Right Wing / Non-Trump supporters (1 Viewer)

[matuski]

The idea that liberals comprise the vast majority of the anti-vaccine movement is flat-out wrong.

Maybe you need to add a third category of people who recklessly spread false information?

I did not say they comprise the vast majority, nor anything close to it.

Dare I accuse you of recklessly spreading false information?

 

[whoknew]

Instead of talking about a hodgepodge of various proposals that may or may not be supported by Democratic presidential candidates, how about we talk about actual proposals? I saw this earlier on twitter - Bernie Sanders' policy priorities if elected President. Along with my comments. 

1. Medicare for all - I think this is very popular (in some form) and is inevitable. I suspect most people on this board agree with it in general, without knowing specifics.
   
2. Green New Deal - I admit to not being educated enough on this to comment.
   
3. $15 minimum wage - This still seems better left to the states to me. What works in NYC may not be necessary in Kansas.
   
4. Free college tuition - This seems to me very expensive and impractical. But I do think something needs to be done to curb runaway tuition costs. States cut way back and funding and that - along with major facilities upgrades - have sent tuition skyrocketing. Many universities are doing well to help low income students afford to go to college. But often (it seems like) the middle income kids are put in a bind. I don't know the answer, but something needs to be done.
   
5. Reduce student loan debt - This sounds great in theory. Maybe @Henry Ford's tax proposal would work. I do not know how Bernie plans to do this.
   
6. Break up the big banks - I don't know exactly what Bernie means by this, but it doesn't sound like something I would normally support.
   
7. Criminal justice reform - I think everyone but Jeff Sessions thinks this is a good idea.
   
8. Paid family leave - would need to see the details, but generally support.
   
9. Gender pay equity - Again would need to see the details.
   

I think we would all need more details, but none of these seem completely crazy to me. I may disagree with them, but they aren't insane.

 

[matuski]

Instead of talking about a hodgepodge of various proposals that may or may not be supported by Democratic presidential candidates, how about we talk about actual proposals? I saw this earlier on twitter - Bernie Sanders' policy priorities if elected President. Along with my comments. 

1. Medicare for all - I think this is very popular (in some form) and is inevitable. I suspect most people on this board agree with it in general, without knowing specifics. Depends on how.
   
2. Green New Deal - I admit to not being educated enough on this to comment.  This was my focus.. nuts. I thought I was criticizing ideas that weren't proposed?
   
3. $15 minimum wage - This still seems better left to the states to me. What works in NYC may not be necessary in Kansas. Less against this than the $15/hr + benefits job guarantee in GND.
   
4. Free college tuition - This seems to me very expensive and impractical. But I do think something needs to be done to curb runaway tuition costs. States cut way back and funding and that - along with major facilities upgrades - have sent tuition skyrocketing. Many universities are doing well to help low income students afford to go to college. But often (it seems like) the middle income kids are put in a bind. I don't know the answer, but something needs to be done. Nuts, support curbing tuition costs.
   
5. Reduce student loan debt - This sounds great in theory. Maybe @Henry Ford's tax proposal would work. I do not know how Bernie plans to do this. Fine.. not educated on this.
   
6. Break up the big banks - I don't know exactly what Bernie means by this, but it doesn't sound like something I would normally support. Again.. how?  I am all for accountability for big banks.
   
7. Criminal justice reform - I think everyone but Jeff Sessions thinks this is a good idea.  Yessir.
   
8. Paid family leave - would need to see the details, but generally support.  I have read some nutjob examples, a reasonable proposal I would support.
   
9. Gender pay equity - Again would need to see the details. Whatever.
   

I think we would all need more details, but none of these seem completely crazy to me. I may disagree with them, but they aren't insane.

 

[sn0mm1s]

For most of my life I would have sided with you sight unseen.  Lately, not so much.

