DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:Horse's ***.
STANV said:Principled advocate.
Tulsi Gabbard blames both sides for shutdown.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/20/gabbard-democrats-republicans-shutdown-1116066
Courageous hero or opportunistic traitor? Or something else?
What exactly is the "principle" here? Wanting to negotiate with Trump because he throws a tantrum?
No, because he's President.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:No, because he's President.
paulsurovell said:Horse's ***.
STANV said:Principled advocate.
Tulsi Gabbard blames both sides for shutdown.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/20/gabbard-democrats-republicans-shutdown-1116066
Courageous hero or opportunistic traitor? Or something else?
What exactly is the "principle" here? Wanting to negotiate with Trump because he throws a tantrum?
You sure? Because he’s sure not acting the part
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:No, because he's President.
paulsurovell said:Horse's ***.
STANV said:Principled advocate.
Tulsi Gabbard blames both sides for shutdown.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/20/gabbard-democrats-republicans-shutdown-1116066
Courageous hero or opportunistic traitor? Or something else?
What exactly is the "principle" here? Wanting to negotiate with Trump because he throws a tantrum?
He's President.
Not King.
Seems to me that there is significant doubt as to whether he is President. Perhaps we should wait for the Mueller Report before coming down on either side of the issue.
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:He's President.
drummerboy said:No, because he's President.
paulsurovell said:Horse's ***.
STANV said:Principled advocate.
Tulsi Gabbard blames both sides for shutdown.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/20/gabbard-democrats-republicans-shutdown-1116066
Courageous hero or opportunistic traitor? Or something else?
What exactly is the "principle" here? Wanting to negotiate with Trump because he throws a tantrum?
Not King.
Ha! Now you sound like me.
I've been complaining on this here board for years that we have effectively bestowed our President the powers of a monarch.
terp said:
I've been complaining on this here board for years that we have effectively bestowed our President the powers of a monarch.
Well yeah, but I don't think that's what Paul was intentionally trying to say. We have here a clear case where the President should simply be treated as a co-equal branch, but Paul elevated the President for some reason.
terp said:
I've been complaining on this here board for years that we have effectively bestowed our President the powers of a monarch.
I think we should have a monarch. Better than this stupid system the founding fathers came up with. At the end of the day I don't think they even understood how it was supposed to work anymore. With a monarch at least you have a chance at some intelligence (albeit not a guarantee). UK being the exception to monarchies making any sense of course.
basil said:
terp said:I think we should have a monarch. Better than this stupid system the founding fathers came up with. At the end of the day I don't think they even understood how it was supposed to work anymore. With a monarch at least you have a chance at some intelligence (albeit not a guarantee). UK being the exception to monarchies making any sense of course.
I've been complaining on this here board for years that we have effectively bestowed our President the powers of a monarch.
Firstly... Guys, the UK has had a couple of intelligeant monarchs in a row, the latest knows she can’t die because her replacement is a dweeby tosspot, let’s not get carried away.
Secondly, Guys, have you seen most monarchs lately? The president is way more powerful than a lot of monarchs. Head of state, leader of party, aaaaaand commander in chief. And not just titular, either.
STANV said:
Tulsi Gabbard blames both sides for shutdown.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/20/gabbard-democrats-republicans-shutdown-1116066
Courageous hero or opportunistic traitor? Or something else?
I believe Gabbard has a valid point. Both parties have painted themselves into a corner playing to their base in the matter. Support for and against the wall clearly is divided by party affiliation. According to a January 2019 survey by the Pew Foundation, although a majority of Americans (58%) do oppose substantially expanding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, 40% support doing so. But, those “attitudes diverge sharply by party: Around eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (82%) support expanding the wall, while an even larger share of Democrats and Democratic leaners (93%) oppose it…both opponents and supporters of the idea see political concessions as unacceptable, according to the January 2019 survey. Nearly nine-in-ten Americans who oppose expanding the border wall (88%) say it would be unacceptable for Congress to pass a bill that includes Trump’s request for wall funding if that is the only way to end the government shutdown. Among the smaller group of Americans who support expanding the border wall, 72% say it would be unacceptable for Congress to pass a bill that does not include Trump’s requested funding.” http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/16/how-americans-see-illegal-immigration-the-border-wall-and-political-compromise/
Of course, the wall, and the argument over it, is more symbolic than anything else. The wall is a proxy for the entire immigration issue. The discussion/question that truly needs to be addressed is what should be our national policy on immigration? The fight over the wall is just one battle in the larger war. In the meantime, federal employees and others who need a federal office to process a document or for some other reason are being caught in the cross-fire. If neither side blinks - or finds a way to compromise - how long will the shutdown continue and what will be the collateral damage?
