Election 2020 - Page 29 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By annatar1914
#15035321
Crantag wrote:Thanks for the confirmation.

I didn't say what I said because I'm jumping the gun, I said what I said because the first time you said it, it let me know me know how hopeless you are at the predictions game.


Again, it would logically be ''hopeless'' if it was Nomination time and Marianne Williamson wasn't the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Since it is not that time, you have no basis in fact for your words.

Furthermore, we're as of this date, not even entered into any of the State Primaries and Caucases. I do expect some more candidates to drop out real soon, probably Booker before the end of the month and possibly more.
User avatar
By Crantag
#15035446
annatar1914 wrote:Again, it would logically be ''hopeless'' if it was Nomination time and Marianne Williamson wasn't the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Since it is not that time, you have no basis in fact for your words.

Furthermore, we're as of this date, not even entered into any of the State Primaries and Caucases. I do expect some more candidates to drop out real soon, probably Booker before the end of the month and possibly more.

For anyone at any time to think Williams had a shadow of a chance in hell to win the nomination, shows a rather inability to make political predictions. Sure it was a bold pick, congrats on being bold, but she never had any remote chance at all, and was most likely in it for self promotion (which is largely what running for president is for these days in very many cases, sadly).

This is another strange cycle. I think Warren will be the nominee, by process of elimination, though I'm not that confident. In reality Demented Biden has a pretty good shot of getting it, and then losing to Trump.

My heart is with Sanders, although I think he's too old (I don't support Biden at all, he's too old and he's also losing his marbles), but the heart wants what the heart wants.

Andrew Yang is actually my choice, but he's got no shot at all.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#15035458
JohnRawls wrote:Not necessarily. This has nothing to do with men being weak or strong. This has everything to do with women not viewing it in an outrageous manner like the democrats think. Some perhaps do but most just don't care. Trump has never advocated himself to be a paragon of virtue.


That's possible but I would offer another interpetation, namely that women have a tendency to turn on each other instead of sticking together. Many women probably thought the victims were whores seeking the company of famous men and thus deserved it, or rationalized it otherwise.

Or that's what my inner armchair psychologist tells me :lol:.
By annatar1914
#15035474
@Crantag ;

For anyone at any time to think Williams had a shadow of a chance in hell to win the nomination, shows a rather inability to make political predictions.


It's ''Williamson''...

And I predicted Trump's Election from the beginning and for the same reasons too.


Sure it was a bold pick, congrats on being bold, but she never had any remote chance at all, and was most likely in it for self promotion (which is largely what running for president is for these days in very many cases, sadly).


She has every chance in the world to be the Nominee, because not only her own skills but also the bind the Democratic party is in. They cannot pick a White Man, but they cannot win with a Non-White female. Their best chance then always was a White Woman. Of those, Williamson is the one with the best skills as a master persuader and the one who Trump hasn't been able to pin with a ''loser'' memetic label.

This is another strange cycle. I think Warren will be the nominee, by process of elimination, though I'm not that confident. In reality Demented Biden has a pretty good shot of getting it, and then losing to Trump.


Trump's going to win, and it won't even be a close one.

My heart is with Sanders, although I think he's too old (I don't support Biden at all, he's too old and he's also losing his marbles), but the heart wants what the heart wants.


Sanders is not only too old, but he's too tied in with Linda Sarsour and her crowd. He's not going to make it.

Andrew Yang is actually my choice, but he's got no shot at all.


He'll actually be one of the last ones still standing after the implosion of Biden's, Warren's, and Sander's candidacies, I'm thinking.
User avatar
By Crantag
#15035488
I predicted Trump too.

On the eve of the election, my dad said to me "I guess you were right, Trump is going to win."

Williams, or Williamson, whatever her name (it's going to be forgotten) has absolutely no chance, and to say otherwise is delusional.
By annatar1914
#15035492
Crantag wrote:I predicted Trump too.

On the eve of the election, my dad said to me "I guess you were right, Trump is going to win."

Williams, or Williamson, whatever her name (it's going to be forgotten) has absolutely no chance, and to say otherwise is delusional.