There are plenty of examples where people won't accept facts when they don't support their ideological dispositions.  What I am watching liberals progressives do to Amazon in Seattle and NYC might be an example of an empire state building.  Portland and Seattle are liberal progressive hotbeds with a forest of your trees... from vaccines to unflouridated water to GMOs.  Is this so much better than resisting evolution and climate change and gay marriage?

We can argue which is worse... I appreciate you acknowledging both are guilty.

Anti-vaxxers are, IIRC, pretty much the same % on both sides. I also think they should be locked up for child endangerment and being a menace to the public. However, global warming, which, to be frank, is a much more serious issue than anti-vaxxers, is almost exclusively a left/right split. Resisting evolution, as with anti-vaxxers, shows a fundamental lack of understanding of science and/or placing a belief or argument from authority over something demonstrably shown - this is also split, IIRC, down party lines with something like 60-70% of liberals/independents on the side of Darwin vs. 30-35% on the conservative side.

Amazon is neither here nor there. There are pros and cons to such an arrangement. What facts are you referring to here? I grew up in an extremely red county 54/39 Trump, I currently live in a blue leaning county 50/41 Hillary. There was a whole lot of NIMBY in both places. Oil wells, fracking, freeway building etc. etc. all came up in both cities with similar resistance.

 

[The Commish]

I was talking about the nuts on the left.

Yes I see that.  I guess the question you left out doesn't really mean all that much but I'm still curious why you'd categorize those things as "nuts".  Because they aren't realistic in your mind?  Not something we should be concerned with?  What?

 

[AAABatteries]

Trump hasn't been nearly as bad as i feared he would be.

Damn - you must have had the lowest expectations of him as anyone in the world.

 

[TripItUp]

Damn - you must have had the lowest expectations of him as anyone in the world.

Or perhaps you are exaggerating his alleged ineffectiveness?

His approval rating was last seen above 50% but yet here you are trumpeting "unmitigated disaster." 

 

[-fish-]

Free college tuition - This seems to me very expensive and impractical. But I do think something needs to be done to curb runaway tuition costs. States cut way back and funding and that - along with major facilities upgrades - have sent tuition skyrocketing. Many universities are doing well to help low income students afford to go to college. But often (it seems like) the middle income kids are put in a bind. I don't know the answer, but something needs to be done.

I think we would all need more details, but none of these seem completely crazy to me. I may disagree with them, but they aren't insane.

Here's how Sanders estimates costs and would pay for it:

Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. This legislation would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities. Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty. States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty, and provide professional development opportunities for professors. No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based financial aid, or the construction of non-academic buildings like stadiums and student centers.

Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.

 

[sho nuff]

Or perhaps you are exaggerating his alleged ineffectiveness?

His approval rating was last seen above 50% but yet here you are trumpeting "unmitigated disaster." 

No it wasn’t...it was last seen back below 50%.  You’d have to go back to early last week to get above 50 and that was already with the right biased outlier in Rasmussen.

And yes...he is an unmitigated disaster in so many ways.

 

[AAABatteries]

Or perhaps you are exaggerating his alleged ineffectiveness?

His approval rating was last seen above 50% but yet here you are trumpeting "unmitigated disaster." 

I don’t need to exaggerate - in fact, I could just use quotes from the man himself or people like Ann Coulter who think he’s an idiot.  Or Bill Kristol. Or George Will or Lindsey Graham - Marco Rubio - the guy is horrible and is only effective at lying and being divisive.

 

[mcintyre1]

I long ago realized that this was what is important to so many posters here. I don't care about receiving credit for my opinion.  It is my opinion.. I'm good with my opinions.  Clearly they get under some of the regular political forum folks' skin these days. I suppose I take that as its own validation... a good sign that I'm not falling in line with group think. 

Having said that - do I have to explain why pushing 100% renewable energy in 10 years is nuts?  OK, it is nuts because it isn't possible.  It is nuts because you can't meet that goal.  Paying every worker $15 and benefits just because they want it?  Doing what?  For how long?  Free college tuition?  FREE?  Open Borders.. nuts.  If you need more specifics about a specific policy I find nuts, let me know which.

