Rdskns2000

Presidential Election 2020 - Your AntiChrist- Kim Vladimir Trump vs The Trump Slayer or Sacrifice?

Recommended Posts

Just a thought. (Didn't say it's a good one). 

 

Would Mayor Pete make a better Veep?  

 

I'm thinking it might help with the fact that he's just a small town mayor. People might be more willing to overlook The Gay. 

 

Would he make the youth vote more willing to hold their noses for Biden?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, visionary said:

He isn’t there to get votes, he’s there to calm the situation and do his duty as mayor, which he was doing.

 

And they don’t feel that way. Based on his past with race issues in that town, I don’t blame them.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

That's more collectively then specifically the black vote.

 

And if 2016 is evidence, Trump's racist pandering brings out the white racist vote moreso then enticing minorities to vote against him.

 

He may have brought out a great deal of white racist, but he brought out far more minority voters in 2018, and there is only more of that to come. Few like him in any measure and view him to be a stain on the earth.

Share this post


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

He may have brought out a great deal of white racist, but he brought out far more minority voters in 2018, and there is only more of that to come. Few like him in any measure and view him to be a stain on the earth.

 

We'll see, I hesitate to put that much into the midterms because the previous midterms were at historic lows making 2018 look really great. Certainly a good sign though.  

 

And you're flat out wrong that people don't like him. He has around 90% approval ratings from the right and around 10% approval ratings from the left. That makes him easily as popular as President Obama. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's usually easier to vote for someone than against someone. 

 

We saw in 2016, many voted other or not at all.

 

You maybe placing to much hope, that the anti-Trump voters will vote in numbers that give the Dem the electoral victory. If the Dem nominee isn't someone Dem voters are enthusiastically for; the nominee will probably fall short.

Edited by Rdskns2000
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/22/2019 at 7:09 PM, Mooka said:

 

We'll see, I hesitate to put that much into the midterms because the previous midterms were at historic lows making 2018 look really great. Certainly a good sign though.  

 

And you're flat out wrong that people don't like him. He has around 90% approval ratings from the right and around 10% approval ratings from the left. That makes him easily as popular as President Obama. 

Yeah, the highest in a century certainly is a good sign. No real reason to think that would mean little. Really is great there are far fewer wingers than Democrats, and he's pissed off most independents. I have no problem with wingers supporting him. It shows that all the morals they have claimed over the past 50 years were pure BS. I think that unless he finds more ways to cheat he is in serious trouble with having pissed off so many. 

Edited by Skintime
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

It's usually easier to vote for someone than against someone. 

 

Not sure of that.  I've at least seen the claim repeated for decades that negative campaign adds are several times more effective than the positive ones.  

 

16 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

We say in 2016, many voted other or not at all.

 

And many did so because they were certain that Trump couldn't possibly win.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

It's usually easier to vote for someone than against someone. 

 

We say in 2016, many voted other or not at all.

 

You maybe placing to much hope, that the anti-Trump voters will vote in numbers that give the Dem the electoral victory. If the Dem nominee isn't someone Dem voters are enthusiastically for; the nominee will probably fall short.

 

The midterms had historic dem turnout largely because it was the voters first chance to repudiate trump and he wasn’t even on the ballot. 

 

 Now we have the asshole on the ticket and people have a chance to directly remove him from office. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's justice, Trump gets voted out by a bigger margin than Carter.  

 

But then, if there was justice, the Republicans would have already impeached him.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 5:39 PM, NoCalMike said:

On the whole issue of "democrats eating their own" I know that narrative is strong right now, but lets be realistic, this is the primary season. This is when you are supposed to be explaining to the public why you are the best candidate, and yes that includes giving examples of why other nominees aren't.

 

Did people already forget the 2016 GOP primary? Do you remember any of them holding back on each other?  


The major difference is once the GOP had a nominee, the party and base fell in line.  That is what the Dems need to work on. 

