• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

De Javu...I am feeling an eerie sense of dejavu

Middle_Ground said:
You might be right, you might be wrong. I don't know all I know is I will vote for whoever comes out as them dem nominee no matter how battered they are. Trump coming into 2016 election was so battered and bruised it was crazy to think anyone would vote for him. But they did and and many still support him. Republicans fell in line. I'm gonna fall online to this November no matter what
Click to expand...

No problem. History shows that on average 90% of Republicans and democrats vote for their party's candidate regardless of who he is. I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about a candidate far behind basically blowing her chance to become the nominee by ending up strengthening the front runner. I have no problem with Sanders as the democratic nominee. I think going after number two to get you back into the nomination races doesn't work. Bringing down number two a notch or two isn't going to close the gap between you and the front runner or number one. It is going to increase it. Warren's political strategy in the debate was wrong if she wanted to become the nominee. If she wanted to stop Bloomberg from becoming the nominee by ensuring someone else would be that nominee, then she was right on.
 
Excast said:
An out of touch, arrogant party establishment being told to screw themselves by the voters? Yeah, kind of similar I guess.

Average workers are tired of the lame, corporatist status quo and the millionaire elites in both parties pushing to maintain it.
Click to expand...

Democrats have ruined their own party with cheating and lying. They ran a terrible candidate and then rigged the process to help her win. They failed in the general because she was so bad. Now they are so bad they don't have a candidate to beat a full blown socialist. Most of America is not going to go in the socialist direction.
 
Perotista said:
No problem. History shows that on average 90% of Republicans and democrats vote for their party's candidate regardless of who he is. I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about a candidate far behind basically blowing her chance to become the nominee by ending up strengthening the front runner. I have no problem with Sanders as the democratic nominee. I think going after number two to get you back into the nomination races doesn't work. Bringing down number two a notch or two isn't going to close the gap between you and the front runner or number one. It is going to increase it. Warren's political strategy in the debate was wrong if she wanted to become the nominee. If she wanted to stop Bloomberg from becoming the nominee by ensuring someone else would be that nominee, then she was right on.
Click to expand...

I get it.
As watcher of Warren since she got into politics (not that long ago) I understood why she went after Bloomberg, based on her simple ideology I would have lost respect for her if she didn't. It probably wasn't the best use for political capital sake but that is what makes her authentic. It's what she believes and has believed for a long time now.
She has been my number 1 choice for a long time so I do have a bias.
By the way I'm a recent Democrat, since Trump.
 
Middle_Ground said:
Wow.
All I'm gonna say is I'm not one of the young people but I have been watching them.
Good union jobs out the window
Affordable advanced education out the window
One paycheck paying the bills out the window.
Healthcare with those good union jobs not requiring advanced education out the window.
I see there point.
You see free they want everything handed to them I see a severe deinvestment happening since the 70's.
Back in the 60's 70's even part of the 80's you could get a job struggle thru go to college or vocational school and live a pretty decent life.
Sorry but educational costs at 300%+ increase and few decent jobs available without some degree out there.
How about we go back to earlier numbers of investment into higher education, so people can actually pay their way thru school.
I'm not jealous of the rich. It sounds like common sense to me you have more you pay more.

I watched a friend a few years ago pay 23k to go to school for 18months to get a medical tech certificate. She was working $8 bucks an hour. She could have gone to the local community college part time for 3 years and about 10k, she felt the additional year would have left her eventually homeless. She went from $8 an hour to $15 but now she had 17k in debt.
How much was a lpn degree in 70's, 80's?
These are taxpayers they are not getting anything for free.
Click to expand...

Good Union jobs out the window, thanks to the Democrats who don't care because they tell people not to worry about your $30 per hour job because we'll guarantee you $15 per hour part time at Walmart or McDonalds.

Your side believes the world began in 1968. It didn't. A living wage was established in 1938 and, taking inflation into account that wage is approximately right where we are at now. And, to boot, now we've got a lot of two wage earners instead of the one wage earner we had before. And, as I said, the poor's standard of living has ALWAYS gone up. The poor are way better off than they were decades and even centuries ago. It doesn't matter what happened with the rich. That is irrelevant. The poor are always better off than they were in the past.
 
iguanaman said:
Society and laws were invented to keep the strong from taking advantage of the weak. We live in the 21st century not "the cave man days". Giving the weak and poor a leg up is what created our middle class out of the ashes of the great Depression. You think Govt. keeps people in poverty? Greed keeps people in poverty and if Govt. does not step in to curb it 90% of us will go back to serfdom.
Click to expand...

As I said, you can compare the poor to any time in the past and their standard of living has greatly improved. It is irrelevant what the standard of living is for other people. The poor are much better off now than in any time in history, including the year you creationists believe the world started in 1968.
 