I'm not against developing renewable energy, not against lowering the cost of college tuition, not against lowering healthcare costs, etc.  I am against the extreme examples of these.

To answer your last question.. I would support them then(I tend to lean left on social policy.. just not nutjob left).  Unemployment insurance makes sense.  Also context matters, this isn't the 30's.  We aren't trying to overcome the Great Depression.  Unemployment is low.  The WPA was as unpopular as it was popular - I believe the term "boondoggling" originated as a result.  The efficiency of our government spending on these projects seems to only have gotten worse.  It wasn't all rainbows and unicorns.

Thanks for replying and humoring me. As a follow on from the thought experiment (and yes, I agree that the circumstances aren't identical and not everything done was good or popular, but I don't really want to go into the full effort of going down that road at the moment), how would you feel about the proposed "Part 2" of that era: FDR's Second Bill of Rights?

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  
• The right of every family to a decent home;
  
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  
• The right to a good education.
  

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

To put aside my (surely) annoying coyness, this is what I was trying to get to. The things that you seem to take the most issue with from the GND (aside from the "Green" renewable energy part, obviously) are pulled almost exactly from FDR's own vision for America. These policy ideas are not really new, and they aren't in any way un-American. Bernie, AOC, and the "new Left" are largely just a re-awakening of New Deal America. 

 

[-fish-]

No it wasn’t...it was last seen back below 50%.  You’d have to go back to early last week to get above 50 and that was already with the right biased outlier in Rasmussen.

And yes...he is an unmitigated disaster in so many ways.

Looking at it day to day isn't very useful.   Trump's high water mark for approval is significantly lower than the highest approval rating of any other president since it's been tracked.   While he has managed to scrape above 50% a couple of times, he's never done better than that.   At the same time, his highest disapproval ratings are up there with Bush and Nixon.   

On the best days of his presidency, Trump manages not to piss off half the country, and even on Rasmussen he floats between -6 and -11 on the differential between "strongly approve" and "strongly disapprove."

 

[-fish-]

10 years seems pretty unattainable for a complete switch to renewable energy, but why not shoot for it as a goal?  Sweden has committed to end use of all fossil fuels in 20 years.   Costa Rica is 95% fossil fuel free.   Nicaragua will be 90% by next year.   Germany has pledged to be at 65% renewable energy use in 10 years.   

Are we that beholden to oil companies that we can't accomplish what other countries can?      

Doesn't seem nuts to me.

 

[sho nuff]

10 years seems pretty unattainable for a complete switch to renewable energy, but why not shoot for it as a goal?  Sweden has committed to end use of all fossil fuels in 20 years.   Costa Rica is 95% fossil fuel free.   Nicaragua will be 90% by next year.   Germany has pledged to be at 65% renewable energy use in 10 years.   

Are we that beholden to oil companies that we can't accomplish what other countries can?      

Doesn't seem nuts to me.

We are currently beholden to SA it seems.

 

[prefontaine]

Just wanted to hop in and say that this (so far) is one of the most pleasant and respectful conversations I've read in the PSF. 

Dewey defeats Truman

 

[matuski]

10 years seems pretty unattainable for a complete switch to renewable energy, but why not shoot for it as a goal?  Sweden has committed to end use of all fossil fuels in 20 years.   Costa Rica is 95% fossil fuel free.   Nicaragua will be 90% by next year.   Germany has pledged to be at 65% renewable energy use in 10 years.   

Are we that beholden to oil companies that we can't accomplish what other countries can?      

Doesn't seem nuts to me.

And to repeat... the end point isn't nuts.  100% in 10 years is nuts.

 

[matuski]

Thanks for replying and humoring me. As a follow on from the thought experiment (and yes, I agree that the circumstances aren't identical and not everything done was good or popular, but I don't really want to go into the full effort of going down that road at the moment), how would you feel about the proposed "Part 2" of that era: FDR's Second Bill of Rights?

