Elizabeth Warren might destroy Trump. - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Will Warren win the democratic nomination and the beat Trump?

She will not get the nomination
10
36%
She will get the nomination and loose to Trump in the presidential race
8
29%
She will get the nomination and win against Trump in the presidential race
9
32%
Other(please specify)
1
4%
#15046496
Rancid wrote:I wasn't talking to you


I don't care.

I was merely offering one likely possibility for why he didn't explain his comment, that being that no explanation was necessary...
#15046497
BigSteve wrote:I don't care.


Then why did you quote and respond to me? This is a rhetorical question, I know the answer to it, please don't respond to this question.

You're not finfinder's daddy. I asked him (not you) a question. Mind your business, further, If you don't care, then you should be quiet.
Last edited by noemon on 04 Nov 2019 20:57, edited 1 time in total. Reason: edited
#15046501
BigSteve wrote:I don't care.

I was merely offering one likely possibility for why he didn't explain his comment, that being that no explanation was necessary...



The funny thing is Rancid doesn't s think Warren is a good candidate he agrees with me yet wants an explanation. He likes to focus on the poster and not the topic is a Freudian thing, trying to gaslight people like you and I because he doesn't have a retort.

Democrats have had shit candidates for a long time that is why we are having all this popular verses electoral vote discussion. My statement is so true Democrats cannot win unless they lie cheat rig the system or change the rules. Get better candidates and people will vote for them. We don't need to keep going over why Warren is so bad and fake because you already know and because you have said on this thread. .
#15046502
Finfinder wrote:The funny thing is Rancid doesn't s think Warren is a good candidate he agrees with me yet wants an explanation. He likes to focus on the poster and not the topic is a Freudian thing, trying to gaslight people like you and I because he doesn't have a retort.


It's pretty easy to see that he's one of those "I MUST WIN!" types.

You made a statement of opinion: That she would get the nomination and then lose.

Not a whole lot in there to explain!
#15046503
Rancid wrote:Then why did you quote and respond to me? This is a rhetorical question, I know the answer to it, please don't respond to this question.


I meant I didn't care who you were posing your question to. I wanted to answer it so I did.

Seems as though my answer was pretty correct, too...

You're not finfinder's daddy. I asked him (not you) a question. Mind your fucking business, further, If you don't care, then STFU.


LOL!!

I'll give those suggestions every due consideration...

:lol: :lol:
#15046533
BigSteve wrote:It's pretty easy to see that he's one of those "I MUST WIN!" types.

You made a statement of opinion: That she would get the nomination and then lose.

Not a whole lot in there to explain!


Not to interfere with your arguing threesome but Rancid is not a "I Must Win!" kind of type on here. Actually he rarely even argues that much. I think the problem that he is trying to address is that saying "She will get the nomination but will not beat Trump" actually requires some context. There must be reasons why anybody will think that? Is it a gut feeling? Is there some other reasons? Why do you think that Trump will win against Warren?

I mean you don't like also when SO just goes on random rants without explaining much. Sometimes he does provide explanations though.
#15046630
Erica Jane wrote:I think so too :|


Why? Say, the guess is "Trump will be impeached and she will face Pence instead"?
#15046635
Warren has a very good chance of beating Trump if she avoids fringe issues, and if Trump isn't impeached before the election.
#15046639
Image

Trump remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, according to a set of new surveys from The New York Times Upshot and Siena College. Across the six closest states that went Republican in 2016, he trails Joe Biden by an average of two points among registered voters but stays within the margin of error. But Warren trails Trump by six points in Michigan, four points in Florida and three points in North Carolina. The best-case scenario for Trump is facing Warren. Republican voters may vote for Warren in Democratic primaries to beat Biden.
#15046640
ThirdTerm wrote:
Trump remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, according to a set of new surveys from The New York Times Upshot and Siena College. Across the six closest states that went Republican in 2016, he trails Joe Biden by an average of two points among registered voters but stays within the margin of error. But Warren trails Trump by six points in Michigan, four points in Florida and three points in North Carolina. The best-case scenario for Trump is facing Warren. Republican voters may vote for Warren in Democratic primaries to beat Biden.