Perotista said:
No problem. History shows that on average 90% of Republicans and democrats vote for their party's candidate regardless of who he is. I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about a candidate far behind basically blowing her chance to become the nominee by ending up strengthening the front runner. I have no problem with Sanders as the democratic nominee. I think going after number two to get you back into the nomination races doesn't work. Bringing down number two a notch or two isn't going to close the gap between you and the front runner or number one. It is going to increase it. Warren's political strategy in the debate was wrong if she wanted to become the nominee. If she wanted to stop Bloomberg from becoming the nominee by ensuring someone else would be that nominee, then she was right on.
Click to expand...

Your baseball analogy was very good.
 
Middle_Ground said:
I get it.
As watcher of Warren since she got into politics (not that long ago) I understood why she went after Bloomberg, based on her simple ideology I would have lost respect for her if she didn't. It probably wasn't the best use for political capital sake but that is what makes her authentic. It's what she believes and has believed for a long time now.
She has been my number 1 choice for a long time so I do have a bias.
By the way I'm a recent Democrat, since Trump.
Click to expand...

I'm one old foggie who has never belong to either major party. Although I did have a five year stint as a member of Ross Perot's Reform Party. I became interested in politics watching the 1956 Democratic and Republican conventions on TV. Like pretty much everyone else growing up at that time, I liked IKE. I always went with the candidate I liked the best, for some reason parties never interested me much. But that may have had more to do with my background being military all my life. Most were non-political.

I do see you get it, quite a few others didn't.
 
iguanaman said:
That is the threat and it looks like there is a good chance that the Bernie bots are going to responsible for electing Trump TWICE. No wonder Trump is telling Republicans to vote for him in the primary in S. Carolina. Sanders is a gift to Trump and the Alt. Right fascists. Even Russia is helping Bernie now.

Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof

Republicans: Want to reelect Trump? Vote for Bernie | TheHill
Click to expand...

IMO, Bernie will garner more votes than Clinton. She was a dead fish that could NOT excite anyone for any reason whatsoever to go out and vote for her.
Bernie does something that is pretty amazing, he gets people to go out and listen to him and he will get them to go out and vote for him.

As there is with everything, wildcards do come up. Corona Virus is actually going to impact the economy and the healthcare system. Bernie would benefit.

Age, if Bernie shows weakness in this area, he is not keeping up a vigorous pace of rallies the way Trump does, then that will show weakness that could be a positive for Trump. We saw it in 2016 when Trump was out campaigning Hillary, Bill and Obama. It was a harbinger for what was to come. We are the USA, I honestly think we want to see our candidates fight for the job.
 
Middle_Ground said:
The 2020 democratic primary is shaping up too similar to what the Republican primaries looked like in 16.

Anyone else have this eerie feeling?
Click to expand...

A non establishment candidate?
 
HumblePi said:
YES. With Bernie Sanders, we're swinging from being a capitalist country to a socialist society. Trump will win if Bernie is the candidate.
Click to expand...

Nope. No he won't.
 
charliebrown said:
IMO, Bernie will garner more votes than Clinton. She was a dead fish that could NOT excite anyone for any reason whatsoever to go out and vote for her.
Bernie does something that is pretty amazing, he gets people to go out and listen to him and he will get them to go out and vote for him.

As there is with everything, wildcards do come up. Corona Virus is actually going to impact the economy and the healthcare system. Bernie would benefit.

Age, if Bernie shows weakness in this area, he is not keeping up a vigorous pace of rallies the way Trump does, then that will show weakness that could be a positive for Trump. We saw it in 2016 when Trump was out campaigning Hillary, Bill and Obama. It was a harbinger for what was to come. We are the USA, I honestly think we want to see our candidates fight for the job.
Click to expand...

Voters also want to know how their vote will effect them. I worry that too many will see losing their employer Healthcare and paying higher taxes for MFA as negatives about Sanders. How can he fight that?
 
Moderate Right said:
As I said, you can compare the poor to any time in the past and their standard of living has greatly improved. It is irrelevant what the standard of living is for other people. The poor are much better off now than in any time in history, including the year you creationists believe the world started in 1968.
Click to expand...

Yes and a lot of that is thanks to Govt. I am an atheist BTW.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's the same bull**** line they have been saying since the caveman days. Life isn't fair. Never has been. It never will be. In caveman days it was survival of the fittest. Democratic policies keep people in a constant cycle of poverty generation after generation after generation because there is no incentive to make yourself better. In fact the incentive is, sit there and do nothing and we'll give you free things. We'll raise you minimum wage and you don't have to do anything for it. And, when your kids grow up, we'll give them free things. And so on and so on.

I'm jealous of the rich too. I'm jealous of all the billionaires. I'm jealous of all of the millionaires. I'm jealous of sports superstars and celebrities who seem to have gotten the lucky breaks. I'm jealous of people who win the lottery. I look at the struggles in my life and wonder why Jeff Bezos can use hundred dollar bills for toilet paper and I can't. Why can't he give me a measly 100K to improve my life, like he'd actually miss it? But, life has never been fair, it is not fair now, and it never will be fair. Jeff Bezos owes me nothing. He doesn't owe anyone anything. Neither does anyone on so-called Wall Street. Neither does anyone who won 100 million dollars in the lottery while I've been playing for decades, never winning more than about one hundred. If Democrats have any ideas to help people permanently out of their holes then I'm more than happy to listen but those ideas never expand beyond giving these people free things. When the free things run out they are right back to where they started from unless the solution is to keep on giving them free things and their kids free things and their grandkids free things.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as free stuff.
But you have RW BS down to a tee.
 