To put aside my (surely) annoying coyness, this is what I was trying to get to. The things that you seem to take the most issue with from the GND (aside from the "Green" renewable energy part, obviously) are pulled almost exactly from FDR's own vision for America. These policy ideas are not really new, and they aren't in any way un-American. Bernie, AOC, and the "new Left" are largely just a re-awakening of New Deal America. 

I realize that they are not new.

As I noted above, I never really worried about the far left or the far right, because nuts was easily recognized and dealt with for being nuts.

Concise as I can:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; No. I am not for a guaranteed job for every one provided by the government.

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; Yes/No

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; Every farmer? No.

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; Sure.

The right of every family to a decent home; No/Maybe the right for every family to earn a decent home? What is a decent home?

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; Yes - but how matters.

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; Again a lot of words that are interpretive.. but yes in general.

The right to a good education. To a point. What is a good education? High school yes. College isn't for everyone.

It is a "re-awakening" and plus plus extra extra New Deal. 

The New Deal had a lot of unintended consequences, lets not pretend the government has learned anything since about predicting costs and obstacles involved.  We still can't build a road that we have built twice before on time or budget.

 

[Sand]

We are currently beholden to SA it seems.

If by that you mean energy independent, then yes.  

In 2020 I have my eye on a D or two, but how do I trust the Dems to give them a fair shake?  I lean conservative on most issues, but I do support a lot of liberal initiatives as well. The far left scares me and I need the pendulum to swing back middle.  I need MSM to be honest and I'm not sure we can ever recover....

Right now Schultz is the only non-insane person I see outside of Biden.  He's a refreshing change from the sprint to the far, far left we are seeing.

 

[The General]

If by that you mean energy independent, then yes.  

Right now Schultz is the only non-insane person I see outside of Biden.  He's a refreshing change from the sprint to the far, far left we are seeing.

Schultz is a more conservative Democrat but he is also a world class ballbag. Don't vote for this guy, you are going to have to trust me here. 

 

[Max Power]

1. $15 minimum wage - This still seems better left to the states to me. What works in NYC may not be necessary in Kansas.
   

Is there still a thread discussing this floating around?  I've never been in favor of pushing this idea.  I know a couple places have starting working towards the 15 dollars an hour and I'm curious what the results have been. 

 

[fantasycurse42]

I’m an independent with zero party affiliation. In 2016 I was against both candidates, the fact that the choice was either of those two made me sick. 

I’m in a camp that I’ll take any D excluding the crazy AOC type over Trump. If they give us a Bill Clinton or BO type candidate, I’ll happily take that, Bloomberg is my horse, I want him over anyone. Biden I’ll happily take too. Not familiar with the rest of the #### they’re flinging against the wall, and there is a ton of it, but basically anyone who isn’t so far on the left that I can’t even see gets my vote. This Trump disaster needs to end - feels like all they have to do is not #### this up and he’ll be gone... Sadly, idk if they can even do that.

 

[-fish-]

Is there still a thread discussing this floating around?  I've never been in favor of pushing this idea.  I know a couple places have starting working towards the 15 dollars an hour and I'm curious what the results have been. 

Seattle has $16/hour minimum wage ($15 if the business has less than 500 employees).   It's had mixed results, but it hasn't been the disaster for business that was originally reported.  The authors of the initial UW study that looked at it retracted their conclusions and revised their report so you have to be cautious what you're looking at.   Basically, they found that the lowest wage earners before the wage increase were mildly benefited, but tended to have their hours reduced so it didn't really do much for many of them.   Workers that had more stable hours before the increase saw the expected benefit, and workers that had no work history prior to the increase had a harder time finding low-wage jobs.   All in all, not very surprising results.  The initial fears that small businesses and restaurants in particular would be run out of business did not materialize.    

