oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 10:30 am
@RABEL222,
How is she supposedly changing history?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 10:32 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
disagreed with Snowden stealing our military secrets and giving it to WikiLeaks and who knows who else for all the world to know.

We really should splatter that Snowden creep with a dronestrike.

Or maybe easybake him with a thermobaric dronestrike.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 10:33 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
Bernie has yet to come up with a convincing way to pay for his all of his many proposals.

Sanders has a way to do it. Although whether people are convinced or not is a different question.

Sanders is a proponent of Magic Money Tree economics (actually the acronym stands for Modern Monetary Theory). If he is elected, he is going to print a LOT more money than the government currently prints, and use that to pay for his programs.

Inflation will put a check on his money printing at some point, and he may not be able to fund every single thing that he wants to do. But he does actually have a concrete proposal for how to come up with a lot of cash.


revelette3 wrote:
My point is simply that I had all that hope with Obama and all his positive "yes we can." We all watched how forces against his programs worked against him and his programs were not as far left as Sanders.

That's a myth that the left pushes to whitewash Obama's failures and shortcomings. Republicans tried working with Obama.

Obama was just too much of an extremist to work with other people.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 10:35 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
Well, then I would wish he would say that somehow in one of many repetitions of his programs. I would wish he would somehow say, even if we can't get all of what we want, at least we have a goal to work towards. I could behind a message like that. So far, I haven't heard it from him.

I think it is already assumed that these are merely goals that he wants to work towards. It's understood that a politician faces opposition and might not always achieve everything that he hopes to achieve.


revelette3 wrote:
His research has been proven to not add up.

There are people who do not agree with Magic Money Tree economics, but I don't know that their disagreement amounts to disproving it.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 10:36 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
The cost of Sanders' agenda -- possibly $60 trillion -- would set a peacetime US record
Look no one doubts all the things Sander's wishes to improve, need improvement; including Obamacare. However, there is no reason to go hog wild. Just try to be realistic.

Presumably he will stop printing money when inflation starts to kick in. But he might be able to print a lot of money before that starts to happen.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 10:55 am
Quote:
Why the Turnout in Iowa Has Some Democrats Worried

A lower-than-expected turnout for the caucuses has raised concerns that the grass-roots activism in the party may be waning after three years of battles with Washington.

DERRY, N.H. — In her retirement, Gayle Esterly is doing her best to fight the good fight for the Democratic Party.

She participates in the Women’s March annually and has protested for science-related causes. She’s written postcards to Congress and traveled to the New Hampshire Statehouse to push for gun control legislation.

She bakes cookies for those volunteering for Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, her preferred Democratic presidential candidate.

But, as she waited to hear Ms. Warren address supporters last Thursday evening, Ms. Esterly, 69, offered a frank admission: The constant battles with Washington were wearing her down.

“It’s been three years,” she said. “I’m trying to motivate and not to throw up my hands. But I’m emotionally exhausted.”

Her weariness is a disturbing sign for Democrats hoping that sustained grass-roots activism can lead to the ouster of President Trump in November. And after the first test of the 2020 presidential nominating season, the Iowa caucuses, Democrats are awakening to a troubling possibility: Their #Resistance energy may be flickering.

Turnout for the Iowa caucuses fell far short of expectations. The leading campaigns were prepared for as many as 300,000 people to show up — 60,000 more than the record set in 2008. Instead just 176,000 showed up, less than 3 percent more than in 2016.

While that’s higher than 2016, it’s a striking change from just a few years ago, when turnout in the midterm elections reached the highest level in a century and Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. Last November, Democrats gloated about their success winning governors seats in two red states — Kentucky and Louisiana — with help from a historic surge of voters.

Now, at the moment when they need their ground troops the most, there are signs that the past three years may have depleted some of their reserves for organizing, activism and fund-raising.

It’s still very early in the primary process, and New Hampshire officials cited the potential for a record turnout for their primary next week. But the lagging results in Iowa have raised concerns about Democrats’s ability to marshal their force in November, particularly against an incumbent president likely to spur a groundswell of support within his own party.

