"Take her out!"

[MTAtech]

Another Adam Schiff.

It's a complement to be compared to the eloquent Adam Schiff.

 

[eohrnberger]

What a good thread!

Regarding the Senate Impeachment trial, the prospect remains high the Senate GOP votes to exclude additional witnesses. I smile on how that tactic plays out in the 2020 General Election with the Independent voters! Chump cannot win reelection with only his base.

True, but Biden has been stagnant in the polls for like forever, and Bernie is surging, so are the Democrats willing to make Bernie, the life long communist, their standard bearer?

If Bernie is the candidate, the election becomes a referendum on Bernie and his crazy and un-affordable public policies, as well as his 'colorful' past history, as well as his distinct lack of accomplishment while in office, none of those things play very well with the independents.

If Bernie is not the candidate, the Bernie Bros will stay home in a repeat of 2016.

Some are floating a Biden / Hillary ticket, but that too isn't Bernie as the candidate, the Bernie Bros will stay home.

One day I'd like to be able to vote FOR a presidential candidate, rather than AGAINST truly distasteful and terrifying presidential candidate.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

It's a complement to be compared to the eloquent Adam Schiff.

I'm sure it is..

 

[Parrish]

Sure sure, no one ever said he controlled the joy stick, that's just infantile bull**** you throw up as a smoke screen. That old bag Yovanavich isn't worthy of a letter from Trump. He could let her go anyway he wants. Obama dumps all his ambassadors, one by allow terrorists to kill him. Trump dumps one, and he's a monster. :lamo

What a guy, huh?

 

[Trippy Trekker]

True, but Biden has been stagnant in the polls for like forever, and Bernie is surging, so are the Democrats willing to make Bernie, the life long communist, their standard bearer?

If Bernie is the candidate, the election becomes a referendum on Bernie and his crazy and un-affordable public policies, as well as his 'colorful' past history, as well as his distinct lack of accomplishment while in office, none of those things play very well with the independents.

If Bernie is not the candidate, the Bernie Bros will stay home in a repeat of 2016.

Some are floating a Biden / Hillary ticket, but that too isn't Bernie as the candidate, the Bernie Bros will stay home.

One day I'd like to be able to vote FOR a presidential candidate, rather than AGAINST truly distasteful and terrifying presidential candidate.

No way do I anticipate Hillary on anybody's ticket. I also do not expect Bernie to emerge as the DEM nominee. In time, we shall see.

 

[eohrnberger]

No way do I anticipate Hillary on anybody's ticket. I also do not expect Bernie to emerge as the DEM nominee. In time, we shall see.

Yeah, I have to agree that a Biden / Hillary ticket seems very unlikely. I don't think she want to take the chance of becoming a 3 time loser trying to get to the White House.

Do you think it likely that in the midst of a good economy, with the bottom 2 quintiles gaining the most and the fastest, record low unemployment, record high employment and employment participation, that Bernie's public policy proposals with absolutely no clues as to how to pay for them is going to gain the needed traction to win an election against an incumbent, and the advantages that the aforementioned give an incumbent?

I'm finding that rather unlikely. Kitchen table / pocketbook issues.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Yeah, I have to agree that a Biden / Hillary ticket seems very unlikely. I don't think she want to take the chance of becoming a 3 time loser trying to get to the White House.

Do you think it likely that in the midst of a good economy, with the bottom 2 quintiles gaining the most and the fastest, record low unemployment, record high employment and employment participation, that Bernie's public policy proposals with absolutely no clues as to how to pay for them is going to gain the needed traction to win an election against an incumbent, and the advantages that the aforementioned give an incumbent?

I'm finding that rather unlikely. Kitchen table / pocketbook issues.

I addressed at least part of your question in another thread that we both participated in. Trump's extraordinary character flaws may very well lead to an anomaly, specifically in his case, an incumbent losing a reelection during an era of relatively strong economic performance.

I voted for Bernie in the Florida Primary in 2016. Bernie, IMO, in a General Election against Trump has no chance in the south or enough of the Swing States to win.

I voted 'Not Happy' in Josie's poll. Nonetheless, as an ardent Anti-Trumper, if Bernie emerges as the DEM nominee, I plan on supporting him and voting for him.

Bloomberg campaign manager: Trump would '''decisively''' beat Sanders



I don't want Bloomberg to become the DEM nominee either. As much as using vast personal wealth to obtain elected office turns me off, given a choice between Bernie and Mike, I'd choose Mike because I think Mike would govern more effectively.

As an aside, Rick Scott (GOP), former two-term Florida Governor and now the Junior U.S. Senator from Florida, used his vast personal wealth to obtain elected office.

Hillary v. Bernie - Hillary mopped up in the South; Bernie mopped up in the North

View attachment 67272677

Results of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia

Florida Primary Results: 2016 Election - NBC News

IMO In 2020, if the eventual DEM candidate can win Florida's 29 EVs, that candidate becomes our next POTUS. Not so automatic if Trump wins Florida. Trump would probably still have to win PA(20), MI(16), AZ(11) and WI(10).

In 2016, out of 10MIL+/- votes cast, Chump took Florida by about 120K votes. I expect him to win Florida again, this time by a lesser margin. I plan on doing what I can to make Florida a true battleground state!

Let us who have declared ourselves an Anti-Trumper face the future thoughtfully with purpose and confidence. Down goes Chump in 2020!

 

[eohrnberger]

I addressed at least part of your question in another thread that we both participated in. Trump's extraordinary character flaws may very well lead to an anomaly, specifically in his case, an incumbent losing a reelection during an era of relatively strong economic performance.

You probably did, and I missed it. Sorry about that. But then, neither of those posts were in response to one of my posts. :shrug:

I agree with you in that it would be an anomaly for an incumbent president to lose an election with a strong economy. I'll go even further in that Trump cannot turn a phrase to save his life, and that he is largely and constantly portrayed in a negative manner by a hateful leftist press.