 

[Sabertooth]

Wait, are AOC and Bernie just pretending to be in Congress?

 

[The Commish]

I get almost all the positions stated above.  The one that continues to evade me is around education.  We all acknowledge that we live in a global economy now.  We all acknowledge that we are competing with people all over the world.  We already have established that paying for 13 years of education is appropriate.  But when we talk about extending support of education another 4 years to those that are interested, it's the most radical, absurd idea ever concocted.  Of all the topics we discuss in politics it is probably THE MOST arbitrary of all the lines we draw.  It makes zero sense at all to me.  

We are told our multi-billion dollar companies need help competing in the global market, right?  But somehow it's absurd that we should help individuals in a similar fashion?  Not everyone is cut out for college, fair statement.  Many aren't cut out for high school either but we still offer it.  Hell, we MAKE them go to school...it's not optional.  I'd love someone to help me understand the resistance to providing education to those who want it and why the line is so emphatically drawn where it is.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The counter punch is to continue to correct people who make this claim.  That is not how they self describe.  Also, they both have won elections describing themselves as Democratic Socialists (which is different than the bolded).  Until people want to be honesty and not just associate what is going on with their old view of socialism...they may have trouble, but is that on them, or the people who continue to push that kind of stuff.

https://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-socialist-and-democratic-socialist-2018-6

That article doesn't say what you want it to say. 

As the DSA's website states: "At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy, as means and end. As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow, DSA fights for reforms today that will weaken the power of corporations and increase the power of working people."

To put it another way, they don't feel socialism should be forced on people, but they are fundamentally anti-capitalist and believe the government should urge privately owned businesses toward granting workers as much control as possible.

This is just describing a different flavor of socialism, not an entirely different ideology.  

 

[sho nuff]

That article doesn't say what you want it to say. 

This is just describing a different flavor of socialism, not an entirely different ideology.  

It shows the differences...in addition the point was also to point out that  the poster did what others do...claim someone is self described as one thing...when they aren’t.

In addition they aren’t full in anti capitalist either.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In addition they aren’t full in anti capitalist either.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/

This position can be fairly characterized as anti-capitalist.  I'm confident that the author of this piece would have no problem with that description.  

 

[zftcg]

I have some Republican friends who strongly dislike Donald Trump. They tend to fall into two camps: 

1. Those that think that Trump is so awful they will support the Democrat no matter who it is just to get rid of Trump- they’ll worry about the rest later. 

2. Those who could support a centrist, pro-business Democrat, but if it’s a leftist or socialist of the Bernie/AOC Type, they’ll vote for Trump again, reluctantly. 

Most of those I know fall into the 2nd camp...

My brother is very conservative, and supported Cruz in the '16 primaries. He was a Never Trumper from the very beginning, and by the end of the primaries, was saying things like, "I feel like everything you guys have been saying about the Republican party going crazy is true" (the rest of our family is all liberal Democrats). During the general election, he mostly tuned things out -- he happened to be in town the night of one of the debates, and he deliberately left our place right after dinner because my wife and I were going to watch and he didn't want to be there. He ended up voting for McMullin.

Since the election, he has definitely softened on Trump. At first he would say things like, "I think he's terrible, but I thought Obama was terrible and we survived him." He continues to say he doesn't like him, but generally supports a lot of his policies. He even defended him on the child separation policy, repeating the talking point that he was just continuing what Obama had done. At one point he said to my dad, "I don't want to vote for Trump next time, but you guys may force me to." (To be fair, my parents can be a bit much in terms of pressing him on why he supports conservative policies.) Still, I told him if he ended up voting for Trump, that was all on him.

I haven't spoken to him about politics recently, but I try to check in periodically and see what he's thinking. If I had to guess right now, I'd say he ends up a Reluctant Trumper.