This also makes one wonder: are the polls being listed here truly as accurate as they should be? The polls were famously wrong leading up to right about two weeks before the election when Pres. Trump suddenly experienced a jump (in spite of the fact that the last big debate and the campaigns were winding down).

If these numbers presented here have already been massaged to some degree, this could be disastrous for the Left.

Moreover, let us say there was a bit more integrity in those polls in 2016 than I perceive them... Pres. Trump could be said to be a very strong finisher. He performed amazingly in the debates against Clinton -- some zings and, more importantly, he made a career politician look generally incapable of landing a hard shot.

That's one of Pres. Trump's best advantages: he is thought of so lowly by all of his opponents that if he ties you in a debate, he has actually destroyed his opponent. When you spend years talking about how stupid a man is, if you look like you came out even in a debate with him, you have been totally unseated.

A similar effect may be seen again this year when they fail to burn him in the debates.

Regardless, these are not the sort of numbers you want to be seeing when the media has been cheering against a man for half a decade. They are nowhere near what they would like them to be.

Image
#15046645
JohnRawls wrote:With the current unexpected developments in the US, the chances are likely that Warren might be the democratic candidate.

What are the unexpected developments in the US?

JohnRawls wrote:For all the information that i have heard about her (Non-news), she is considered one of the most smartest people in DC if not the smartest.



If she's the smartest person in DC, we're in serious trouble.

JohnRawls wrote:She also revealed her medicare plan for all aka the biggest monetary redistribution program for the middle class from the corporations/top 0.1%. Average joes will love this (putting the propaganda aside).

Pretty much every pension fund and 401k invests in major corporations. You can't redistribute money from yourself to yourself through the government as an intermediary and come out ahead. There are no free lunches in economics.

JohnRawls wrote:So do you think that she will get the candidacy and that she will beat Trump?

I think she has a good shot at it, because Biden's corruption is becoming clearer with the recent release of more documents by John Solomon. Bernie seems to have more popular support, but I think Wall Street will do what they can to extinguish his candidacy just as they did in 2016.

JohnRawls wrote:As i said, it is a redistribution program so the taxes will be shouldered by the Corporations and the top 1%. Middle class won't be taxed as i understand. That is the whole point of redistribution.

You do realize that the income tax was never intended to be paid by middle class or working class people at all. It was a tax on the rich. There is a fool born everyday, which is why that lie still works.

Rancid wrote:Corrected

Corporations are persons under the law.

late wrote:A country like England spends about half what we do with similar life expectancy.

That's because they don't allow corporations to charge extortionate rates for health care.

late wrote:The transition will be difficult, it always is for any major program.

US debt to GDP is north of 100%. It will destroy the US economy very quickly.

late wrote:But the deal is the same as Obamacare, the people that were screaming against it started screaming to keep it after they've gotten regular health care.

Only people with pre-existing conditions are screaming to keep ObamaCare. It's far more expensive and provides totally unnecessary coverage like transgender surgery, gynecology for men, child coverage for childless couples, etc.

Rugoz wrote:I don't know why you think this is an advantage. She's a nerdy white liberal.

While apocryphal, a woman was once reported to have told Adlai Stevenson that he was the smartest person in the race and he should be winning, whereupon he responded that the smartest people aren't a majority.

Tainari88 wrote:If I was in charge of dealing with a Trump scene I would not impeach, I would organize a mass effort at reforming the electoral college and getting rid of anything that is not about a popular vote presidency.

You need two thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and 3/4 (35) of the legislatures of the 50 states to ratify. You would still be at it in 2040.

Tainari88 wrote:Then I would be coping with passing legislation reforming what the executive branch is allowed to do by the current checks and balances.