“I’m a bit nervous, to be honest,” said Dan Sena, the Democratic strategist who helped oversee the party’s campaign to take control of the House in 2018. “This is a very different pattern than we’ve seen. The candidates have to be part of the concern.”

Republicans were quick to seize on the Iowa turnout, claiming it reflected a “significant lack of enthusiasm among Democrat voters.” More than 30,000 Republicans turned out for the Iowa caucuses, despite the fact that Mr. Trump was running largely unopposed. And last week, Gallup reported that Mr. Trump’s approval rating had climbed to 49 percent, its highest in that survey since his presidency began.

At the same time, Democrats are fractured, with the continued uncertainty over the results of the caucuses deepening divisions in the party between the campaigns, the national party and state officials.

“We’re in a place where we don’t think we can just take high turnout for granted,” said Josh Schwerin, senior strategist at Priorities USA, one of the biggest Democratic super PACs. “We can’t just go into this thinking we have extremely high turnout in 2018 so we don’t have to do anything to repeat it.”

At events for the Democratic candidates in New Hampshire last week, some voters expressed frustration with what they see as Mr. Trump’s hold on national politics.

“A lot of people feel defeated,” said Danny Villazon, 54, a lawyer. “Trump always wins. The Mueller report and then impeachment. It seems like nothing can stop him.”

Some Democratic officials and strategists argue that it’s far too early to panic, citing the quirky caucus process, which requires Iowans to spend hours on a cold winter evening publicly expressing their preferences.

Former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia said the lower-than-expected turnout in Iowa came as a surprise, after the kind of voting surges he’s seen in his home state. Last year, the highest number of voters in a generation for an “off-off year” election gave Democrats control of the House and Senate in Virginia for the first time in a generation.

“It’s hard one to figure because turnout everywhere else has been so high,” he said. “I’m going to lay it at the feet of this arcane caucus process. People just don’t have the time to do what needs to be done.”

Others cited the large number of undecided voters in Iowa, saying that as the race narrowed, larger numbers of Democrats would get engaged. In the run-up to the caucuses, polling showed that as many as 40 percent of voters said they had not made a final decision on a candidate. At primary events, voters frequently say they’d support any of the candidates over Mr. Trump, underscoring that their attention is far more focused on the president than on their own options for a nominee.

Tyler Jones, a South Carolina Democratic strategist who helped flip a Charleston district held by Republicans for nearly four decades, said he expected turnout to skyrocket once the contest moved to his state. By then, he predicts, the field will have narrowed to a clearer choice between Senator Bernie Sanders and a more moderate opponent.

“We are very top-heavy,” said Mr. Jones, who is unaffiliated in the race. “We have very similar candidates, and you have to be deliberatively picky.”
New Hampshire officials say they expect independents, who can participate in party primaries, to join Democrats and come out in high numbers:

Secretary of State Bill Gardner is predicting more than 500,000 residents will vote in the primary, a turnout of more than 50 percent of the state’s registered voters.

“I’m not worried about it,” said former Gov. John Lynch, who is supporting former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “The turnout will be high, and it will be fueled by the number of independents.”

Yet, those predictions may ignore other, worrying signs for Democrats.
Viewership for the Democratic debates has fallen since September, with the December face-off in Iowa attracting about 7.3 million people, according to Nielsen.

In less educated and rural areas in Iowa, caucus turnout fell below 2016 levels. In Clarke county, a rural area near the Missouri border, Mr. Trump received more than twice as many caucus votes as each of the Democrats running this time. Just eight years ago, President Barack Obama carried the county by two points over the Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

For Mr. Sanders and the progressive groups backing his bid, the turnout could hint at some worrying signs. His team saw the first-in-the-nation caucus state as a template for its larger strategy, staking its candidacy on an audacious bet that Mr. Sanders could expand and change the Democratic electorate.

In his final events before the caucuses, Mr. Sanders pivoted his message from one of policy change to turnout, arguing that he could win the caucuses and the general election by motivating a new movement fueled by millions of Americans.