 

[zftcg]

I am more in line with Kasich. The best case scenario for me would be for Trump to get impeached and Kasich becomes the GOP candidate over Pence. But I realize even if he were impeached the party would run with  Freedom Caucus type candidate. I am hoping the Dems run with a moderate candidate such as Biden or Klobuchar. Not thrilled with them but just can't go the Freedom Caucus route

If Trump were somehow impeached and removed from office before the 2020 election Pence would become president and would be the overwhelming favorite to be nominated. But yes, you're also right that even in an open primary, Kasich wouldn't have much of a chance because there's simply not a big enough constituency for him inside the GOP electorate.

 

[Max Power]

If I had to guess right now, I'd say he ends up a Reluctant Trumper.

I'm hearing this more and more. Many people didnt know what to expect with Trump and now we have 2 years of data. The last person I spoke with who had this view basically said "how much more can he really hurt us vs someone else with unproven ideas". 

I'm still very much on the fence and open to hearing everyone out. The D ticket would be best served by breaking down how they plan to enact all these new programs to make everyone's life better. Not going too far left and letting Americans maintain some of their traditional values. 

It is still early in the whole process, but I think those saying Trump has the inside track for 2020 might be on to something. If the dems cant learn from 2016, they are doomed. 

MSM needs to up its game during the Dem primaries to stand a chance. I think that will be the real test for someone like CNN. 

 

[prefontaine]

I'm hearing this more and more. Many people didnt know what to expect with Trump and now we have 2 years of data. The last person I spoke with who had this view basically said "how much more can he really hurt us vs someone else with unproven ideas". 

My guess is anyone that truly feels this way (I would suggest many are simply providing a cover story to their vote) will stay home. 

Conversely, folks like myself will vote against our stance on issues because we are horrified by this President and how he is dismantling our norms and values, and will 100% show up. 

Lot can happen between now and 2020, but there is exactly a 0% chance I vote for Trump. The only question is will I vote for the Democratic nominee or someone else. But I'm hyper-motivated to vote until the day this scourge on our democracy is out of office. 

 

[Max Power]

The only question is will I vote for the Democratic nominee or someone else. 

Isnt this the line of thinking that will lead to another Trump win in 2020? 

I feel like the R party has its corner of the world that it defends and protects at all costs. The D ticket has a general base with many branches of ideas that can pull the base in multiple directions. 

 

[Dickies]

AOC and Bernie are self described socialists.   That has never won an election

Wait, are AOC and Bernie just pretending to be in Congress?

 

[prefontaine]

The only question is will I vote for the Democratic nominee or someone else. 

Isnt this the line of thinking that will lead to another Trump win in 2020? 

How so? 

 

[Max Power]

How so? 

Clinton blamed jill Stein for stealing votes. Do you not think that was the case or could happen again?

 

[prefontaine]

Clinton blamed jill Stein for stealing votes. Do you not think that was the case or could happen again?

Ah, gotcha. I don't live in a swing state so I'm pretty free to vote my conscience. If I did (or if somehow Texas was even remotely a swing state in 2020), I'd vote for the Dem nominee for sure. 

 

[zftcg]

It is still early in the whole process, but I think those saying Trump has the inside track for 2020 might be on to something. If the dems cant learn from 2016, they are doomed. 

To be clear, Democrats do not need to win over all of the reluctant Trump supporters to win the election. But more generally, it drives me crazy whenever I hear people saying Trump is a dead man walking and Democrats have this in the bag. Historically, most recent presidents have been re-elected, and any analysis of 2020 should start with the assumption that it will be as close as 2016 was.

 

[SWC]

is mcmullen going to run in a primary against trump thanks brohans who know take that to the bank

 

[roadkill1292]

Ah, gotcha. I don't live in a swing state so I'm pretty free to vote my conscience. If I did (or if somehow Texas was even remotely a swing state in 2020), I'd vote for the Dem nominee for sure. 

[hijack]

If we did away with the Electoral College and implemented one of the forms of Ranked Choice Voting, everybody could vote their conscience and everybody's vote would count.

