Election 2020 - Page 13 - 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.
User avatar
By Hindsite
annatar1914 wrote:I said it from the start; Marianne Williamson will be the Democratic Nominee for President. That's not to say that I agree with her or anything, but she's a master persuader and even Donald Trump Jr. recognized that in her I think with a tweet about her. It's not magic, I have my reasons.

Marianne Williamson was a new-age spiritual adviser to Oprah Winfrey and ran for Congress in California and lost.

Marianne Williamson: Oprah is 'absolutely not' advising me on presidential run

Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson on Wednesday denied that Oprah Winfrey is advising her on her presidential run, despite their friendship and professional history together.

“I can’t share with her what my relationship with her is about," Williamson said. “I don’t think of myself as her spiritual adviser."

Williamson is the author of a number of self-help books and made several appearances on Winfrey's talk show in the 1990s.

The Democratic presidential candidate has been labeled as “Oprah’s spiritual adviser” and “friend of Oprah’s," both titles her campaign has pushed back against.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... ential-run

Williamson ran as an independent to represent California's 33rd Congressional District in the U.S. House in 2014. She placed fourth in an 18-candidate field, receiving 13 percent of the vote in the top-two primary election.

By Finfinder
colliric wrote:Williamson's biggest problems are in fact her religious beliefs. Her religion screws up any chance she'll be taken seriously by voters. No matter how articulate she is.

I assume @annatar1914 is taking her religion into account?

That and she is KooKoo for Coco Puffs. She sounds like she took one too any hits of acid at Woodstock.

All you need to do is envision Williamson sitting at a giant conference table in China discussing trade. That is where you can end her fantasy as a viable presidential candidate.
By Finfinder
My outside the box 2020 election prediction for the Democrats...... Joe Biden drops out of the race and is replaced with Hillary Rodham Clinton!! The DNC will beg her to get back in. Crazy??? Why?
User avatar
By Crantag
I'm watching a little more of the night 2 of the last Democratic debate. I'm only 27 minutes in, but I have an observation.

Biden is senile. He's the front runner? He has no chance, I doubt he makes it through the primaries, but he well could. He'll never make it to the presidency.

But, if he did, it'd be Reagan redux (minus the charisma/acting ability of course).

Biden is completely unfit. It's crazy we've gotten this far because this is what, the third time he's run for president? It could be the second time, not sure.

In the past, he was called a gaf machine, because he said stupid shit and couldn't help himself.

Now he was Obama's VP, and his entire platform is being a sequel to Obama, but he's senile.

He can't focus on a topic. The funniest though is every time the moderator says his time is up, he instantly shuts up. The others will get a word or two in edgewise when the moderator says 'time's up', but Biden completely stops on a dime, in mid sentence. This is the old gaf machine, and now he is following directions, like an old man in a nursing home (sorry, I didn't even want to say that, but had to illuminate my point; he's totally unfit).
User avatar
By colliric
Crantag wrote:But, if he did, it'd be Reagan redux (minus the charisma/acting ability of course).

Trump is older than Reagan already. Biden is too old, Sanders is too old, even Warren is too old to me.

I think they need a young blood or classic age average candidate.

It's already Booker VS Harris in my opinion.
User avatar
By Crantag
colliric wrote:Trump is older than Reagan already. Biden is too old, Sanders is too old, even Warren is too old to me.

I think they need a young blood or classic age average candidate.

It's already Booker VS Harris in my opinion.

Age isn't the point though. A lot of old people are lucid, like Sanders for example. Biden isn't right though.

I agree Sanders is too old though.
User avatar
By Hindsite
"All the Democrats have to do to win is to come off less crazy than Trump. And, of course, they’re blowing it," Maher said Friday on his HBO show, “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

Bill Maher warned Democrats this week that they are "blowing" their chance to beat President Trump in 2020 by "coming across as unserious people who are going to take away all your money so migrants from Honduras can go to college for free and get a major in 'America sucks.'"


User avatar
By jimjam
Obese Donald sez his rhetoric is bringing America together.......... :lol:

I really don't think i have ever seen a person more full if shit that this pompous fool.
User avatar
By Hindsite
jimjam wrote:Obese Donald sez his rhetoric is bringing America together.......... :lol:

However, the rhetoric of the Democrats and their propaganda news media is dividing the country. They complain about Trump's rhetoric, but their rhetoric is even worse.

As soon as authorities said they suspected the El Paso mass shooter was the author of a hate-filled, white-supremacist online manifesto, Democrats began blaming President Trump. “He is a racist,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), “and we’ve seen the consequences of it.” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Twitter about the president, “Your language creates a climate which emboldens extremists.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) declared that Trump was “directly responsible” for the shooting.