We'll see. As it is, the state of the Democratic Party is such that it will not win the 2020 elections.
User avatar
By Crantag
#15035495
annatar1914 wrote:We'll see. As it is, the state of the Democratic Party is such that it will not win the 2020 elections.

Yeah, only the Democrats could lose to Trump.

I feel as though they can't even field a decent candidate.

The Republicans were ridiculous as hell with their 16 clowns show last time, the Democrats managed to outdo them this time round.

The Democrats last time fielded only Queen Hillary, and played dirty tricks on Sanders, who wasn't supposed to run. This time, they are outdoing the Republican clown show of the last cycle.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15035519
Crantag wrote:Yeah, only the Democrats could lose to Trump.

I feel as though they can't even field a decent candidate.

The Republicans were ridiculous as hell with their 16 clowns show last time, the Democrats managed to outdo them this time round.

The Democrats last time fielded only Queen Hillary, and played dirty tricks on Sanders, who wasn't supposed to run. This time, they are outdoing the Republican clown show of the last cycle.


Between the Green New Deal, Beto wanting to confiscate guns and them wanting open borders, the democrats have all but sealed their fate. Trump will win in 2020 and, if the idiots on the left don't smarten up soon, a Republican will win in 2024...
User avatar
By jimjam
#15035543
If Trump loses Michigan and its 16 electoral votes, it wouldn’t necessarily cut off his path to reelection. The president won 304 electoral votes in 2016, meaning he still has a cushion keeping him above the 270 threshold. But if his problems in the state bleed over to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which collectively account for 30 electoral votes, it could well doom his chances.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#15035845
Crantag wrote:I feel as though they can't even field a decent candidate.


That's the impression you get when you watch the debates. The format is terrible. I've seen interviews with Bernie, Yang, Pete and Tulsi on youtube, and of those only Tulsi wasn't up to it, i.e. felt like a one-trick pony.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15036199
Mitigating climate change and saving the environment never poll well. But times change, and it depends how you frame the issue. Mother Nature is forcing herself onto the ballot, and Trump’s efforts to roll back more than 80 rules and standards protecting clean air, water, climate, parks and wilderness make him uniquely vulnerable. He can’t pivot away from what he’s doing. He owns it, and it’s villainous. This time is different.

Try this Dems: “Trump says he cares about you. Well, that’s funny, because he clearly doesn’t care about the water you drink. He just revoked a rule that prohibited coal mining debris from being dumped into local streams — among other actions to weaken the Clean Water Act — so that pro-Trump coal companies can make more money while they make you sick. What kind of president does that?

Trump says he cares about making America great again. Well, that’s funny, because he clearly doesn’t care about American automakers and their supply chains. He’s trying to force California and other states to weaken their gas mileage and pollution standards so our companies — which don’t even want this change — can make gas guzzlers and no longer produce cars that get mileage as good as those in Japan or emit as little pollution as China’s expanding electric car fleets. Who the hell does that?

The last time our auto industry indulged in a race to the bottom on mileage and pollution standards, it went bankrupt. That’s why automakers are resisting Trump’s effort to dumb them down. There are 42 Chinese companies actively manufacturing and selling electric cars in China right now — and they can’t wait to ship them here once Trump forces our manufacturers to make more polluting gas guzzlers."

:hmm:
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15036203
Code Rood wrote:And he has been replaced by another neocon. So yeah, that's just awesome. :roll: Am I supposed to celebrate now?

Nothing really ever changes. The USA is stuck with neocons (former Trotskyites) on one side and neo-liberals on the other side.

It has been tough sledding for the neocons/neoliberals. They are two sides of the same coin. They have the same puppet master.

Code Rood wrote:Wise up and stop participating in this circus every four years. Everything is completely controlled.

