Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

The Democrat's roster for a Trump - beater in 2020

Recommended Posts

Still waiting for the "Stop and Frisk" and "Disarm the minorities" shoe to fall on Bloomberg.  I personally think this will be hard to overcome in this party.   Unfortunately his methods in NYC DID decrease crime and there is some truth to his racist verbiage relative to the demographics, I just think you can't say what he said then and expect to be elected by this party now.

The "Hillary is the savior of the party" may be the only play left in the dem arsenal......since (IMHO) the puppet-masters of the party are gonna figure a way to torpedo Bernie again this year and they (IMHO) don't want Mayor Pete....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We, the "intelligencia" (people who are intelligent enough to make it into this room) believe in things that make no sense to the vast bulk of people. - The Midwest isn't intelligent enough to understand trans rights......Yeah, that's gonna sell good here in the Midwest.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swordfish said:

I just think you can't say what he said then and expect to be elected by this party now.

Presidents are not elected by a party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Presidents are not elected by a party. 

No S#!* - Thank you for setting me straight there big guy.......But THIS party is going to ELECT a NOMINEE during it's PRIMARY.......

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Good News Is That We Probably Won't Elect a Socialist. The Bad News Is That We Already Have, Many Times.:   https://reason.com/2020/02/12/the-good-news-is-that-we-probably-wont-elect-a-socialist-the-bad-news-is-that-we-already-have-many-times/

Quote

So Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) has won the New Hampshire primary, after coming in an oh-so-close second place in the Iowa caucuses last week (where he actually won more total votes en route to silver than the declared winner). The bad news for him comes from a new Gallup poll asking whether Americans would vote for various types of candidates, including black ones, Jewish ones, female ones, ones over the age of 70, and more. Gallup finds:

Just one group tested—socialists—receives majority opposition. Less than half of Americans, 45%, say they would vote for a socialist for president, while 53% say they would not.

Even atheists, long a group shunned by voters, did better, with 60 percent of respondents saying godlessness would be a problem (that's up from 45 percent in 2007). Worse still, Gallup notes that "last measured these attitudes, in 2019, the results were within a few percentage points of those found today." In fact, socialism seemed less a votekill back in 2016, when 47 percent of respondents said that they were willing to vote one in.

 

 

gallupsocialist.png Gallup

Still, Bernie's persistence and strong showing have centrist Democratic commentators seeing red. "To nominate Sanders would be insane," writes Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, who contends:

His vulnerabilities are enormous and untested. No party nomination, with the possible exception of Barry Goldwater in 1964, has put forth a presidential nominee with the level of downside risk exposure as a Sanders-led ticket would bring.

Yet among left-leaning Democrats, Sanders would represent nothing more than Democratic status quo. At Vox, Matthew Yglesias coos, "On the vast majority of issues, a Sanders administration would deliver pretty much the same policy outcomes as any other Democrat." The big exceptions, say Yglesias, are foreign policy and monetary policy, "where Sanders takes issue with an entrenched conventional wisdom that is deeply problematic."

Despite Sanders beating President Donald Trump in the averages of most head-to-head polls, only diehard Bernie bros seem fully confident that Vermont's self-declared socialist would go on to beat the president in the fall election (even Yglesias discounts recent polls, agreeing "it's a reasonable concern" that Sanders' edge would withstand "the sure-to-come cavalcade of attack ads from Trump").

That's putting it mildly. Progressives can claim that, despite surveys such as the new Gallup one, Americans really want "socialism," but there's a reason that no one as explicitly left as Sanders has been nominated—much less won—the presidency.

For libertarians, however, the reason gives cold comfort: Americans don't even need to leave the comfort of the Republican Party to get a spendthrift president who may not be a declared socialist but nonetheless grows the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. Leaving aside the question of whether a president's budget proposal has a chance of being enacted as is, spending under Trump has already skyrocketed and it will go even higher if he gets his 2021 spending plan approved. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute calculates that inflation-adjusted federal spending would climb by 10 percent (not including interest costs) during his first four years in office. Using an alternative method that only uses "actual budget amounts for the 2020 fiscal year" and compares them to ones from 2016, The New York Times' Alicia Parlapiano and Quoctrung Bui calculate that per-capita spending has increased by $1,441 under Trump.

Americans may not want a socialist per se, especially one who promises to nationalize health care and create something approaching a single-payer system not only for K-12 education (we already effectively have that) but for higher education, too. But they seem totally ready to re-elect Donald Trump, whose approval rating has soared to as high as 50 percent in some recent polls.* And if it's not Trump or Sanders, it will be someone who goes along with spending more than what we are already spending, which is more than what we were spending a year ago.

Uni-party to the max, and spending our country into oblivion.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

047757B5-3C02-4609-B377-6BD03CC7F3DF.jpeg

855E88E8-6760-43ED-8896-6884A088A835.jpeg

When Center Grove has a mass shooting, your tune will change.

  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

When Center Grove has a mass shooting, your tune will change.

Firstly, that’s just a stupid thing to say about any community and mass shootings. Secondly, as a hunter, I know Bloomberg has no clue what he’s talking about. 