That is shameful. Trump is not responsible for the actions of a madman. As Democratic presidential hopeful Julián Castro, a lonely voice of reason on the left, correctly put it, “there’s one person that’s directly responsible for the shooting in El Paso and that’s the shooter.”

But if Democrats want to play politics with mass murder, it works both ways. Because the man who carried out another mass shooting 13 hours later in Dayton, Ohio, seems to have been a left-wing radical whose social media posts echoed Democrats’ hate-filled attacks on the president and U.S. immigration officials. The Associated Press reported on Monday that a Twitter account that appeared to be his “showed tweets labeling himself a ‘leftist,’ bemoaning the election of President Donald Trump, supporting Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and encouraging people to cut fences of immigrant detention centers.”

The suspected Dayton shooter railed online against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, retweeted criticism of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for not supporting Ocasio-Cortez and her progressive House allies, shared posts about “concentration camps” at the border, and tweeted “I want socialism, and i’ll not wait around until the idiots finally come around to understanding.”

Should we blame Warren for the Dayton massacre carried out by one of her supporters? How about Sanders, whose anti-capitalist rhetoric may have inflamed this young socialist? Or maybe we should blame Ocasio-Cortez for disgracefully comparing U.S. immigration facilities to “concentration camps” — a phrase that appears to have caught the Dayton shooter’s attention? (He seems to be the second domestic terrorist to echo her rhetoric before carrying out an attack; the manifesto of the man who was shot to death by police after he allegedly firebombed an ICE facility in Tacoma, Wash., last month also referred to “concentration camps.”)

If Trump is responsible for El Paso, then Democrats are responsible for Dayton. After the El Paso shooting, Trump declared “in one voice our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated.”

Sorry, I missed the speech in which Warren, or any Democrat, has taken personal responsibility for how their inflammatory rhetoric contributed to the Dayton massacre. I also don’t remember Democrats taking personal responsibility for how their virulent anti-Trump rhetoric contributed to the attempted assassination of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and other Republican legislators in 2017 by a deranged former Sanders campaign volunteer — even though the shooter called Trump a “traitor” on social media, echoing now-disproved Democratic accusations that Trump colluded with Russia during the 2016 election.

By Marc A. Thiessen
Columnist The Washington Post
August 7

In my opinion, the Democrats may also be blamed for the El Paso shooting, since they refused to help secure our southern border from the invasion of the illegal immigrants crossing into our country.
User avatar
By jimjam
looks like Don has had a bad coupla weeks. Last week the Chinese kicked his ass in his easy to win trade war. This week ......... well you see ............ he and the rest of us are reaping the hatred and division that the fat guy has sowed.
User avatar
By jimjam
A trove of court documents unsealed Friday detail allegations by an alleged victim of wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein that while working as a teenage locker room attendant at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort nearly two decades ago she was recruited to give Epstein massages that often involved sexual activity.

birds of a feather flock together …………..
User avatar
By Crantag
Just throwing into the ring my personal opinion, but I lean toward Andrew Yang. I know he has very little chance though. I'm instinctively a Sanders supporter, and I supported him in 2016, but I think he's too old. There are things I like about Warren. When I was in graduate school I was reading her books before she was famous. But I find her a bit inconsistent, and I find some of her ideas to be unrealistic.

It's pretty hard to make a decision with so many candidates running, but I think Yang is my favorite.
User avatar
By Drlee
I am revising my opinion on who will win. Still Trump but by a larger than expected margin. His strategy is working perfectly.

1. His dog-whistle racism is energizing the bubba base.

2. He is not and has no intention of running against the democrats presidential candidate. He will almost completely ignore whoever it is and run against AOC and any other person of color he can find.

3. The democrats are in a circular firing squad. They HAVE NO MESSAGE! They need a message. I don't care if the "debates" become simple commercials for a unified front, they still need a message. So far as I can tell only Warren has real talking points. Biden has chops and will be the candidate by the way. He is, after all, about the only one who can beat Trump.

4. Bill Mahr's Trump Fatigue Syndrome is spot on. Whenever talking about Trump EVERY CANDIDATE should drop the outrage and adopt a posture of bone weariness. Then simply say, "aren't you tired of this guy? He could screw up a ham sandwich. He just has to go. The republicans need to run someone else for god's sake".