During a stop in Cedar Rapids, he made his goal for Iowa clear: “Let us go forward — today, tomorrow — and create the largest voter turnout in the history of the Iowa caucus,” he said.

Yet, while Mr. Sanders’s campaign was counting on a surge in turnout among young voters, turnout did not increase in precincts with large numbers of 18- to 24-year-olds.

Mr. Sanders himself expressed some disappointment with preliminary turnout signs. Aboard his charter plane the morning after the caucuses, he told reporters that he had heard the numbers were “somewhat higher than they were in 2016 — not as high frankly as I would’ve liked to have seen.”

Adam Mason, who leads a liberal Iowa grass-roots group called Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement that organized for Mr. Sanders in the state, worried that low engagement signaled potentially bad news for Democrats and progressives across the country.

“My concern, if New Hampshire doesn’t reach projection totals, is that in our hyper-polarized environment we see today, between Trump and Democrats, it shows we need to reach out to independent and swing voters,” Mr. Mason said. “Our movement is going to have to dig in and double down on direct voter contact on moving that middle.”

Others, however, found some bright spots in the turnout numbers. Evan Weber, political director for Sunrise Movement, pointed to the success of Mr. Sanders’s campaign at satellite caucuses of Latino and Muslim voters.

Sunrise Movement signed up 7,000 students and young people to caucus for Mr. Sanders, which could have helped him in a tight race.

However, he said progressives need to see more results in upcoming primaries before identifying any kind of trend. He also said the organizers suspected that the “vote blue no matter who” mind-set stopped some Iowans from caring about the caucus.

“It’s fair to say this year is a testing ground for the progressive movement’s power and electoral strength,” Mr. Weber said. “To see if we can turn out and motivate.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/us/politics/iowa-caucuses-turnout-democrats.html

I think the Senate acquittal on top of the Mueller report had a dampening sense of failure for democrats. Also, Sanders and his brand of progressiveness have done nothing but cause division within the democrat party ever since his campaign of 2016. What with all their purity tests and name-calling of republican lite and going on about accepting donors from corporations and fracking has the net effect of dividing the democrat party which benefits the republicans. Lastly, way too many in the field, it is what led the republicans to end up having to elect Trump and having to eat their previous words about him.

I don't see the same level of support from Democrats to support Sanders, it will lukewarm at best outside of his base. He will have to campaign in those swings states which aren't heavily liberal progressives. Trump will more than likely win in those states again. I hope not, but I can see it happening.

Personally, I think the only chance we have now is going outside of the field to Bloomberg. He could pick Amy Klobuchar or Stacey Abrams as his running mate. Abrams might be a better smart choice.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 11:08 am
@revelette3,
The Democrats are electorally doomed no matter what they do. The Republicans will hold the White House for at least another 17 years.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 11:12 am


David Axelrod
@davidaxelrod
·
Feb 7
.
@BernieSanders
: “No matter who wins this damned thing, we’re all going to stand united to beat Trump.”
Will his supporters If Bernie’s not the nominee?
4.3K
1.6K
12.6K

FlatticusFinch🌹
@FlatticusF
·
2h
No. Is Hillary helping the front runner? No. Are the #stillwitherers supportjng the front runner? No. Will the DNC get away with cheating the vote against the front runner? No. Will the Democratic Party survive cheating progressives? No.
Can anybody but Bernie beat Trump? No.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 11:12 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
Quote:
(...)

The $97.5 trillion price tag is made up mostly of the costs of Sanders's three most ambitious proposals. Sanders concedes that his Medicare For All plan would increase federal spending by "somewhere between $30 and $40 trillion over a 10-year period." He pledges to spend $16.3 trillion on his climate plan. And his proposal to guarantee all Americans a full-time government job paying $15 an hour, with full benefits, is estimated to cost $30.1 trillion. The final $11.1 trillion includes $3 trillion to forgive all student loans and guarantee free public-college tuition--plus $1.8 trillion to expand Social Security, $2.5 trillion on housing, $1.6 trillion on paid family leave, $1 trillion on infrastructure, $800 billion on general K-12 education spending, and an additional $400 billion on higher public school teacher salaries.

