Politics_Observer wrote:I absolutely love O'Rourke's plan!
It's a dumb idea, because a lot of the wealthy who discourage their children from joining the military are Democrats. He's just going to piss off wealthy Democrats, which is why he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell in the first place.
Politics_Observer wrote:Don't you know wealthy families aren't going to like that! ha ha ha!
Right. They already got fucked over royally by Paul Ryan's tax cut, which limited SALT. So wealthy Democrats now cannot write off much of their state taxes. They are trying to get that money back, but it's a political loser because it is literally tax cuts for the rich.
SolarCross wrote:I doubt anyone would complain too much either as it is not that onerous.
He's going to self-immolate.
Traveller wrote:"What the hell? $200,000/year on long island is like earning $80,000 in Kansas City! I am already taxed-the-hell-out-of. STOP IT!"
What foolish constituents do not understand - because they are knee deep in class and identity politics:
Take probably the highest bill people face: Rent. Rent Prices in Long Island, NY are 98.90% higher than in Kansas City, MO.
This is why Ryan's tax bill had some elements of political genius in it. You can get guys like jimjam to rail on endlessly about the corporate tax rate cut, but the individual income taxes went way up and have forced wealthy people in blue states to pay a lot more in state and local income taxes--taxes they voted for, but weren't really paying because they could write them off at the federal level. Wealthy liberals are a lot of things, but they aren't stupid.
Politics_Observer wrote:For example a guy in my unit was going on his 7th combat tour. In another case an army ranger was on his 15th combat tour before he was finally killed in action. He started his 1st combat tour in 2001 shortly after 9/11.
Yeah, the overdeployment of troops is something that needs to change. Rather than taxing the rich, maybe giving soldiers better pay, or granting them federal lands or something. Soldiering used to pay like shit, but if you won a war you would get land (and title, in countries with titles of nobility).
Drlee wrote:Last balanced budget? Bill Clinton.
Newt Gingrich. All spending and taxes originate in the US House of Representatives. Newspapers won't tell you that, but you can always read the constitution if you want to know how it really works.
Finfinder wrote:Didn't know Bush ran the CIA.
George H.W. Bush under Nixon. Pants-of-dog is still pretty sore about Salvador Allende getting bounced. Of course, that wasn't a war, so there is no "war crime" to prosecute.
JohnRawls wrote:You can't win all Hispanics so... But O'Rourke vs Trump is very problematic not only because of Hispanics. The general issues with O'Rourke for Trump is:
1) He is to a certain degree a very republican like.
2) He is young.
3) He is religious.
4) He is more favourable for Hispanics.
5) He has good amount of Charisma.
6) He has higher than average or may be the highest chances than all over dem candidates in Texas and Florida.
7) He is a "better" male.
The Democrats are doubling down on the policies that basically won Trump the election. Beto O'Rourke is for eliminating the border wall, eliminating ICE, providing illegal immigrants with health care at taxpayer's expense, etc. Hispanic Americans do not want illegal aliens, because they are the most adversely affected by illegal immigrant labor. Identity politics doesn't get this fact.
JohnRawls wrote:Although not very pragmatic but O'Rourke as President and AOC as VP would make for a very entertaining campaign only to watch Republicans shitting major bricks and knowing that they actually can loose to AOC with O'Rourke being P. Realistically though his VP would be some other semi low-key Leftie preferably a woman or afro-american.
AOC is not eligible. She is only 29. You need to be 35 years old.
JohnRawls wrote:But whatever the main point is that his VP is going to be somebody like AOC just because somebody like AOC or Bernie Sanders complement(Leftie, Woman, Green, Black in that order of priority) him well.
That'll just repeat 2016. Democrats will do well in BoshWash, Chicago and California. They will do worse than 2016 almost everywhere else.
JohnRawls wrote:People were making fun of me for saying that Trump has higher chances to win than Hillary during the previous election.(Both here and in real life)
Don't I know it. If that's the case, the people with the personality to take on Trump are really Kamala Harris and Booty Judge. They have already committed to policies that are too left of center for the country.
JohnRawls wrote:Now i am just going to say that if O'Rourke becomes the candidate than Trump is probably not going to have a 2nd term unless O'Rourke makes some massive mistake which is very unlikely.
Like campaigning to remove existing border fencing? He's already toast. This will not be obvious to you until election day. The guy cannot even fill a small room to hear his speeches. Look at the groundswell response. Kamala Harris actually did pretty well at her launch. Nobody draws crowds like Trump these days. Obama got pretty close, but Obama had the media's help.
JohnRawls wrote:I honestly think that Biden vs Trump would come down to a coin toss of sorts 50 vs 50 depending on how Republicans will leverage Bidens popularity of "Obamas" guy.
Biden's threat to Trump is that working class people like Biden. Biden's weakness is that a lot of leftists would stay home. So that's a murkier picture for Trump.
BigSteve wrote:Joe Biden is the Minnesota Vikings of Presidential politics...
The Fran Tarkenton...
Drlee wrote:Trump's problem is that he is running against Trump.
In other words, it's Trump's to lose.
Drlee wrote:His best hope is to be the best of the worst. Against just about any of the others he is in trouble.
They've all put their hands up for Green New Deal, paying health care for illegal aliens, forgiving college debt in a country where 2/3rds of the people don't go to college, eliminating ICE, etc. They have all but written off the white working class voter again. It's a huge mistake.
Drlee wrote:Trump may win. If the democrats don't get on message soon, he might. If they run too far to the left he might.
At this rate, Trump could win with a recession because the Democrats have written off the white, blue collar working class again. I didn't think they could possibly be that stupid, but they are as knuckleheaded as the Republican establishment.
BigSteve wrote:Well, if talking about shooting people on 5th Avenue or grabbing women by the pussy didn't do it, I can't imagine too many other sound bites having too great an impact...
Yeah. The whole country snoozed at the E. Jean Carrol sexual assault charge. It's become cliché.
BigSteve wrote:According to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton was the "most qualified" to ever seek the office of President. She's experienced, cunning and ruthless.
And she lost the election to Donald Trump.
Trump's election is the biggest political upset of our lifetimes. We'll be talking about the 2016 election for the rest of our lives.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
- By skinster
- By Godstud