Jump to content
Tornado

The General 'Murican Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

I am going to have respectfully disagree on this. The fact of the matter is you value age of a candidate before policy because you are concerned about their health even though these people are voluntarily running for president knowing the demand it requires for the job?

Ignoring the fact that you're putting words in his mouth, the justification that they know what they are getting into literally could not be more meaningless. Even before Trump (the oldest first term president in history) won office with absolutely no idea of the requirements or restrictions of the job, a candidate's assertions that their age simply doesn't apply to them hold absolutely no weight to the fact that it does.

5 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

If somebody who is 70 80 90 years old wants to be president, then they should be allowed to.

And voters will just as assuredly be allowed to consider that as a negative on their qualifications for the job, just like they did in 2008.

Quote

Older presidents have benefits since most have wisdom, vast knowledge, and experience to handle the stresses and pressure of a presidency that a younger person will struggle with.

It's not classical period China. The only way that sentence would maybe work is if it read "that a younger person may struggle with."

Quote

This why democrats keep losing in the first place. They keep only wanting to move further and further and further right instead of standing up for values which they seem to have lost.

Nope. The last election was a bloodbath for Democrats because the DNC propped up a literally-historically unlikeable and uncharismatic person as Obama 2.0 despite an extensive legislative and public record suggesting she was usually the exact opposite, put on what looked to many like a rigged primary process to make sure she was the front runner (even before the DNC imploding on itself following the election basically confirmed it), then considered the election so in the bag that they essentially stopped campaigning in entire swaths of the country in favor of hitching their wagon and spending money on things like gender politics  (which was again something their candidate had a less than impressive record on) in state and local elections that the typical voter has about 5th or 6th on their list of "things they give a shit about."

They did all of this while holding the voters in such giggling contempt that they expected everyone to forget in the last full election cycle when they demonized the exact same person for those exact same reasons in order to support the Obama from 2008 they were pretending she was in 2016 all along. The second round of email scandal a couple weeks before the election was just a bow on the present that was probably the tipping point to remind people just how much they did not like her; but without pretending that hindsight of her loss should have been expected they had made more than a few grave mistakes that were being openly questioned well before the polls actually opened. Had they not committed to all of them maybe the election would have gone differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s probably a simple answer I’m not aware of, but if the democrats wanted another Obama, and, hypothetically speaking, wanted to satisfy progressives with a young candidate, would Michelle Obama have been a realistic and decent pick over Hilary? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She didn't want to do it. How realistic it would have been to campaign for the office while still living in the White House is another matter entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m referring to the 2020 elections my bad. She doesn’t want to do it I’m aware, hence why I asked hypothetically. Just wondering if she fits the description of the kind of candidate progressives are wanting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, KHCast said:

I’m referring to the 2020 elections my bad. She doesn’t want to do it I’m aware, hence why I asked hypothetically. Just wondering if she fits the description of the kind of candidate progressives are wanting 

Well I not sure of where Michelle Obama stands on issues but I do watch some progressive news online and can tell you the main things they look for. I wanted to link a website with a list but could not find one.

Probably one of the most important things progressives look for in a candidate is somebody who will overturn citizen united supreme court ruling and get big money out of politics.

They look for somebody who will NOT take money from wall street and super pacs and believe in only grassroots funding for campaigns.

Support universal healthcare coverage.

Support a $15 minimum wage.

Support reforming the criminal justice system.

There is more but those should help give an idea for what progressives look for in a candidate. Of course in the end it depends on the individual and what is most important issues to them.

Share this post


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

How tasteful smh.

AACB6E11-FEDD-48A1-9DA4-AEC21B269D2D.jpeg

Trump: How dare they praise the accomplishments of this has-been basketball playing black man! What about MY bigly accomplishments with Trump University!? My University is better nyeh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing Trump is really good at is getting media attention. If anybody really wants to compete against Trump they will have to find a way to get media attention away from him. The other 2016 candidates struggled to get media attention especially Sanders who only wanted to talk about the issues which the main stream media never wants to.