The tools aren’t the issue Dante....it’s people......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Firstly, that’s just a stupid thing to say about any community and mass shootings. Secondly, as a hunter, I know Bloomberg has no clue what he’s talking about. 

The tools aren’t the issue Dante....it’s people......

The tools help the people; and we don’t catch, or screen, or treat the people before they get the tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

The tools help the people; and we don’t catch, or screen, or treat the people before they get the tools.

So Dante,  apply your logic to other goods and services that people wanted and government tried to take away.  How did that end?  I'll tell you:  A failed prohibition on alcohol,  a failed "war on drugs", and back-alley abortions.   

Now tell me how government prohibiting certain individuals (aka in your quote "the people") from possessing a firearm will this time turn out any different.

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

So Dante,  apply your logic to other goods and services that people wanted and government tried to take away.  How did that end?  I'll tell you:  A failed prohibition on alcohol,  a failed "war on drugs", and back-alley abortions.   

The ability to do all three don’t require more than high school chemistry. Machining firearms takes engineering skill.

And now you are going to fire back with some 3D printed gun nonsense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanteEstonia said:

The ability to do all three don’t require more than high school chemistry. Machining firearms takes engineering skill.

And now you are going to fire back with some 3D printed gun nonsense...

So back-alley engineering/machine shops will make firearms.  There are lots of engineers and machinists out there who believe in the 2nd Amendment.

Now please give us your detailed plan on catching, screening, and treating people before they are allowed to own a firearm.

 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanteEstonia said:

The ability to do all three don’t require more than high school chemistry. Machining firearms takes engineering skill.

And now you are going to fire back with some 3D printed gun nonsense...

I guess it depends on your definition of "engineering skill" 

Legal 80% builds have become so easy, you could add engineer to your resume DE. Of course if you're a prohibited possessor, then you'd be breaking the law.  

***I know, I can't stand Lenny McGill either***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Now please give us your detailed plan on catching, screening, and treating people before they are allowed to own a firearm.

 

 

We call it “Medicare-for-All”.

10 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I guess it depends on your definition of "engineering skill" 

Legal 80% builds have become so easy, you could add engineer to your resume DE. Of course if you're a prohibited possessor, then you'd be breaking the law.  

***I know, I can't stand Lenny McGill either***

 

Are they full-auto capable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Are they full-auto capable?

That would be illegal in most cases.

I've fired a full auto Glock, I fail to see the point. It's a pretty simple process to make them full auto. 

Edited by Impartial_Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

The ability to do all three don’t require more than high school chemistry. Machining firearms takes engineering skill.

And now you are going to fire back with some 3D printed gun nonsense...

So I have to assume in your world, the govt was successful in collecting the mass inventory of guns that are already in the hands of users?  Why would I need to make a ton more?  You don't think a market would be created of an ample supply already in existence?

Germany and the former Soviet Union was fairly successful in collecting citizens firearms....how did that work out for them?

Far more people will be killed on roads and highways this year....why are you not advocating much lower speed limits, ban of mobile phones in cars, banning of alcohol and weed, etc?  It would seem you pick and choose your risk based on politics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanteEstonia said:

We call it “Medicare-for-All”.

?  So every individual in the United States of America will be forced into "Medicare-for-All" and a subsequent mandatory psychological evaluation to determine their "mental fitness" in regards to owning a firearm?

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DanteEstonia said:

We call it “Medicare-for-All”.

LOL - Wut......😵

2 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Far more people will be killed on roads and highways this year....why are you not advocating much lower speed limits, ban of mobile phones in cars, banning of alcohol and weed, etc?  It would seem you pick and choose your risk based on politics.

Don't give em any ideas........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

So I have to assume in your world, the govt was successful in collecting the mass inventory of guns that are already in the hands of users?  Why would I need to make a ton more?  You don't think a market would be created of an ample supply already in existence?

Germany and the former Soviet Union was fairly successful in collecting citizens firearms....how did that work out for them?

Far more people will be killed on roads and highways this year....why are you not advocating much lower speed limits, ban of mobile phones in cars, banning of alcohol and weed, etc?  It would seem you pick and choose your risk based on politics.

First you have to know who has all those guns and where they are. I would assume when that process starts, there will be a huge increase in boating accidents. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 2:58 PM, swordfish said:

Thank you for setting me straight there big guy

You're welcome! I'm always happy to help educate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2020 at 11:00 AM, swordfish said:

Still waiting for the "Stop and Frisk" and "Disarm the minorities" shoe to fall on Bloomberg.  I personally think this will be hard to overcome in this party.   Unfortunately his methods in NYC DID decrease crime and there is some truth to his racist verbiage relative to the demographics, I just think you can't say what he said then and expect to be elected by this party now.

The Democrat Party is a criminal organization. No one is elected by Democrats. They are appointed by the establishment.

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Howe said:

The Democrat Party is a criminal organization. No one is elected by Democrats. They are appointed by the establishment.

 

6F9E78BB-25A8-44F8-9D6A-1247E43863F5.jpeg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...