Obama was with the neoliberals/neoconservaties too, but he wasn't supposed to win. It wasn't his turn. It was Hillary's. She blew it in 2008. However, John McCain fucked up too as did Mitt Romney in 2012. Obama was very beatable, but McCain and Romney didn't have the balls that Trump does. So they rigged 2016 to be between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. You've already heard me say, I don't care who wins in 2020--as long as it isn't Joe Biden. My preference is for Trump, because of the courts. Otherwise, I do not care. I care about destroying the neoconservative/neoliberal cabal, and that part of things is going very well.

Code Rood wrote:An actual America first candidate (not a phony like Trump) would never win. You have to be a Zionist, an internationalist and an imperialist if you want to make it to the White House.

Obama wasn't much of a Zionist. He tended to undermine Israel's government because of his antipathy to Bibi Netanyahu. He wasn't much of an imperialist either--good at destroying things, but not so skilled at building anything lasting.

Crantag wrote:The inflation of college prices has far outstripped probably most other categories of inflation. The student debt situation is modern day indentured servitude, particularly because the loans can never be forgiven through bankruptcy or other such means.

Right, and that is why colleges and universities got into the business of virtually worthless degrees like black studies, women's studies, Asian studies, and so forth. What students should be doing is suing for fraud the way Trump University students did.

Crantag wrote:It's a sort of virtual indentured servitude, in effect (virtual in the sense that the banks aren't directly administering the servants, but have virtual enforcement mechanisms, like wage garnishments and collection agencies).

Right. Who is doing it mostly? The political left.

BigSteve wrote:Who would've thought?

Maybe everyone who understood that the accusations that were being made against Trump were complete bullshit...

I've argued for over a decade that talking heads have to be taking money under the table for their opinions--e.g., George F. Will voting for Barack Obama, while still trying to maintain the fraud that he's a conservative. Same thing David Brooks. Same thing Peggy Noonan. It goes on and on. Yet, people bought it year after year and nobody challenged it, until Trump. Trump is showing that the establishment emperor has no clothes, that the deep state is deeper than anyone thought, and that they have no loyalty to the people of the United States whatsoever. By speaking to people's issues, Trump has torn down the blue wall just as he's building one on the Mexican border.

Drlee wrote:They cost bupkis to produce and present yet the student pays as much or more for them than they do for the 'real' thing.

Absolutely. You can also take CLEP or Dantes testing for many courses, but many colleges won't recognize them because they don't get any money for it. As I said, from my experience working in higher-ed e-procurement, I learned that it's a business--even if it's not for profit.

Drlee wrote:Check it out. The 300 level sociology course I am teaching is being offered in the classroom first semester and online the second. The cost per semester hour at the school makes the online class cost more than $$2100.00 Consider. The classroom edition of my course meets once a week for three hours. The class size is 80 and it is always full. At the in state tuition level of $727.00 per semester hour that class generates $58,160.00 for the university. Absolutely outrageous especially given that the class requires supplies consisting of a couple of thousand sheets of paper and a few boxes of gloves. That is it. No equipment other than a computer projector. Two part time adjuncts which, I can assure you, do not put so much as a dent in that amount.

Right. While you won't agree with me on this, it is another example of why nobody believes their global warming bullshit. If global warming is a serious problem, it saves far more CO2 emissions for people to watch the courses online, take quizzes online, and only go onsite and present identification and take testing at proctored sites to ensure no cheating; and, to go onsite when there is physical lab work to do requiring equipment most students would not have at home.

annatar1914 wrote:Or, we could make Education ''free'', among other things, as just the worthwhile cost for a society interested in improving itself collectively by improving itself intellectually. Getting not just the government out of the student loan business but ceasing to make Education a private business altogether.

However, the establishment's idea of free is that you have a zero price at the point of service, everyone pays higher taxes, and colleges and universities have no obligation to cut expenses. Almost everything in higher-ed could be done at a tiny fraction of the cost, freeing up the physical capital in campuses for lab work and training with physical machinery, etc. There is some social benefit to meeting other students in the same field of endeavor, but not the living on campus and drinking torrential amounts of beer, etc.

Crantag wrote:It might be a worthy ideal though to have free higher education.

