Displaying 1 - 10 of 4669 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Jan 18, 2020 12:17 AM
    Last: 3hr
    47

    I find it interesting that Andrew Yang was at the top of my list, followed by Buttigieg and Warren who tied with 12.

    Deep down, I'm pretty far to the left. As an example, it appears Bernie and I are the only people who believe everyone should have the right to vote regardless of their lot in life.

    In the same breath, I'm militantly pragmatic. I'm well aware that my personal feelings on a UBI and a federal gun registry are different than what people who live in the states that matter think. And quite honestly, what the average person in swing a state thinks is the only thing that matters this election cycle.

    So maybe I agree with Andrew Yang the most (which is quite honestly a surprise to me), but that simply doesn't matter. I live in one of the bluest states in the country. Our electoral college votes will go to whoever the Democratic nominee is. All I care about it Democrats selecting a candidate who can win the states that count.

  • Jan 15, 2020 02:58 PM
    Last: 2d
    164
    Schmidt Wrote: Russian meddling will especially occur in earnest in the two weeks before the election. We will cry foul at the time and shed lots of tears after November 3rd, but it won't change the election results. Similar to the referee on the football field calling out after a review of the play, the various election commissions and courts will state: "the vote by the people stands"...for another four years.

    This is what's so scary. We know exactly what is going to happen. Russia is going to do whatever they can to help Donald and split the Democrats. You know it. I know it. Anyone who even moderately follows politics knows it.

    All they have to do is convince a handful of people in a handful of states to stay home or vote for a third party candidate and we'll all be watching Donald deliver his 2nd inaugural a year from now.

    Speaking of a handful of states, if you haven't seen the SNL skit about the electoral college and "living in states that don't matter" then you definitely should. It's very unfortunate, but we have to remind ourselves that for the vast majority of us, it simply doesn't matter who we like as a candidate. It only matters who a handful of people in a handful of states likes. It's so depressing when you think about it.

  • Jan 15, 2020 02:58 PM
    Last: 2d
    164
    Schmidt Wrote:Vox, August 24, 2017: The Bernie voters who defected to Trump, explained by a political scientist

    I should have been more clear in my previous post...

    "Bernie or busters" fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

  • Jan 15, 2020 02:58 PM
    Last: 2d
    164
    Leekle2Much Wrote: But reading through the coverage of the Democratic debates, I just see the Democrats flat out losing if they back either Warren or Sanders as they are both too far left to swing the Middle.

    Only if Democrats shoot themselves in the foot the same way we did in 2016. I loathe Bernie with every fiber of my being, but I'll knock on doors for him if he's the Democratic nominee.

    Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line. If that saying rings true yet again this November then Donald will be reelected.

    Democrats would rather lose an election than vote for someone who stands for 90% of what they believe. Republicans would rather vote for someone who stands for 10% of what they believe than lose an election.

  • Dec 18, 2019 08:29 PM
    Last: 1d
    221

    The House has formally submitted Articles of Impeachment against Donald to the Senate with Congressman Adam Schiff reading them into the record from the well of the Senate.

    Donald's trial starts Tuesday, 1/21/2020.

  • Jan 15, 2020 02:58 PM
    Last: 2d
    164

    I'm also a centrist who tends to lean towards Biden (I also really like Senator Klobuchar), but I do take issue with you saying you want Donald out of office as much as the rest of us, but then go on to say that you have a feeling you're "going to be voting third party again."

    A vote for a third party candidate is the exact same thing as voting for a 2nd Donald term.

    This election is about one thing - removing Donald from office. If my choice is Bernie (Lord, help us) or Donald then I will vote for Bernie in a heartbeat and then sit back and watch as every one of his fanciful promises are swatted down by Congress.

    If my choice is Warren (not nearly as big of a demagogue as Bernie) or Donald then I will vote for Warren. A Warren Presidency would be interesting because she actually has specific policy proposals, like them or not, that Congress could take up if they chose.

    If my choice is Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson or Donald then I'll don a Baywatch tanktop and cast my vote for the dreamboat.

    I will vote for whoever has a D next to their name in the general election even if it means I have to swallow hard before casting my ballot. This election is about so much more than my feelings. It's about saving our country from a narcissistic sociopath who is currently in control of our nuclear arsenal.

    So if you vote third party then you are voting to keep Donald in office. It's as simple as that.

  • Jan 11, 2020 11:58 AM
    Last: 6d
    162

    This one is easy. It’s unsurprising to see prosperity around you while enjoying a $10 cup of coffee at a swanky coffee shop in a gentrified neighborhood.

    I’d encourage this MBA student to get some coffee somewhere else, maybe in Madison County.

  • Jan 03, 2020 03:44 PM
    Last: 6d
    260
    Dockadams Wrote: IDK Jared, they just yesterday dispatched 6 B52 bombers to that area, and those can be very destructive, they were used in the Viet Nam war primarily carpet bombing. If the US is planning on carpet bombing Iran, they'd better be really careful not to kill innocent Iranians.

    I have no doubt how destructive American bombs can be, but I also have no doubt that Americans have zero appetite for a hot war with Iran. I also have little to zero faith that the US would be able to "win" a hot war with Iran.

    Iran is huge. Our elementary school geography books and mapmakers have given us a distorted vision of its size. Iran also has a big, modern, and loyal military that is far more capable than the Iraqi military in 2003 (and look how that turned out for us). Add those two things together and war with Iran could very well be catastrophic.

  • Jan 03, 2020 03:44 PM
    Last: 6d
    260
    Schmidt Wrote: I just listened to Trump's statement on the attack yesterday. I just wanted to barf. Same ole threatening rhetoric on Iran. Bragging on himself again...me, me, me. Another version of a Trump rally speech wandering all over the place. He is pathetic.
    It's so terrifying that this man is in charge of our armed forces.
  • Jan 03, 2020 03:44 PM
    Last: 6d
    260
    Schmidt Wrote:

    New York Times: Missile Strike Damage Appears Limited, but Iran May Not Be Done

    "Iran said its bombings in Iraq had “concluded proportionate measures” against the United States, but officials around the region said that did not mean it was done maneuvering."

    The overall stated goal of the Iranians is forcing the US military out of Iraq. Until that goal is achieved, the US military may continue to be targeted.

    It's difficult to predict exactly what Iran intended with their (apparent) deliberate miss of any US soldiers in their bombing of the two American bases in Iraq. Did Ayatollah Khamenei go this route as a warning to the US that their missiles can hit them wherever they are in Iraq or was this really Iran's only "response" to the assassination of Qassem Soleimani? I have to believe that it's the former and not the latter.

    My guess is that Khamenei is playing chess while Donald (and his Republican lapdogs) are playing schoolyard checkers. Khamenei is well aware that the American military is already stretched woefully thin *and* that there is zero appetite in the US for yet another hot war in yet another Middle-Eastern country. What better way to taunt Donald than hit a couple bases to show your reach, but deliberately make it so there's no causalities to at least have an appearance of moderation? That way the international community will have little appetite to rally behind Donald if he makes the decision to escalate this pointless conflict even further.