[/hijack]

 

[The Commish]

is mcmullen going to run in a primary against trump thanks brohans who know take that to the bank

I don't know if he is or not, but the GOP better hope he doesn't. 

 

[Max Power]

Maybe a question for the dems here. How nervous are you about the Trump being on Twitter during the primaries? Candidates not only have to address an opponent, but have to have Trumps one liners in the back of their head

 

[huthut]

It is not like Trumps one liners are particularly clever or biting, anyone who has been in 3rd grade has heard better insults. I think that is a compete non-factor.

 

[Max Power]

It is not like Trumps one liners are particularly clever or biting, anyone who has been in 3rd grade has heard better insults. I think that is a compete non-factor.

But the kicker is the main stream media needs to cover it. Trump is a ratings monster. 

 

[lazyike]

Or perhaps you are exaggerating his alleged ineffectiveness?

His approval rating was last seen above 50% but yet here you are trumpeting "unmitigated disaster." 

Be nice folks would quit referring to the polls done by Rasmussen as they are one of the only polls of many that have ever ranked him over 50% ( besides Faux) Almost all polls have consistently ranked him in 31%-45% approval range,  an abnormally low rating considering  the strength of our economy. By the way it is not the strongest it's ever been. Likely 10-20 times our economic growth was more robust in our nation's history.

 

[TripItUp]

Be nice folks would quit referring to the polls done by Rasmussen as they are one of the only polls of many that have ever ranked him over 50% ( besides Faux) Almost all polls have consistently ranked him in 31%-45% approval range,  an abnormally low rating considering  the strength of our economy. By the way it is not the strongest it's ever been. Likely 10-20 times our economic growth was more robust in our nation's history.

This was stated on CNN and FOX.  

 

[lazyike]

This was stated on CNN and FOX.  

Unable to find a link to CNNs recent but his SOTU had high ratings but here is the 538 real clear link. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

 

[Dickies]

To be clear, Democrats do not need to win over all of the reluctant Trump supporters to win the election. But more generally, it drives me crazy whenever I hear people saying Trump is a dead man walking and Democrats have this in the bag. Historically, most recent presidents have been re-elected, and any analysis of 2020 should start with the assumption that it will be as close as 2016 was.

When W was re-elected I realized anything was possible. While Trump is 1000x the moron that W was, there is no shortage of people that will still vote for him

 

[The Commish]

I get almost all the positions stated above.  The one that continues to evade me is around education.  We all acknowledge that we live in a global economy now.  We all acknowledge that we are competing with people all over the world.  We already have established that paying for 13 years of education is appropriate.  But when we talk about extending support of education another 4 years to those that are interested, it's the most radical, absurd idea ever concocted.  Of all the topics we discuss in politics it is probably THE MOST arbitrary of all the lines we draw.  It makes zero sense at all to me.  

We are told our multi-billion dollar companies need help competing in the global market, right?  But somehow it's absurd that we should help individuals in a similar fashion?  Not everyone is cut out for college, fair statement.  Many aren't cut out for high school either but we still offer it.  Hell, we MAKE them go to school...it's not optional.  I'd love someone to help me understand the resistance to providing education to those who want it and why the line is so emphatically drawn where it is.

So, no one wants to take a shot at this?  @matuski ?

 

[jamny]

The biggest thing for me right now is the Mueller report. If the election was today, I would not vote for Trump again. The Mueller report could solidify that thought or make me reconsider. Also, 2 years is a long way away.

 

[Snorkelson]

Why does everyone look at free college as expensive and impractical? It would be a great investment- and it doesn’t mean everyone gets to go to school for 6 years while they screw around. Offering 2 years would be a great start, anyone that wanted to learn a trade would have incentive, and we don’t seem to have enough plumbers/electricians etc in most areas. 

Red state that embraces free college

Look at free college as an investment rather than a handout.