Given some of what we've talked about above, 4-year accredited degrees in many fields could be had for a fraction of the cost. History, Math, Art History, Computer Science, etc. There is so much wasted physical capital that could be used for first class labs getting students hands-on experience with equipment they couldn't touch with a 10-foot pole without access to substantially more capital. Yet, that's just not done.

Crantag wrote:I think Warren will be the nominee, by process of elimination, though I'm not that confident. In reality Demented Biden has a pretty good shot of getting it, and then losing to Trump.

I think Biden is going to be neutron bombed by impeachment 2.0. Warren and Sanders are next in line. I'm guessing Warren will beat Sanders, but I really don't know.

annatar1914 wrote:And I predicted Trump's Election from the beginning and for the same reasons too.

I did too, and I don't see your rationale on Williamson. The unheard constituency of the Democrats is getting a voice in AOC and the Squad, while it's old bedrock of white working class blue collar workers have fled to Trump and the Democrats aren't doing anything to recapture them.

annatar1914 wrote:She has every chance in the world to be the Nominee, because not only her own skills but also the bind the Democratic party is in. They cannot pick a White Man, but they cannot win with a Non-White female. Their best chance then always was a White Woman. Of those, Williamson is the one with the best skills as a master persuader and the one who Trump hasn't been able to pin with a ''loser'' memetic label.

This is why I said that the Democrats needed someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Steve Bullock. They are normal people who can relate to real Americans, but they are located in tiny, non-existent media markets. So they have no name recognition. Yet, if they did, their ability to articulate their points and still identify with the average American would give them a real shot at winning. Instead, the Democrats are going with all this weird sexual identity stuff, intersectionality, victimhood, and positively ludicrous spending proposals on "fighting climate change", etc. None of that can put food in your belly, clothes on your back or a roof over your head.

annatar1914 wrote:Trump's going to win, and it won't even be a close one.

It sure looks that way.

annatar1914 wrote:Sanders is not only too old, but he's too tied in with Linda Sarsour and her crowd. He's not going to make it.

Yeah, and he's a left wing Jew, which is a deal killer for evangelicals.

Crantag wrote:Yeah, only the Democrats could lose to Trump.

I feel as though they can't even field a decent candidate.

The Republicans were ridiculous as hell with their 16 clowns show last time, the Democrats managed to outdo them this time round.

You are contradicting yourself. 16 other Republican clowns lost to Trump, including an incredibly well-funded and thoroughly experienced Jeb Bush.

BigSteve wrote:Between the Green New Deal, Beto wanting to confiscate guns and them wanting open borders, the democrats have all but sealed their fate. Trump will win in 2020 and, if the idiots on the left don't smarten up soon, a Republican will win in 2024...

Yeah, I don't think the Democrats get that yet. Beto demonstrated just how stupid Democrats can be.

jimjam wrote:But if his problems in the state bleed over to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which collectively account for 30 electoral votes, it could well doom his chances.

Trump pulled an inside straight in 2016, but he's pecking to do it again.

jimjam wrote:Mitigating climate change and saving the environment never poll well.

Yeah, consigning oneself to a lower standard of living is for unbathed Patchouli-drenched hippies and debt-laden college grads serving up coffee at Starbucks with their "black studies" degrees.

jimjam wrote:Mother Nature is forcing herself onto the ballot, and Trump’s efforts to roll back more than 80 rules and standards protecting clean air, water, climate, parks and wilderness make him uniquely vulnerable. He can’t pivot away from what he’s doing. He owns it, and it’s villainous. This time is different.

Did you see his rally with Narendra Modi? That's a majority Asian crowd cheering for Trump... That should scare the shit out of Democrats, but they are ignoring it.



Trump is about to steal South Asian Americans from the Democrats, and they have big numbers in places like Michigan. I work with lots of them, and many of them are much more conservative than you think.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15036322
BJ21 said: Right. While you won't agree with me on this, it is another example of why nobody believes their global warming bullshit. If global warming is a serious problem, it saves far more CO2 emissions for people to watch the courses online, take quizzes online, and only go onsite and present identification and take testing at proctored sites to ensure no cheating; and, to go onsite when there is physical lab work to do requiring equipment most students would not have at home.