5. The democrats should be running straight at conservative women and working class white men. They have a good message for these folks and an easy one. The democratic party is, after all, a conservative party. Middle of the road at its most liberal. They need to pound protecting health care. Women's rights. Fighting abortion by providing services to mothers including incentivizing them to keep their children. They need to run at white males by talking about protecting reasonable gun rights, maintaining a strong minimum wage, and slamming Trump for weakening the military.

If they do this, will they lose the "liberal" vote? THERE IS NO LIBERAL VOTE.

Of course I am a republican so what I say should be taken with a dose of suspicion.
By Rugoz
Has an incumbent ever been defeated while the economy was doing well?

The Dems should run with Sanders. He will probably lose, but

a) he will set the agenda, which is "socialism" in America, and 45%+ will vote for him.
b) none of the others are obvious winners. Sanders might be old but he is still the most talented of the bunch.
c) it would be hilarious to see Sanders clash with Trump. The old-fashioned moralist vs the ultimate post-modern president (Zizek), I wanna see that.
User avatar
By Hong Wu
Actually, recent events regarding China may be Donald Trump's first real defeat in anything as President. There's been a lot of imaginary stuff that has failed to stick but even after cutting interest rates, the US stock market has been more or less flat for weeks now.

I was skeptical of the trade war dialogue at first but it has unfortunately gone into that territory. Trump tariffed US $300 billion in goods by 10%, the Chinese devalued their currency (which counters the tariffs a bit, but also makes Chinese goods cheaper for everyone, not just the US). Yet this presumably puts a drain on China's foreign currency reserves.

The thing about tariffs and sanctions is that they work both ways. Just as the Chinese have to respond to the increased prices, so do all of the US companies that have been buying stuff from China. Eventually the economies will adapt to the new normal and change their positions. But there was no clear winner in this exchange, only losers.

My personal take is that, although it's normal to seek good trade deals, it might also be normal for the producer country (China) to be making more money from the relationship than the purchaser country (United States). Finding the fair point in a fundamentally uneven relationship is never easy and when it grows contentious that can turn into a real problem.
By foxdemon
The China - US rival is the big global issue of our age. It surprises me that so many ordinary Americans are preoccupied with belting each other over the head about racism when their nation’s global economic hegemony is under challenge.

Presently, Trump is trying to disentangle the US economy from the Chinese economy. This has to be down so to maintain the industrial, and thus military potential of America. It does seem to mean an end to global capital utopia and a return to great power rivalry. The big losers are all the smaller countries. We can expect a sustained period of global economic regression.

The question is will the economy hold together for 12 more months?
By Rugoz
foxdemon wrote:Presently, Trump is trying to disentangle the US economy from the Chinese economy.

This US cannot effectively disentangle its economy from China while the rest of the world doesn't, unless the US is willing to disentangle itself from the rest of the world as well. There is no global US economic hegemony.

As for the trade deficit, tariffs won't do jack shit when Trump makes record deficits and needs foreign capital to fund it.

foxdemon wrote:The big losers are all the smaller countries.

Not necessarily, as long as the trade war is limited to the US and China:


https://qz.com/1684207/mexico-canada-an ... trade-war/
User avatar
By jimjam
Drlee wrote:I am revising my opinion on who will win. Still Trump but by a larger than expected margin. His strategy is working perfectly

it's a bit soon to be calling winners but I find it interesting to see where the Trump folks are resembling the Hillary folks of '16. Acting like it's in the bag. Let's not forget that Trump lost the vote by almost 3 million and won the electoral game by just 80,000. Yes Donald is doing a fine job of entertaining his so called "base" with almost daily episodes of racial hatred and anger but, in doing so, he is losing a few substantial voting blocs: Hispanics are gone, blacks are mostly gone and women …… except for billionaire women and obese women with no teeth the pussy grabber in chief cannot be well liked. Plus …. there is another "base" out there ….. those who consider Donald not only a repulsive human being but grossly incompetent. This "base" will have had 3 or 4 years of exposure to Donald's pampering of the rich to the disadvantage of everyone else, economic selling of tomorrow in favor of short term glamor today, devastation of the environment, morphing of America into a worldwide pariah ,,,,,,,,,, etc etc

Oh ………. Donald's wonderful economy where half of Americans cannot afford an unexpected $400 expense is actually on thin ice ……… the sugar high of his tax break for the rich is wearing off and his easy to win trade war is not looking so easy.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 598

What makes you believe it is any different? The[…]

And China is a major, important country in the wo[…]

You've done nothing except talk down to me. I to[…]

Is Marxism old-fashioned?

Well this is conjecture and I suspect not even cl[…]