Norman_Bates said:
STANV said:I believe Gabbard has a valid point. Both parties have painted themselves into a corner playing to their base in the matter. Support for and against the wall clearly is divided by party affiliation. According to a January 2019 survey by the Pew Foundation, although a majority of Americans (58%) do oppose substantially expanding the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, 40% support doing so. But, those “attitudes diverge sharply by party: Around eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (82%) support expanding the wall, while an even larger share of Democrats and Democratic leaners (93%) oppose it…both opponents and supporters of the idea see political concessions as unacceptable, according to the January 2019 survey. Nearly nine-in-ten Americans who oppose expanding the border wall (88%) say it would be unacceptable for Congress to pass a bill that includes Trump’s request for wall funding if that is the only way to end the government shutdown. Among the smaller group of Americans who support expanding the border wall, 72% say it would be unacceptable for Congress to pass a bill that does not include Trump’s requested funding.” http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/16/how-americans-see-illegal-immigration-the-border-wall-and-political-compromise/
Tulsi Gabbard blames both sides for shutdown.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/20/gabbard-democrats-republicans-shutdown-1116066
Courageous hero or opportunistic traitor? Or something else?
Of course, the wall, and the argument over it, is more symbolic than anything else. The wall is a proxy for the entire immigration issue. The discussion/question that truly needs to be addressed is what should be our national policy on immigration? The fight over the wall is just one battle in the larger war. In the meantime, federal employees and others who need a federal office to process a document or for some other reason are being caught in the cross-fire. If neither side blinks - or finds a way to compromise - how long will the shutdown continue and what will be the collateral damage?
No, Gabbard does not have a valid point. We have a shutdown because Trump got scared by Rush freaking Limbaugh. He was about to sign the budget resolution, and then reneged.
The Dems have been walked all over for years by McConnell, and now he's trying to do it again by refusing to consider a bill which would clearly pass the Senate..
How can you possibly reward that kind of behavior? Pelosi is absolutely correct to demand nothing less than a reconsideration of the resolutions that had already passed in December, and then talk about border security, in a calm manner, rather than do it at the point of a gun as the President tries to demagogue the issue.
And Gabbard is very disappointingly wrong on this issue.
Well Kamala Harris is in.
Interesting points I read. Her first campaign event (other than the kickoff rally in CA) is scheduled for South Carolina. One of the early primary states and one where African Americans represent a large percentage of the Democratic party electorate.
Also California moved its primary up to March 3rd. She could conceivably grab a large chunk of delegates by Super Tuesday.
ridski said:
basil said:Firstly... Guys, the UK has had a couple of intelligeant monarchs in a row, the latest knows she can’t die because her replacement is a dweeby tosspot, let’s not get carried away.
terp said:I think we should have a monarch. Better than this stupid system the founding fathers came up with. At the end of the day I don't think they even understood how it was supposed to work anymore. With a monarch at least you have a chance at some intelligence (albeit not a guarantee). UK being the exception to monarchies making any sense of course.
I've been complaining on this here board for years that we have effectively bestowed our President the powers of a monarch.
Secondly, Guys, have you seen most monarchs lately? The president is way more powerful than a lot of monarchs. Head of state, leader of party, aaaaaand commander in chief. And not just titular, either.
Well, no offense, but any system of government that produced #brexit is pretty much as bad as any system that produced Trump in the WH.
In both cases the problem is caused by conservatives who put party over country, and in both cases there is no mechanism in the system to compensate for that.
A system of government from any of the Western European countries (many of them monarchies), or Canada or Australia, is just much better than the current US or UK system. Maybe not perfect, but certainly superior.
drummerboy saidNo, Gabbard does not have a valid point. We have a shutdown because Trump got scared by Rush freaking Limbaugh. He was about to sign the budget resolution, and then reneged.
The Dems have been walked all over for years by McConnell, and now he's trying to do it again by refusing to consider a bill which would clearly pass the Senate..
How can you possibly reward that kind of behavior? Pelosi is absolutely correct to demand nothing less than a reconsideration of the resolutions that had already passed in December, and then talk about border security, in a calm manner, rather than do it at the point of a gun as the President tries to demagogue the issue.
And Gabbard is very disappointingly wrong on this issue.