It's a lame explanation for what happened in 2016. You're right, the Republican primary was way, WAY more nasty. So was the 2000 GOP primary. The 2008 Dem primary got pretty rough too. 2016 was a cakewalk compared to any of them. If people think "Hillary should release the transcripts of her speeches" is so rough it cost the election, then the problem is they are bringing nerf bats to a gun fight. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

 

 

This is the best thing Bernie has said this entire campaign. In that clip, it was the best repudiation and the war industry I’ve seen in some time from anyone. 

 

Citations Needed podcast had a great episode on War language and the media.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by BenningRoadSkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Joe Biden went to the right of Reagan regarding anti-crime efforts and in turn locked up millions of minority people with this BS law:

 

 

 

Obama made and congress made it 18-1 in 2010 but this law helped destroy many Black and Latino communities.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

24 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Joe Biden went to the right of Reagan regarding anti-crime efforts and in turn locked up millions of minority people with this BS law:

...

Obama made and congress made it 18-1 in 2010 but this law helped destroy many Black and Latino communities.

 

 

Personally don't care that much. This was 30 years ago.

 

Biden already admitted he was wrong and introduced a bill correcting the disparity in 2007; which may have been decades late, but even 2007 is 12 years ago:

 

S.1711 - Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007

 



Mr. President, 20 years ago, I helped write the law that established the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme. Under this law, it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. And mere possession of five grams of crack, the weight of about two sugar cubes, gets you the same 5-year mandatory minimum penalty as trafficking 500 grams of the powder form of cocaine, which is equivalent to about a 1 pound bag of sugar. The facts that informed our decision at the time have proved to be wrong, making the underlying cocaine sentencing structure we created unfounded and unfair. It is time to change the law to reflect this new understanding. That is why, today, I am introducing the Drug Sentencing Reform & Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007, which eliminates this unjustified disparity in Federal cocaine sentencing policy. Back in 1986, when we wrote the law that established the current sentencing structure, crack was hitting our streets and communities like a storm. I remember one headline that I think summed it up. It read ``New York City Being Swamped by `Crack'; Authorities Say They Are Almost Powerless to Halt Cocaine.'' That summer was called ``the summer of crack,'' and we were inundated with horror stories about how this new form of smokeable cocaine was ravaging communities. We were told that crack was instantly addictive, prompting the expression, ``Once on crack, you never go back.'' We heard that it caused users to go on violent rampages, was more harmful to babies than powder cocaine when used by mothers during pregnancy, and would lead to the disintegration of inner-city communities. And in Congress, there was a feeling of desperation that summer, a sense that we had to give law enforcement the power they needed to save neighborhoods being ravaged by this drug. More than a dozen bills were introduced to increase the penalties for this form of cocaine, but because we knew so little about it, the proposals were all over the map. They ranged from the Reagan administration's proposal of a 20-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine to a 1000-to-1 disparity proposed by Senator Lawton Chiles. I joined Senators Byrd and Dole in leading the effort to enact the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which established the current 100-to-1 disparity. Our intentions were good, but as further scientific and sociological study has shown, we got it wrong. We now know that these initial assumptions about crack and powder cocaine, which are just two forms of the same drug, simply were not true. Scientific evidence shows that crack does not have unique, inherent properties that make it instantly addictive. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, ``cocaine in any form produces the same physiological and subjective effects.'' We also have learned that the dire predictions about a generation of ``crack babies'' whose mothers used crack during pregnancy have not proven true. The negative effects of prenatal exposure to crack cocaine and powder cocaine are identical. Furthermore, data that the U.S. Sentencing Commission has collected show that crack users rarely commit acts of violence. Almost all crack-related violence is associated with trafficking, not with someone on a so-called crack-induced rampage. Looking back over more than 20 years, it is also clear that the harsh crack penalties have had a disproportionate impact on the African American community. Eighty-two percent of those convicted of crack offenses at the Federal level are African American, fueling the notion that the Federal cocaine sentencing scheme is unfair. There is widespread recognition that the current cocaine sentencing scheme is out of date and out of touch with