(...)

With more than a year to go [now nine months] before the 2020 presidential election, Sanders may well top $100 trillion in promised new government spending. He should be pressed to explain the feasibility of his agenda and how he would finance it.
city-journal

Sanders is a proponent of Magic Money Tree economics. He is going to finance his programs by printing a TON of new money and only shutting down the printing presses when inflation starts to bite.

People can argue about feasibility of Magic Money Tree economics, but Sanders does have ideas for how to come up with the money.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 12:06 pm
Quote:
Iowa: Muslims unite behind Bernie to screams of “Allahu akbar”

Quote:
He is close to Linda Sarsour. He hates Israel. He wants to drastically weaken the U.S. He uncritically buys into the victimhood propaganda. What’s not to like?

Not good.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/02/iowa-muslims-unite-behind-bernie-to-screams-of-allahu-akbar
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 12:52 pm
@revelette3,
Quote:
I think the Senate acquittal on top of the Mueller report had a dampening sense of failure for democrats.

The Democrats mistakenly allowed both investigations to be seen as steps in the removal of Trump from office rather than simply shining a light on the inner workings of his administration.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 01:12 pm
@hightor,
Had they wanted to shine a light on the inner workings of the administration, instead of rushing to wrap up House proceedings and voting to impeach, they should have kept House proceedings going and asked the courts to compel witnesses to testify.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 01:16 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
simply shining a light on the inner workings of his administration.

So have us believe the moles still inside the administration trying to destroy Trump will be truthful? I don't think so.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 01:42 pm
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:

Quote:
Why the Turnout in Iowa Has Some Democrats Worried

I think the Senate acquittal on top of the Mueller report had a dampening sense of failure for democrats. Also, Sanders and his brand of progressiveness have done nothing but cause division within the democrat party ever since his campaign of 2016. What with all their purity tests and name-calling of republican lite and going on about accepting donors from corporations and fracking has the net effect of dividing the democrat party which benefits the republicans. Lastly, way too many in the field, it is what led the republicans to end up having to elect Trump and having to eat their previous words about him.

I don't see the same level of support from Democrats to support Sanders, it will lukewarm at best outside of his base. He will have to campaign in those swings states which aren't heavily liberal progressives. Trump will more than likely win in those states again. I hope not, but I can see it happening.

Personally, I think the only chance we have now is going outside of the field to Bloomberg. He could pick Amy Klobuchar or Stacey Abrams as his running mate. Abrams might be a better smart choice.

I agree the lower (than expected and actuals from 2016) turnout in the Iowa Primary should indeed be worrying for Democrats. Voter turnout, on both sides, will likely be a very significant factor in the coming election. I believe the now three years of continuous Democrat investigations and efforts to destroy and/or Impeach President Trump is likely to have a positive effect on Republican turnout, while the ongoing sharp divide among Democrats with their emerging far left candidates and. so far failed, efforts to field a more moderate one, is more likely to dampen it for Democrats. Meanwhile the three years wasted by the Democrat House of Representatives in working ( with ever-increasing rage and fanaticism) to destroy Trump, will likely arouse Independents against them.

Adding to that, the failed Biden candidacy, together with the ongoing squabbles among the remaining, generally left wing, candidates, and the recent fiasco in the Idaho Primary all create a picture of incompetence and disarray among establishment Democrats. I agree that Bloomberg is your likely best hope going forward. However the spectacle of a major league multi billionaire literally buying the nomination, through a so far well-conceived advertising campaign, is not without its attendant risks to further injure party unity, while at the same time further damaging Democrat's favored image as the party for working class people and minorities.