You, in fact, make my point.
Norman_Bates said:
drummerboy said No, Gabbard does not have a valid point. We have a shutdown because Trump got scared by Rush freaking Limbaugh. He was about to sign the budget resolution, and then reneged.You, in fact, make my point.
The Dems have been walked all over for years by McConnell, and now he's trying to do it again by refusing to consider a bill which would clearly pass the Senate..
How can you possibly reward that kind of behavior? Pelosi is absolutely correct to demand nothing less than a reconsideration of the resolutions that had already passed in December, and then talk about border security, in a calm manner, rather than do it at the point of a gun as the President tries to demagogue the issue.
And Gabbard is very disappointingly wrong on this issue.
Sorry - what point is that?
drummerboy said:
STANV said:No, Gabbard does not have a valid point. We have a shutdown because Trump got scared by Rush freaking Limbaugh. He was about to sign the budget resolution, and then reneged.
Tulsi Gabbard blames both sides for shutdown.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/20/gabbard-democrats-republicans-shutdown-1116066
Courageous hero or opportunistic traitor? Or something else?
The Dems have been walked all over for years by McConnell, and now he's trying to do it again by refusing to consider a bill which would clearly pass the Senate..
How can you possibly reward that kind of behavior? Pelosi is absolutely correct to demand nothing less than a reconsideration of the resolutions that had already passed in December, and then talk about border security, in a calm manner, rather than do it at the point of a gun as the President tries to demagogue the issue.
And Gabbard is very disappointingly wrong on this issue.
This was is widely reported and is widely known. So, Gabbard must know this. Which bring up a question.
What is Gabbard playing at? What is her agenda?
BG9 said:
drummerboy said:This was is widely reported and is widely known. So, Gabbard must know this. Which bring up a question.
STANV said:No, Gabbard does not have a valid point. We have a shutdown because Trump got scared by Rush freaking Limbaugh. He was about to sign the budget resolution, and then reneged.
Tulsi Gabbard blames both sides for shutdown.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/20/gabbard-democrats-republicans-shutdown-1116066
Courageous hero or opportunistic traitor? Or something else?
The Dems have been walked all over for years by McConnell, and now he's trying to do it again by refusing to consider a bill which would clearly pass the Senate..
How can you possibly reward that kind of behavior? Pelosi is absolutely correct to demand nothing less than a reconsideration of the resolutions that had already passed in December, and then talk about border security, in a calm manner, rather than do it at the point of a gun as the President tries to demagogue the issue.
And Gabbard is very disappointingly wrong on this issue.
What is Gabbard playing at? What is her agenda?
Good question. Regardless of what her agenda is, she's undercutting Pelosi and throwing support to Trump/McConnell, which if you ask me is unforgivable right now. It's one thing for the media to fall into nonsensical both-siderism, but to have a Presidential candidate do it is kind of worrisome.
She's off my list.
basil said:Well, no offense, but any system of government that produced #brexit is pretty much as bad as any system that produced Trump in the WH.
In both cases the problem is caused by conservatives who put party over country, and in both cases there is no mechanism in the system to compensate for that.
A system of government from any of the Western European countries (many of them monarchies), or Canada or Australia, is just much better than the current US or UK system. Maybe not perfect, but certainly superior.
No system of government can guarantee good policy -- good defined here as "what I would choose" ;-)
The disadvantage of the US system is that it doesn't allow an easy way to reflect the polity changing its mind. As I noted above, we basically get a chance every two years to elect rival governments.
Brexit's a mess because the UK polity still remains divided and undecided as to what they want. If the past two years had actually resulted in a clear and decisive turn to "remain", there were opportunities to have that reflected in Parliament. As it is, May just survived a no-confidence vote because while no one likes what's on offer, neither Parliament nor the electorate at large has a clear vision of what they'd prefer instead.
Support for Brexit and support for The Wall are both based on xenophobia and/or racism.
Speaker Nancy is not far from wrong when she calls the Wall "immoral".
Having said that, when Trump offers universal single-payer health insurance in return for the Wall I will support giving him his Wall.
LOST said:
Support for Brexit and support for The Wall are both based on xenophobia and/or racism.
No system of government can fix that.
PVW said:
basil said:No system of government can guarantee good policy -- good defined here as "what I would choose" ;-)
Well, no offense, but any system of government that produced #brexit is pretty much as bad as any system that produced Trump in the WH.