Unconstitutional. It would be struck down immediately.

late wrote:"Add all this up and Warren’s team projects national health expenditures of $52 trillion over 10 years — exactly what’s projected in the absence of single-payer. Therefore, Berwick and Johnson conclude, Warren’s proposal would “cover every single resident of the U.S. with much more generous coverage and virtually no cost-sharing at a total cost just under the amount the U.S. is currently set to spend on health care under our existing system.”

Right. Since $5.2T a year is more than the current total of all US tax revenue, we'd be looking at a doubling of income tax rates. The math is simple, and it's basically not feasible. The health system needs to be reformed. Providing universal coverage to a corrupt system preserves corruption and forces everyone to pay. It will be universally unpopular.

JohnRawls wrote:- Warren proposes a financial transactions tax of 0.1 percent of the value of every stock, bond, or derivatives transaction. That raises $800 billion. Then she adds a “systemic risk fee” on financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets. That’s another $100 billion. ( Redistribution from capital to workers basically.)

US residents pay capital gains tax. Financial transactions tax is popular in Europe, because it's hard to get people to pay capital gains tax. That's why VAT is popular in Europe too.

JohnRawls wrote:- Prior to this plan, Warren’s wealth tax was 2 percent on assets over $50 million and 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Sorry billionaires — now it’s 6 percent, which raises another $1 trillion. Warren also proposes taxing capital gains for the top 1 percent at the same rate as normal income, and doing so on an annual basis, rather than just when the sale is made. That raises $2 trillion. (Tax hike for the top 1%. Again redistribution from Capital to labour)

Sorry billionaires? Wall Street has already said that if the Democrats run Warren, they will starve the DNC for cash. Have you noticed the difference in fund raising between Trump and all of the DNC candidates combined? Trump is dwarfing them.

JohnRawls wrote:- Warren proposes a massive increase in IRS enforcement aimed at reducing the tax avoidance rate from 15 percent to 10 percent.

The US was founded on a tax revolution. I don't think they are going to risk doubling taxes and then putting a gun to everyone's head. If Warren is that smart, she would understand immediately that the Secret Service would not be able to protect her.

JohnRawls wrote:- She also gets rid of the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund, which is basically a temporary increase in defense spending that’s become permanent. You can read more about OCO funds here, but the bottom line is it saves $800 billion. ( Less military spending which will go for healthcare

She would have to betray the Kurds, and then some...

ThirdTerm wrote:Trump remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, according to a set of new surveys from The New York Times Upshot and Siena College.

If that's the case, it's even worse for Democrats. That's registered voters. Add 2-3% to Trump's numbers, because likely voters will push Trump's numbers up considerably.

Verv wrote:This also makes one wonder: are the polls being listed here truly as accurate as they should be? The polls were famously wrong leading up to right about two weeks before the election when Pres. Trump suddenly experienced a jump (in spite of the fact that the last big debate and the campaigns were winding down).

If these numbers presented here have already been massaged to some degree, this could be disastrous for the Left.

My sentiments exactly. If that's what they're seeing now, it's going to be a landslide for Trump.
#15046653
blackjack21 wrote:What are the unexpected developments in the US?




If she's the smartest person in DC, we're in serious trouble.


Pretty much every pension fund and 401k invests in major corporations. You can't redistribute money from yourself to yourself through the government as an intermediary and come out ahead. There are no free lunches in economics.


I think she has a good shot at it, because Biden's corruption is becoming clearer with the recent release of more documents by John Solomon. Bernie seems to have more popular support, but I think Wall Street will do what they can to extinguish his candidacy just as they did in 2016.


You do realize that the income tax was never intended to be paid by middle class or working class people at all. It was a tax on the rich. There is a fool born everyday, which is why that lie still works.


Corporations are persons under the law.


That's because they don't allow corporations to charge extortionate rates for health care.


