Senate The US Politics discussion

Oh, man, I love this thread.

 

Listen, if Trump wins re-election, I am sure some Congressman will attempt it - or Trump will. And then yes, that would open up option 2.

 

Yeah, don't hold your breath. Voter suppression plus no good candidates and the Conservative hate machine will destroy any Democrat nominated. They will never win the Presidency again. Even if they manage to get the House back, they have lost the courts for decades, they are still in terrible shape at the state level, and there really is no path ahead for what passes for the left in this wretched dump of a country. There is no hope. There is no future.

 

As we are talking more and more about the high probability that the world will enter into a nuclear war, this video is very relevant:

 

appleseed: Here's why I disagree with you. For years now, we have heard people say they were tired of voting "the lesser of two evils" and so they stuck it to Hillary by not voting for her (whether by writing in someone else, voting third party or just not voting). They assumed she would win and that did not happen. Now they are facing a reality where the greater evil won because they did not vote. And things that they never thought they had to worry about because Hillary was going to win, are now either gone or on the chopping block. Not to mention that not since the Cuban Missile Crisis has there been more fear of an actual nuke being used. All of that has channeled into action we have not seen before. Barack Obama started it with his usage of social media- but it really culminated in the Women's March and we have now seen the effects starting in Virginia and Alabama.

Regardless of what happens in 2018, Republicans are going to lose seats in districts that are normally sure things for them. Even if they hold the House and Senate, they will face losses in unexpected areas. Why? Because grassroots and social media have changed campaigning. Bernie Sanders proved that with his campaign. His people built on what Obama started and its grown. And while Trump may have won on all that anger- his solutions screw the very people who voted him in and they've actually started to notice that.

I am not saying there's a sure chance of Trump losing. I still think he might be primaried first anyway and that would be the real danger to Democrats-or Pence replaces him before his term is up. But, if Trump runs- and I am thinking that less and less likely every day- he will face a challenge that he did not face the last time. He had 4 years and had an entire year with his party in command of all branches of government. What does he have to show for it? A half-baked tax cut bill and a bunch of broken promises. The criticism he leveled against Obama and Hillary- all of it really- can be used against him (golfing, executive orders, email server!). Not to mention the scrutiny he will face in the election this time regarding taxes and his physical and mental health. I don't see voters letting that one go even though I doubt his team ever releases anything but a vague statement here or there. And all of that doesn't even factor in what happens should Mueller uncover something or Don and Jared get snagged, pardoned and then tried by New York state.

And that's not even touching the economy, opioids, the environment, and our allies. That's not touching the multiple lawsuits he's facing or the fact that all of his accusers will be brought back up front and center this time- especially with Time's Up and MeToo. Trump may be crazy enough to run, but now knowing that there are enough crazy people who voted him in once- I don't see the same amount of people sitting home this time. And I don't see voter suppression being enough to hold back this wave of anger.

 

Eh, a lot of people on US presidential election 2020 forums were fawning over Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris before the Oprah thing.

 

No one has ever fawned over a Kirsten Gillibrand candidacy.

 

There were a lot of people over here doing it during the sexual harassment avalanche:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=101.0

 

appleseed: Don't be silly. There'll be another Democratic president--s/he will just govern like a Republican, like the last three Democrats.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...u-s-hourly-wage-to-11-in-wake-of-tax-overhaul

This, my liberal friends, is how you raise the "minimum" wage.

I love Trump!

 

This, my fascist friend, is how you read an article as opposed to a headline:

 

I too am glad that we spent at very minimum $1.5 trillion dollars in the next 10 years alone so that one private company can raise its lowest hourly wage for a few of its employees by less than $1/hr.

Seems like an efficient use of money to me. Fiscal responsibility, you know.

 

@V-2 Do you often confuse "Conservative" with "Facsist?"

Meanwhile, everyone in the free states are going to be getting $11/hour without a government edict. It's how Capitalism works.

 

I always wonder why the left throws a fit about 1.5 trillion (which will turn out to be much less) that actually helps people while ignoring the 10 trillion they've managed to gain in debt while not helping anyone.

At all.

Except the banks. And GM.

 

Don't forget about the x trillions spent on invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan without helping anyone.

 

I work for those pieces of crap and I can assure you we will see no benefits from that. For every cent they raise, they cut hours, increase pressure and pile on mistreatment. Plus 11 bucks an hour is not a living wage for most people, and most of us are subsided by the government with food stamps. I just happen to be in a position where I live in a paid for house so I have less overhead.

The way this company treats people is a prime example of why America sucks and why conservatives are filth. They should pay 15 an hour at least and work full timers 40 hrs a week, not 35-37.

 

Let's get our facts straight, shall we?

TARP was passed by W. The financial crisis necessitating its passage occurred as a direct result of financial deregulation pushed by Republicans during their unified control of government during 2000-2006. That, coupled with tax cuts for the rich during a time of two wars, nearly brought down America's financial system and overall economy.

Please do not accuse "liberals" of being the creators of debt. Both parties do it, but only one party claims to care about it, and only then when they're out of power. I understand your viewpoint differs from most of us here, and I respect those differences, but if you're going to make a case, do it on a foundation of facts.

Thank you, and Happy New Year!

 

Good morning, J-rod!

 

No, but the opposite of liberal is not conservative, it's authoritarian.

"Free states" as opposed to what, slave states? If you read the article you'd see how capitalism works. Walmart are facing criticism for paying their workers so little money, rival employers are offering more money, states are legislating against predatory employers exploiting poverty stricken workers.

 

Most increased spending was automatic as a result of millions of people losing their jobs: unemployment insurance, SNAP, Medicaid, et cetera.

If people "weren't helped" by these programs, why did they continue to sign up for them and use them? Do you actually mean that you don't feel they were helped? In which case, why should people suffer because you don't bother to know anything about their lives or circumstances?

 

Just my humble opinion of course, but it seems that the Tweeter-In-Chief just admitted to paying off the Russians while trying, of course, to smear the Democrats. Smart move old chap.



ALSO?

 

I think he means "Clinton also". Even if he didn't, it can't be proven.