Whatever you think of Trump you have to admit that he is really skilled at playing the mainstream media like a violin. All he has to do is say some outrageous things and boom instant media coverage. At this point everyone should know Trump likes to say things that are outside the normal decorum for a president and people eat it up. Like at this point it should not be surprising anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don’t think we should be crediting the president of the United States for being a clearly racist idiot, just cause he knows it gets people’s attention. Shocker, the president saying not presidential stuff acting like a out of touch baby, and attacking members of society he represents is gonna get attention from the press

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never again want to hear "b-but Clinton and Lynch met on the tarmac!" and I have no idea what the law says about the President engaging in presumed or actual witness tampering, but it must play a role in Mueller's investigation, surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what are your guys thoughts on this trump towers fiasco? Seems like the story keeps changing, but all I’ve gathered is that trump contradicted prior statements about the meeting and now him and his son are in hot water.

Share this post


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

So what are your guys thoughts on this trump towers fiasco? Seems like the story keeps changing, but all I’ve gathered is that trump contradicted prior statements about the meeting and now him and his son are in hot water.

I’d never thought Trump would be stupid enough to admit to trying to get dirt Clinton during the campaign. But here we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay can somebody point me to the source people are using to claim black and female unemployment going down and the economy “going up” is a direct result of trump in office? It’s a constant retort I see thrown out whenever people criticize or call shit on trump, and frankly, I haven’t seen any real sources backing this popular claim from the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Conquering Storm’s Servant said:

Why are you asking us for the source when the very people telling you that could’ve already done so before you asked?

I have asked and it’s proved difficult as it’s constant deflection from them, and when I then when I say they don’t have a source, I get tons of people claiming I should just research it myself.(which I have and to no luck found anything) I figured someone here on either side of the political spectrum could provide some kind of link to a popular source that says this. I’m assuming it’s some biased source, but at least they have then /something/ to base their claims off of 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, KHCast said:

I have asked and it’s proved difficult as it’s constant deflection from them, and when I then when I say they don’t have a source, I get tons of people claiming I should just research it myself.(which I have and to no luck found anything) I figured someone here on either side of the political spectrum could provide some kind of link to a popular source that says this. I’m assuming it’s some biased source, but at least they have then /something/ to base their claims off of 

Isn’t that enough of a red flag to tell you they’re talking out of their ass?

If I said the sky was falling and you, being unaware of that, demanded proof, the onus isn’t on you to research it when I could have already shown you my source of the claim the moment you asked.

Even if it turned out not to be true, it shouldn’t be that difficult to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the time when this kind of talk turns up, it usually turns out to be the result of Obama era policy that Trump is simply reaping the benefits of. Because as it turns out, the effects of economic policy usually aren't seen in the scope of a presidential term, to the extent that it can end up creating this bizarre, topsy-turvy image of responsibility for downturn and upturn when viewed strictly on the short term. Without context it's hard to say, but it wouldn't surprise me. Hell, if Trump ends up creating a recession, the next president is probably going to cop the blame for that, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Conquering Storm’s Servant said:

Isn’t that enough of a red flag to tell you they’re talking out of their ass?

Yeah in a individual case yes, and I tend to think that most times especially when these people will look over any negative pointed out about trump, but still, when it’s a common retort, that black unemployment is the lowest its been, etc. all thanks to trump, and they then demand /I/ provide sources that say he isn’t responsible for it, that tells me either these guys are that unoriginal with their thoughts while also vehemently adamant in the belief it’s true, or they’ve all been fed this information from SOMEWHERE that may seem legit be it a fact check site or something, and my curiosity simply has me wondering from where. The idea I can’t think just came out of thin air and became just common rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*bombshell secret tell-all book about the dark and nasty secrets of the Trump presidency is published*
*America struggles to reconcile that it comes from the one person in the country who is possibly less authentic than Donald Trump*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable.

President Trump Visits Homeless Shelter For Billionaires

"President Trump today visited a homeless shelter for billionaires to witness first hand at the nation's homeless epidemic affecting our billionaire class citizens. The president was in horror as he discovered these billionaires had no acceptable homes go to. One homeless billionaire told us that none of his 12 mansions meet his high standards saying "I will not dare step foot in such places. These mansions look like the mansions of poor millionaires.".

President Trump meanwhile has reportly promised to help the homeless billionaires by giving them the largest tax cut in history. The president tweeted earlier "We as a nation can not allow our billionaires to be living out on the streets.".

#HouseTheHomelessBillionaires

During one of Trump's rallies today, the president made a call for action for homeless billionaires saying "We must come together as a nation and help our billionaires. These billionaires are struggling people, trust me, I would know, because I am one." and later "Our billionaires, the almighty powerful job creators, need our help more than ever before. If you have any money to give, please donate it to your local homeless billionaire shelter."