Moderate Right said:
Good Union jobs out the window, thanks to the Democrats who don't care because they tell people not to worry about your $30 per hour job because we'll guarantee you $15 per hour part time at Walmart or McDonalds.

Your side believes the world began in 1968. It didn't. A living wage was established in 1938 and, taking inflation into account that wage is approximately right where we are at now. And, to boot, now we've got a lot of two wage earners instead of the one wage earner we had before. And, as I said, the poor's standard of living has ALWAYS gone up. The poor are way better off than they were decades and even centuries ago. It doesn't matter what happened with the rich. That is irrelevant. The poor are always better off than they were in the past.
Click to expand...

Lol so because Democrats want Walmart and Target to pay$15 an hour they got rid of unions?
If it wasn't for Reagan maybe Walmart workers could have had a Union and there wouldn't need to be a push to raise minimum wage.
I don't believe the world began in the 60's. I do believe once boomers got theirs they started clawing back every single thing they received so future generations suffered.
So basically your saying because women started getting educations and working so instead of a 2 income household doing twice as well as they were doing 40 years ago, many are in the same position and you see nothing wrong with that?
No where did I mention the "poor" I'm talking about working, tax paying Americans being short changed. There is help for the poor its those right above and in between getting squeezed.
 
Perotista said:
I'm one old foggie who has never belong to either major party. Although I did have a five year stint as a member of Ross Perot's Reform Party. I became interested in politics watching the 1956 Democratic and Republican conventions on TV. Like pretty much everyone else growing up at that time, I liked IKE. I always went with the candidate I liked the best, for some reason parties never interested me much. But that may have had more to do with my background being military all my life. Most were non-political.

I do see you get it, quite a few others didn't.
Click to expand...

Lol well I'm not that old but I've always gone back and forth. Agreed with something's on either side. I never really paid a lot of attention to politics always felt like we had steady hands at the wheel. This is the first time I don't feel that.
 
charliebrown said:
Yes it is. I am not sure if it is eerie or not. I personally thought Bernie would have done better than Clinton in the presidential election.

If this goes to the convention without a clear winner, oh man is that scenario going to look messy.

Honestly, the longer Bernie rallies the masses and collects the small donor dollars, the harder it is going to be for his followers to accept his second toppling. The question is, will they all sit home and pout?
Click to expand...

If he isn't nominated, they will pout AND they will sit home.
 
Excast said:
If Sanders continues down this path and walks into the convention with a commanding lead of hundreds of delegates, yet still short of the 1,990 mark, what do you believe is the just thing to happen?
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton would be the nominee.
 
Airyaman said:
I'm not. As an ex-Republican, I held up hope almost until the bitter end that Trump would not be the nominee. But he was.

It's over. Bernie is the only one still in the race who can afford to go on. Sure, Bloomberg has money too, but Bernie's partner, Elizabeth Warren, took him out.

It's done. Donnie vs. Bernie, 2020. Donnie will win in a landslide.
Click to expand...

Excellent analysis and all true. 4 more years and hopefully a Republican house
 
Cardinal said:
I’m not saying it’s a sure thing that Bernie will win, but it’s just plain goofy to think trump’s victory is assured. There are no numbers that support that position.

People really need to toughen up.
Click to expand...

The ONLY person that generates any excitement is Sanders but America will frown on an avowed socialist. Even some of the liberal posters here are depressed that it will be Bernie
 
Airyaman said:
Numbers weren't on Trump's side until they were.

Trump will have a billion dollar war chest and a closet full of Bernie's skeletons to trot out every day. Bernie simply has not been vetted in a national election.
Click to expand...

With Sanders it may be a trillion dollar war chest. Unless they are complete idiots, every capitalist in the world should throw every spare dollar and every trick in the book to stop Sanders. So should ever American because with Sanders as president, trillions of dollars will flee the USA and the massive in-flow of foreign money will cease. If capitalism loses, we all lose. We are Venezuela quickly because the money is gone, while reducing money to worthlessness by spending tens of trillions more, having none of it and not even capable of keeping up with interest payments on the mounting national and trade deficits growing by the trillions and trillions.
 
Paradoxical said:
The ONLY person that generates any excitement is Sanders but America will frown on an avowed socialist. Even some of the liberal posters here are depressed that it will be Bernie
Click to expand...

Sanders is a say-whatever-they-want-to-hear populist, just like Trump is.
 
If Oprah would to say "as much as I would prefer not to, we can't have a socialist running as our candidate, so I am announcing my candidacy - and it would be her's. Even if too late to get in enough primaries - or any at all - that could be turned into creating a brokered convention and it's her's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom