in a **** job in the wealthiest nation in the history of civilization have to worry about their electricity being shut off?

 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


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

 

Not sure why so many people think this. Do we not acknowledge the fact that there is a large population of conservatives AND independents who will be running from the republican candidate in 2020? .........

They won't be voting in most of the Dem primaries.

Share this post


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

What would ole Will say about poor folk spending what ya give them on empty calories, booze and drugs?

He’d be against it. He’d also say that this is a stupid point (Will’s words, not mine).

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

I think MSNBC had Elizabeth Warren, anyone bother to watch that one?  My guess, Kamala got the viewers.

 

I watched Warren and wasn't impressed really. She talked mostly about taxing the wealthy and various ways to do that, and she lost me. I eventually turned the program off (I recorded it). She's too wonky. 

 

Edited to add: she jumped all over the place in speaking, she actually reminded me of Trump, the unorganized way he speaks. The difference is that Warren knows what she's talking about and Trump doesn't.

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

He’d be against it. He’d also say that this is a stupid point (Will’s words, not mine).

 

Will was smarter than that.

 

Quote

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

One thing about Kamala's town hall that still has me thinking Donald wins.   The Democratic positions on the issues.  Any Dem candidate is going to have to go left, to win the nomination.  I'm not so sure in 2020, that wins them the election.  Maybe 2024 or 2028 but will that win them in 2020; against Trump?

 

 

Can you explain this further?  Which issues are you referring to? 

 

Cutting taxes for the rich is very unpopular.  And that was before it was widely reported that cutting those taxes had no benefit for the broader economy.  Meanwhile, increasing taxes on the rich is favored by a huge majority of Americans.  

 

Democrats just won the most House seats in memory running almost exclusively on increasing access to healthcare, which is the extremely popular opinion.  70% support Medicare for All.  Repealing Obamacare is very unpopular.  

 

What "lefty" position is so unpopular that would cause lots of people to vote back in a guy that is historically unpopular and has all of the obvious faults that Trump has?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dems don't need a leftist/progressive to run because right-wing media is already going to paint any Dem as that regardless.  The trick is running a candidate that feels authentic enough to the more progressive part of the party.   

 

Sort of like Obama, he campaigned a lot more progressively than he governed.  Of course, once you are in office what you want versus what you can negotiate to make happen are often very different.

 

The system by nature always seems to favor the incumbent candidate.  They have to do something to turn off their own base.  Regardless of how the candidate is perceived by half of the country, the other half still will look at the race through the "if I don't vote for this person, the person on the other team is going to win"  In a winner take all system, there is little incentive not to voter for "lesser of 2 evils."

 

There is a reason Clinton, Bush, Obama all served 2 terms despite how unpopular we were told they were going into re-election.    

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

will was one of my boyhood faves to read, though not all of his bromides are home runs 

 

 

 

but what i was gonna post about was seeing if any of you on twitter/facebook will be able to tell when/if the rooskie bot army starts doing all it can for schultz's cause :D

 

 

 

 

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.