US debt to GDP is north of 100%. It will destroy the US economy very quickly.


Only people with pre-existing conditions are screaming to keep ObamaCare. It's far more expensive and provides totally unnecessary coverage like transgender surgery, gynecology for men, child coverage for childless couples, etc.


While apocryphal, a woman was once reported to have told Adlai Stevenson that he was the smartest person in the race and he should be winning, whereupon he responded that the smartest people aren't a majority.


You need two thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and 3/4 (35) of the legislatures of the 50 states to ratify. You would still be at it in 2040.


Unconstitutional. It would be struck down immediately.


Right. Since $5.2T a year is more than the current total of all US tax revenue, we'd be looking at a doubling of income tax rates. The math is simple, and it's basically not feasible. The health system needs to be reformed. Providing universal coverage to a corrupt system preserves corruption and forces everyone to pay. It will be universally unpopular.


US residents pay capital gains tax. Financial transactions tax is popular in Europe, because it's hard to get people to pay capital gains tax. That's why VAT is popular in Europe too.


Sorry billionaires? Wall Street has already said that if the Democrats run Warren, they will starve the DNC for cash. Have you noticed the difference in fund raising between Trump and all of the DNC candidates combined? Trump is dwarfing them.


The US was founded on a tax revolution. I don't think they are going to risk doubling taxes and then putting a gun to everyone's head. If Warren is that smart, she would understand immediately that the Secret Service would not be able to protect her.


She would have to betray the Kurds, and then some...


If that's the case, it's even worse for Democrats. That's registered voters. Add 2-3% to Trump's numbers, because likely voters will push Trump's numbers up considerably.


My sentiments exactly. If that's what they're seeing now, it's going to be a landslide for Trump.

And here I thought you are for empowering the middle class. Your answer is basically it is not doable and will hurt profits of capital and corporations. The tax enforcement answer is also weird.

For once you have another candidate that actually is trying to shift money flows in the direction of the middle class to actually try to sort out the systemic problem with the middle class being under paid. And here you are rooting against it while you yourself aknowledged the problem in other threads. Health care for all reduces the burden on the middle class and allows them to spend the money elsewhere. Math was also shown that it is doable with few changes and that it will cost approximately the same.

Your critique of her plan is basically that corporations will not give her any money and that the tax evasion should continue because it is an unspoken tax increase. As for military funding, it's hard to say what cuts will be needed.

As for the unexpected developments, well as the video shows she is a bit socially awkward so I never thought that she has a chance in the first place. Many thought that and now she is doing home runs in the primaries with the healthcare plan and courting Bernie voters.
#15046654
Stormsmith wrote:And she must avoid reacting to his childish chiding, eg Pochohantas.

This not some minor side issue, when you have a Liberal system that massively discriminates against Wigs (White Infidel Gentiles). WIgs are massively under-represented at the top universities. You see the modern Liberal or Cultural marxist is uncannily similar to a Christian. In this system of thought the White person is born into original sin, all White people are sinful. White people can only redeem themselves through continual confession of their sins. As a White person imagining you are not sinful is the worst form of sin.

So most Liberals are perfectly happy with Poco, She sinned, she apologised, lets move on. Actually she hasn't hasn't fully owned up to the extent of her identity theft. This is rather like the Televangelists who cream off loads of money and are caught committing adultery. Evangelical Christians are often quite satisfied by a humiliating apology. But non Christians are often not in the slightest bit impressed by these antics. Its the same with the Catholic Church's paedophile rapist priests. According to Catholic doctrine we are all thoroughly drenched in sin, so as long as the Priest confesses and asks for forgiveness, what's the problem.
#15046657
blackjack21 wrote:Corporations are persons under the law.


Fair enough. This should be changed though.

That is, changed such that corporations get a vote too.
#15046660
Rancid wrote:Fair enough. This should be changed though.

That is, changed such that corporations get a vote too.

I don't think corporations being a person is a bad thing.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]