It increasingly appears that former VP Biden was more damaged by the recent impeachment effort than was Trump. At the same time, the Democrat leadership (Pelosi in particular) has come across as vindictive and a bit deranged in their relentless attacks on all things Trumpian. The public impression of the time and opportunity wasted by them in a spiteful effort to destroy the winner of the last Presidential election - instead of pursuing their duties and promises to address needed legislation for immigration reform, health care and infrastructure development is, I suspect, both real and significant. Finally, with still rising employment, as evidenced by both lower unemployment rates, and , a lately rising workforce participation rate ( long-term unemployed reentering the labor market) and a booming stock market, it has become increasingly difficult for them to maintain credibility with their familiar class warfare themes.
revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 01:51 pm
@hightor,
In what way did they show both steps to a way to remove Trump? I am not sure we could have done more to shine a light on the corrupt administration and his minion agencies he has working for him rather than the people of the United States.

As much as I hate to admit, Oralloy might have a point. Pelosi might have made a mistake in not waiting longer for the courts to force Trump to turn over documents and force witnesses from his inner administration to testify. Of course, with the conservative Supreme Court and some of those barely qualified lower court judges, it might not have made a difference.

If I am disillusioned about anything now (didn't think I had any illusions left to bust) it is how partisan the US court system is.
revelette3
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 01:59 pm
@georgeob1,
According to one person who worked hard to volunteer in Iowa, she was just frustrated with how Trump gets away with everything. It is demoralizing to watch it over and over again.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 02:05 pm
@revelette3,
That may be true. Does she have an explanation for just why he does "get away with everything", and why Democrat efforts to persuade the public of their wisdom and sagacity have failed so consistently these last few years?
revelette3
 
  4  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 03:00 pm
@georgeob1,
If you ever bothered to pay attention to anything besides your view of things, you would have seen that public has believed both that Trump did as was accused in the Impeachment and that he obstructed justice in the Mueller probe and that he had some connections to Russia among his allies and his campaign team.

The House chose not to impeach Trump on those charges for reasons which never have been very clear to me. Something about Ukirane matter being more simple to explain to the public. However, I think it was a mistake as well.

It is the Senate's fault for the impeachment failing to remove Trump in the Senate.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 03:26 pm
@revelette3,
The simple facts here include

(1) The fact that the Mueller Probe did not find a prima facie case of obstruction of Justice on the part of President Trump. In other words, despite serious efforts over a two year period they could not come up with anything sufficient to even bring charges against him. (Mueller had no power or ability to "vindicate " Trump. The law is based on the presumption of innocence unless charges are placed and a conviction is obtained and proven in a trial.) One can't prove a negative, and Mueller had no authority or standing for this strange comment in his report.
(2) We now know there were serious (likely criminal) deceptions made in both the FISA warrants and other related elements attending the Mueller investigation. - as an ongoing Justice Department Criminal investigation is likely to reveal.
(3) The only "connections with Russia" established in the Mueller Report were those of the DNC, which commissioned and bought the Steele dossier, which itself was likely a piece of Russian disinformation. In short the only Russian collusion here was done by the Hillary Campaign and the DNC !
(3) You really don't know what is the 'public belief' regarding the charges in the recent Impeachment of Trump. The charges brought against him were the result of a totally partisan effort in the House and he was acquitted by an equally partisan process in the Senate.

The President has a legitimate duty and responsibility to conduct our Foreign Relations and to enforce U.S. law and interests regarding criminal corruption - and that duty & responsibility exists whether there is a political benefit to the president for doing so or not. VP Biden's criminal conflict of interest in not recusing himself from oversight of our relations with Ukraine following his son's obviously self serving employment by Burisma is as obvious as was Burisma's intent in hiring Hunter Biden. VP Biden's action to force the termination of an Ukrainian government investigation of Burisma was itself far more obviously criminal than was any of the actions attributed to Trump.

If you ever paid attention to anything outside your preestablished views, you might be able to see some of this
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Feb, 2020 03:34 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
If you ever paid attention to anything outside your preestablished views, you might be able to see some of this

It could be she feels repeating lies will magically make them true.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 06/23/2021 at 07:10:16