In both cases the problem is caused by conservatives who put party over country, and in both cases there is no mechanism in the system to compensate for that.
A system of government from any of the Western European countries (many of them monarchies), or Canada or Australia, is just much better than the current US or UK system. Maybe not perfect, but certainly superior.
The disadvantage of the US system is that it doesn't allow an easy way to reflect the polity changing its mind. As I noted above, we basically get a chance every two years to elect rival governments.
Brexit's a mess because the UK polity still remains divided and undecided as to what they want. If the past two years had actually resulted in a clear and decisive turn to "remain", there were opportunities to have that reflected in Parliament. As it is, May just survived a no-confidence vote because while no one likes what's on offer, neither Parliament nor the electorate at large has a clear vision of what they'd prefer instead.
Just to be clear, I do not think a system of government should dictate some policy, let alone "my policy". I think a system of government should make sure that there are enough checks and balances to avoid totalitarianism and make sure compromises are always possible to support what is best for the people.
For example, the Electoral College, as far as I can see it, was designed as a safety valve in case an unfit populist / autocrat would somehow manage to win the popular vote. It is failing and is doing the opposite. Different branches of government, impeachment, etc were designed to make sure that nobody is above the law, and we would not end up with Kings and Princes. None of it works. So the system fails.
Brexit is an example of where politicians blundered their way into a disaster (starting with Cameron). But there should be a political system that allows for it to still be fixed. Everyone knows how it should be fixed, namely by May to either call for another referendum, or propose a soft brexit. Both would work, but she is not proposing because she would damage herself and/or her party in the process. The fact that there is no safety valve for this is a failure of the UK system.
basil said:Just to be clear, I do not think a system of government should dictate some policy, let alone "my policy". I think a system of government should make sure that there are enough checks and balances to avoid totalitarianism and make sure compromises are always possible to support what is best for the people.
For example, the Electoral College, as far as I can see it, was designed as a safety valve in case an unfit populist / autocrat would somehow manage to win the popular vote. It is failing and is doing the opposite. Different branches of government, impeachment, etc were designed to make sure that nobody is above the law, and we would not end up with Kings and Princes. None of it works. So the system fails.
Brexit is an example of where politicians blundered their way into a disaster (starting with Cameron). But there should be a political system that allows for it to still be fixed. Everyone knows how it should be fixed, namely by May to either call for another referendum, or propose a soft brexit. Both would work, but she is not proposing because she would damage herself and/or her party in the process. The fact that there is no safety valve for this is a failure of the UK system.
Which party represents the constituency for another referendum? Which represents that for a soft Brexit?
While it's "obvious" these are the two workable solutions, it's not obvious there's a clear electoral majority for anything. I can't say Corbyn's been a striking example of leadership, and if Labour isn't representing "remain", then who is?
I'd say Parliament accurately represents the confused state of the British electoral at large currently, and I'm not sure how a representative democracy can conjure up clarity if that's lacking in those it represents.
I keep coming here for discussion about 2020 Candidates and finding arguments about something happening in another country entirely.
mrincredible said:
I keep coming here for discussion about 2020 Candidates and finding arguments about something happening in another country entirely.
Discussions are free flowing. The latest started as a discussion of the position of candidate, Tulsi Gabbard.
The official count of candidates from Ballotpedia:
The following elected officials have filed to run for president with the Federal Election Commission or announced exploratory committees.
- Julian Castro (D), a former U.S. secretary of housing and urban development and San Antonio mayor, formally announced his candidacy on January 12, 2019.
- John Delaney (D), a former U.S. representative from Maryland, filed to run for president on August 10, 2017.
- Tulsi Gabbard (D), a U.S. representative from Hawaii, announced that she had decided to run for president on January 11, 2019.
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D), a U.S. senator from New York, announced that she was running for president on January 15, 2019.
- Kamala Harris (D), a U.S. senator from California, announced that she was running for president on January 21, 2019.
- Richard Ojeda (D), a state senator from West Virginia, filed to run for president on November 11, 2018.
- President Donald Trump (R) filed to run for re-election in 2020 on January 20, 2017.
- Elizabeth Warren (D), U.S. senator from Massachusetts, announced she had formed an exploratory committee on December 31, 2018.
Apparently some rich guy named Tom Steyer announced that he was not going to run. Thanks for the heads up, Tom.
So which Republicans will have a backbone and run against Trump for the party nomination?
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Horse's ***.
What exactly is the "principle" here? Wanting to negotiate with Trump because he throws a tantrum?