You are right. I do believe that this is so weak a situation that nobody even thinks about it. Not a soul except you and you are just mildly trolling me with it.

Nevertheless. Your point is good in general. We are doing nothing significant in the matter of public transportation. And, because of the way the US has used land, we probably won't in the foreseeable future. Trying to connect widespread suburbs to "work zones" will not pay at all.

Could college campuses be mostly eliminated? Probably not. They are far to great an industry and far to stimulative to local economies to be eliminated without a fight. Besides. They are an important part of the white mating game. (Right back at you.)

What is clear is that Trump should not be going after environmental protections but he should have ditched Kyoto. Why? Because then (and only then) could he claim to be protecting the climate while that worthless piece of shit treaty is not. It is an admittedly minor error.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15036422
Drlee wrote:What is clear is that Trump should not be going after environmental protections but he should have ditched Kyoto. Why? Because then (and only then) could he claim to be protecting the climate while that worthless piece of shit treaty is not. It is an admittedly minor error.

We haven't been paying much attention to Kyoto anyway, since we still have not ratified it.
By Code Rood
#15036521
blackjack21 wrote:Obama was with the neoliberals/neoconservaties too, but he wasn't supposed to win.


It doesn't really matter who wins. Like you said, he was with the neoliberals and neoconservatives too.

blackjack21 wrote: It wasn't his turn. It was Hillary's. She blew it in 2008. However, John McCain fucked up too as did Mitt Romney in 2012.


Obama actually seems like a likeable guy who you can drink a beer with, Hillary not so much. That's the main reason why Hillary failed. But their politics are pretty much all the same.

blackjack21 wrote:Obama was very beatable, but McCain and Romney didn't have the balls that Trump does.


If you want to win people on the right over, at least try to talk MORE about things like immigration instead of Israel or how you want to treat/bomb Iran. That's what Trump understood. And that's what he did in his campaign. Of course he changed (or became his true self) when he became POTUS, which should've been obvious to people who don't have an IQ of a dead cat.

blackjack21 wrote:I care about destroying the neoconservative/neoliberal cabal,


Well, good luck with that...

blackjack21 wrote:and that part of things is going very well.


I applaud you for your optimism, but I can't and won't ever BS myself like that.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15036535
Code Rood wrote:Obama actually seems like a likeable guy who you can drink a beer with, Hillary not so much. That's the main reason why Hillary failed. But their politics are pretty much all the same.


Democrats always seem to be more along the lines of "regular joes". Unfortunately that means dick when it comes to running the country.

I always thought Obama was an alright guy. Hillary Clinton, however, strikes me as the type of person who would feed on the souls of children if it would benefit her...
By Code Rood
#15036538
BigSteve wrote:Between the Green New Deal, Beto wanting to confiscate guns and them wanting open borders, the democrats have all but sealed their fate. Trump will win in 2020 and, if the idiots on the left don't smarten up soon, a Republican will win in 2024...


It doesn't really matter who wins, but the cowardly GOP is pretty much done in the future. States like Texas won't remain red forever. They're going to turn blue at some point. Demographics, BigSteve. Demographics. The thing you don't really like to talk about. ;)
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15036540
Code Rood wrote:It doesn't really matter who wins, but the cowardly GOP is pretty much done in the future. States like Texas won't remain red forever. They're going to turn blue at some point. Demographics, BigSteve. Demographics.


Well, everything's cyclical. What's red may turn blue, but what's blue could just as well turn red.

This impeachment inquiry will prove to be the final nail in the Democrat's coffin of Presidential aspirations. Trump may be impeached, but there's no way in Hell he's found guilty. Anyone who believes otherwise is a complete and utter fool.

Trump's played this one masterfully. The Democrats were forced into a position where they now have to do something which they know they'll fail at.

Well played, Mr. President. Well played...
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15036620
Code Rood wrote:It doesn't really matter who wins. Like you said, he was with the neoliberals and neoconservatives too.