reality. There are others here in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, who feel the current cocaine sentencing policy is unfounded. Like me, Senators Sessions and Hatch have introduced legislation to reduce the disparity and I want to congratulate them for their hard work and dedication to this issue. As a matter of fact, when President Bush was asked about the longer sentences for crack cocaine, he said that the disparity, and I am quoting the President here, ``ought to be addressed by making sure the powder cocaine and crack cocaine penalties are the same. I don't believe we ought to be discriminatory.'' A slew of commentators, Federal judges, Federal prosecutors, doctors, academics, social scientists, civil rights leaders, clergy, and others have spoken out about the unwarranted disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. And just last month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a bipartisan panel comprised in large part of Federal judges who preside over cocaine cases, issued a report stating that the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme ``continues to come under almost universal criticism from representatives of the Judiciary, criminal justice practitioners, academics, and community interest groups.'' This is not the first time the Sentencing Commission has urged reform. In 1995, the Commission recommended eliminating the crack/ powder sentencing disparity. Congress rejected this proposal. As scientific understanding of cocaine evolved, the Commisson urged Congress three more times to address this problem. Yet Congress did not act. We are long overdue in heeding the call for reform. The Sentencing Cmission has provided us with a roadmap. In its most recent report, the Commission ``unanimously and strongly urge[d]'' Congress to: 1. Act swiftly to increase the threshold quantities of crack necessary to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences, so that Federal resources are focused on major drug traffickers as intended in the original 1986 legislation; and 2. repeal the mandatory minimum penalty sentence for simple possession of crack, the only controlled substance for which there is a mandatory minimum for a first time offense of simple possession. The Sentencing Commission also unanimously rejected any effort to increase the penalties for powder since there is no evidence to justify any such upward adjustment. My bill implements all of these recommendations. [[Page S8615]] Specifically, my bill will eliminate the current 100-to-1 disparity by increasing the 5-year mandatory minimum threshold quantity for crack cocaine to 500 grams, from 5 grams, and the 10-year threshold quantity to 5,000 grams, from 50 grams, while maintaining the current statutory mandatory minimum threshold quantities for powder cocaine. It will also eliminate the current 5-year mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine, the only mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of a drug by a first time offender. It also increases penalties for major drug traffickers and provides additional resources for the Federal agencies that investigate and prosecute drug offenses. Furthermore, because I have always believed that the best approach to fighting crime is a holistic one that incorporates enforcement, prevention, and treatment, my bill authorizes funds for prison- and jail-based drug treatment programs. My bill both remedies the historic injustice in the current cocaine sentencing laws and focuses Federal resources on, and increases penalties for, the big fish, the major drug traffickers and kingpins who drive the drug trade. Unlike Federal powder cocaine offenders, over half of Federal crack offenders are low-level street dealers who could and should be prosecuted at the State level. States are better equipped to handle these small-time dealers and users, and under my bill, these offenders would still be punished, without expending precious Federal resources. Drug use is a serious problem, and I have long supported strong antidrug legislation. But in addition to being tough, our drug laws should be rational and fair. My bill achieves the right balance. We have talked about the need to address this cocaine sentencing disparity for long enough. It is time to act. I hope that my colleagues will join with me to support this legislation.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, twa said:

 

What a great picture. That girl (his daughter?) looks like she wants to be anywhere else while her parents are yucking it up. 

Edited by dfitzo53
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dfitzo53 said:

What a great picture. That girl (his daughter?) looks like she wants to be anywhere else while her parents are yucking it up. 

 

Yep, I feel for their families whether I detest the candidates or not.

 

of course there are worse fates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

What a great picture. That girl (his daughter?) looks like she wants to be anywhere else while her parents are yucking it up. 

That was during his Senate run. That daughter should be about 17 now, I believe. That girl has actually survived brain cancer twice, btw. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

That was during his Senate run. That daughter should be about 17 now, I believe. That girl has actually survived brain cancer twice, btw. 

Wow, the things you learn. 

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.