But my lean is that this his losing the 2020 election is unlikely to happen, especially so when you likely put a life long communist radical with no accomplishments and rather dubious public policy proposals with no visible means or ideas as to how to pay for them, I think it even less likely. Why would the bottom 1/2 of the economic spectrum, for whom things are finally starting to look economically better, who finally have a bit more money (some claim up to $10K) in their pockets after years of being income growth stagnant, risk that on such crazy and crazily costly public policy proposals? Kitchen table and pocketbook issues are the focus for these voters.

But I've been wrong before, and I'm sure I'll be wrong again in the future as well. Just not thinking so on this question.

Why has the House, led by the Democrats, allowed the law which makes selling fentanyl lapse? It was up for renewal, unanimously passed the Senate, only to languish on Nacy's desk.

Congress should act to allow a ban on fentanyl indefinitely ...
Jan 5, 2020 - But this ban expires Feb. 6; it could be extended for at most one year, after consultations with the Department of Health and Human Services.
​

Too busy with the political Kubul theater of the impeachment?
The one with no criminal charges?
The one that was more bi-partisan against in the House than for?

I think those priorities aren't the ones of the people whom the House Representatives are supposed to be representing.

 

[American]

Let's also note that it was no transcript. It was a summary.
View attachment 67272698

So you're saying they lied and didn't follow standard practice?

 

[Vern]

I'd like to Vern, but you must know how by now how stubbornly thick liberals can be. They don't even want to look at evidence of wrongdoing! Can you imagine that?

But I know a smart guy like you would be interested. YouTube

oh Fred, you had them dang libruls on the run. You only needed to state what you think Biden did. “Hey, watch this 30 minute video. What I obediently believe may or may not be in there somewhere” is not really evidence of anything other than what you believe. Its actually more of a cowardly dodge than evidence or debate. some might even call it dishonest too. Regardless what they call it, nobody will call it evidence or debate.

 

[Vern]

And how many times do I have to repeat myself with you VERN? The answer to your request is in the transcripts of the phone calls between Zelensky and Trump. Cripe sake find the transcripts online and read them.

hey Vesper, how's you backing up your "answers" coming? remember, I addressed your cowardly and dishonest "wah wah read the transcript" dodge.

vesper, do you know what proves your "wah wah read the transcript" is just another cowardly and dishonest dodge? because of the 7 "questions and answers" you posted, the transcript could only possibly back up 1. It could only back up the first one if you ignore the fact that Zelensky is only agreeing with what trump said and he doesn't even know who she is (see link in post 112). So you can pretend it answered the first one but not the other six. Try to focus on the first four that you asked. Here they are again so you cant pretend not to know.



Oh and look at the 4th one. How hilarious is it that you think the transcript proves their were "reports"? What about the actual reports that show trump lied about Yovanovitch to smear her and made a quid pro quo deal with a corrupt prosecutor to fire her. Oh and the corrupt prosecutor didn't like her because she was trying to get him to do his job.

 

[vesper]

hey Vesper, how's you backing up your "answers" coming? remember, I addressed your cowardly and dishonest "wah wah read the transcript" dodge.

I did answer you Vern. Multiple times. You just didn't like my answer. I do believe what you are engaging in is what the forum calls trolling, flaming, baiting.

 

[Vern]

I did answer you Vern. Multiple times. You just didn't like my answer. I do believe what you are engaging in is what the forum calls trolling, flaming, baiting.

Vesper, not only is "wah wah read the transcript" not an answer (again, its a cowardly and dishonest dodge) but I explained how the transcript cant in any way back up your "answers" for your "questions". You posted things as if they are fact. You were asked to back them up. why not just be the first conservative in America to admit you believed and parroted lies?

 

[ClaraD]

Is there something in the DNA of a liberal that prevents them from accepting any responsibility for poor choices and making an apology for false statements? If so then you have that DNA problem

is there something in the DNA of Republicans that makes them not accept any responsibility for poor choices and also makes them outright liars?

 

[ClaraD]

It's the will of he people voting in their States. You can also look at it as the State's voting. Majorities in California and New York don't necessarily reflect te will of the people.

I don't know who argued that it was the will of the people but it was certainly the vote of the individual States and the people who live therein, and they voted for Trump in a landslide.

so how about only give the portion of electoral votes that the person actually wins. If 50.2 percent votes for the Republican, then they get 50.2 % of the electoral votes from that state and the 49.8% goes to the other candidate.

 

[Conservative]

is there something in the DNA of Republicans that makes them not accept any responsibility for poor choices and also makes them outright liars?

Not surprising, you cannot admit you are wrong so again I was right about liberals like you. I posted the actual votes from California and still you cannot accept the facts. What is it about liberalism that creates people like you? Trump has done nothing that has hurt you as basic civics doesn't seem to be something you understand! Looks like the liars are on your side

 

[Conservative]

so how about only give the portion of electoral votes that the person actually wins. If 50.2 percent votes for the Republican, then they get 50.2 % of the electoral votes from that state and the 49.8% goes to the other candidate.

So it is your desire to have the country run by the state of California?? Again you show you have no understanding of the issues and you and people like you are the reason we have an electoral college

 

[American]

He gets other people to fire people didn't you know?

How should he do it?

 

[ClaraD]

So it is your desire to have the country run by the state of California?? Again you show you have no understanding of the issues and you and people like you are the reason we have an electoral college

no, it is my position to empower the people instead of the states...each person has a voice, not just Kansas.

 

[Conservative]

no, it is my position to empower the people instead of the states...each person has a voice, not just Kansas.

Context matters including Kansas, you don't appear to understand that either