Progressives meanwhile have condemned the president's actions, with one progressive saying "Are you completely serious? What about real actual homeless people who desperately need our help?" and with one centrist democrat saying "We need to stop this class warfare and come together and show the country we can work together to get things done.".

There are reports of lines that were several miles long mostly filled with people who identify mostly as conservative and centrist liberal who patiently waited to give their money to the homeless billionaire charity fund at various homeless billionaire shelters. One person who hardly had any money was asked why give what little money he had to billionaires? "Because they are job creators, and the more money they have, the more jobs and money we all have." Even a regular homeless person was found standing in line ready to give his nickel to the homeless billionaire charity. He said "I do not think of myself as homeless and I know giving this nickel to billionaires will be the start of investment for my future.".

Meanwhile left wing extremists and the very rare compassionate conservatives were out protesting with signs that read "Please help actual homeless people." and "You are all very stupid." as well this sign discovered "There is no hope left.".

President Trump later on today visited an actual homeless shelter and told them, "Please stop being lazy, and go out and get jobs!" where one actual homeless person can be heard yelling back "I have three jobs you evil person!".

I was bored during dinner break at work and wrote that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord, would you look at the state of that page...

I don't understand how primary voters can be so stupid; they just handed the election there to the Democratic nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/18/politics/poll-of-the-week-trump-black-voters/index.html

Conservative sources are lauding a poll that found Trump has approval of 30%+ among black voters. Pretty much every polling agency has tossed that out.

There is a caveat, however: polling reveals Trump has in fact increased his margin among black voters. While Trump only grabbed 9% of the black vote in 2016, current polling puts him around 14%. That's enough of a difference to potentially maintain the swing states he narrowly won in 2016. What's impressive is Trump has increased his approval with black voters even as he loses ground with other groups.

So basically, if Trump wins re-election, there is a possibility it will be because of enough black voters switching towards supporting him. Talk about irony.

It is entirely possible a lot of that support is only from the steady economic performance we are having, however. If there is a downturn, it is likely to remove a lot of mild supporters across all demographics. For Trump to win re-election, he basically has to maintain the support of nearly everyone who voted for him, and hope the economy does not tank. That will be very difficult (but not impossible, especially if the Democratic nominee is a poor choice).

https://townhall.com/columnists/rayhaynes/2018/08/01/in-defense-of-the-national-popular-vote-compact-n2505666

An adventure in tribalism and ideological unity being terrible. A strong conservative writer announced his support for replacing the winner take all system with the popular vote, and he was dogpiled by people calling him a liberal, RINO, etc.

He proceeded to lay the smackdown on his ignorant allies, namely by tearing apart any criticism they could give. First, he points out that swing states are the only ones that really benefit from the Electoral College at this point; while the GOP has won two of its last three victories on the back of the Electoral College, Florida's shifting blue increases the odds this trend will not always hold.

He also points out it's hilariously wrong to assert that the current system is what the Framers wanted, because winner-take-all was not discussed at the constitutional convention, in the Federalist Papers, or even put in the actual Constitution. What is in the Constitution is the supremacy of the states in deciding how their electoral votes are allocated, and if they agree to give their votes to the popular vote winner, that is their constitutional right.

In the article that attracted flak for him in the first place, he mentioned how a switch to popular vote would help the GOP in Presidential races, because then huge numbers of Republicans in the blue states could now make their votes count. Now, after that he just goes full on partisan talking about the need to defeat the left nationwide, but let me expand on that with my own considerations.

By the same token, Democrats in red states would also have more incentive to vote. A national popular vote would not only revolutionize the Presidency, but Congress as well: the political minority of every state would turn out more regularly, making all elections nationwide more competitive. It may actually break the gridlock we've been suffering. "Safe" districts would become less common, and politicians would be more open to compromise on both sides of the aisle.

With the looming breakdown of the Senate's traditions and the judiciary's trend towards reasonable moderates, such a reform may actually be what decides the fate of our republic.

Quote

I don't understand how primary voters can be so stupid; they just handed the election there to the Democratic nominee.

My guess would be it's a solid enough red district he will still end up winning by the simple fact he has an R next to his name.

On the other hand, we could end up with another Roy Moore situation where the nomination sends off alarm bells and convinces voters who might normally be suppressed to go through hoops to vote. Moore was just so awful with the comments he was making, never mind the allegations, that colored voters made a point to beat the odds and turn out in droves.

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.

×

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.