It does matter in the primaries. That's why Howard Dean was such a threat in 2004, and why they had John Kerry swoop in after Dean's primal scream that the media uniformly condemned as "unpresidential." The impossibly smug John Kerry was Skull & Bones too, just like Bush. That's why as elections go, 2016 really did matter. None of the neoconservatives thought Trump would win. He's not part of their cabal. They don't really control him.

Code Rood wrote:Obama actually seems like a likeable guy who you can drink a beer with, Hillary not so much.

Beer and Obama are two words that seem a bit awkward together. Even his condescending "beer summit" when Skip Gates started swearing at a cop and got arrested was awkward. Champagne and lines of cocaine might be a little more Obama's speed.

Code Rood wrote:But their politics are pretty much all the same.

They've clearly pledged their fealty to the neo/conservative/liberal cabal. However, I do think temperament matters. Obama seems like he didn't like the site of blood, whereas Hillary would have happily bathed in it.

BigSteve wrote:I always thought Obama was an alright guy.

I did too until Benghazi. I can't imagine abandoning people under fire calling broken arrow out there to swing in the breeze and then just rolling out to a fundraiser the next day like it was no big deal. I was stunned and sickened by that--although, I'm a history student. In the 19th Century, the leader of Algeria slapped the French ambassador in the face. France invaded. Treating an ambassador as expendable sends a "weak" signal that reverberates through halls of power throughout the world, but the US media was utterly compliant. Romney, utterly unworthy to command the Oval Office too, failed to press the attack on that. Obama's cowardice set up his second term's historic failures. His red line in the sand was the very next year, and the Russians realized they could invade and take Crimea too. That's when all the wimp memes came out.

Image
Image
Image
Image

Then, a lot of things started to make sense about Obama. He was left-handed, probably gay or bi-sexual, etc. He hated the military, except special forces. They seemed to give him a boner. He loved drones too.

BigSteve wrote:Hillary Clinton, however, strikes me as the type of person who would feed on the souls of children if it would benefit her...

Or have the disloyal executed, such as Seth Rich.

Code Rood wrote:It doesn't really matter who wins, but the cowardly GOP is pretty much done in the future.

It does matter, because with the Democrats appointing people like RBG to the Supreme Court, they are basically liquidating the constitution. Trump has held the court for another generation, but if he wins re-election, he will fundamentally transform the court and neutralize its catastrophic social engineering and contempt for the constitution.

Code Rood wrote:States like Texas won't remain red forever.

Beto isn't going to do it. Beto just shot himself in the head for being honest about disregarding the second amendment.

Code Rood wrote:Demographics, BigSteve. Demographics. The thing you don't really like to talk about. ;)

That's why I asked if anybody had seen Trump's rally in New Mexico or the rally with Narendra Modi. I have a number of Indian-American friends who emigrated to the United States in the 1990s. They became US citizens. About half of them identify as Republican. That's probably going to increase now. The Democrats and the media tell people that someone like me is "racist," in the sense that I'm going to put a white hood on, burn a cross on your lawn and so forth. However, with Indian Americans (sub-continent), most of them know better. Hispanic Americans are doing better economically, because illegal immigration cuts wages. With Hispanic American incomes at an all time high, and the fact that Hispanics are Catholic, anti-abortion and pro-family, they are not a natural long-term constituency for the Democrats just as the Irish Catholics have abandoned the Democrats in significant numbers. Remember the FoxNews line up from a few years ago? Megyn Kelley, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly--all Irish Catholic. Hispanics won't remain Democrats forever either. They aren't blacks for godsake, and even a lot of blacks are beginning to wake up--not enough for them to become dislodged from the Democrats who serve them so poorly, but enough to tip elections.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15036629
Then, a lot of things started to make sense about Obama. He was left-handed, probably gay or bi-sexual, etc. He hated the military, except special forces. They seemed to give him a boner. He loved drones too.


Really? What a load of shit. But it would not be a Blackjack21 post without some trolling rubbish in it.
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 599

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]

The rapes by Hamas, real or imagained are irreleva[…]

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia coul[…]

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