The Republican Utopia

[Ratt Mhule]

17 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

yes it is true that it will mostly likely come down to those 4 but I think he stays in to get his message out  & as a potential vp choice. 

 

While Warren may have policies that are a bit too left for me, all but Biden are going there.  However, I give her an edge because I think she has done her homework and is more prepared than Bernie, or Harris.  Biden is to me yesterday's news and a part of the same old tired establishment - void of new ideas.  So if I had to choose between those 4 I most likely would lean Warren.   It may be the big pendulum swing as a reaction to Trump and a big swing for this Reagan voter. 

 

 

 

I would happily cast my vote for Warren if she were to be the nominee.  She has good policy positions imo and has done her research.  But to say she is prepared more than a man who is about 20 years ahead of the times is disingenuous.  I get he is too far left for people, but he was calling for LGBTQ rights and marriage equality 20 years ago.  Bernie was fighting for civil rights and getting arrested for it 40+ years ago.  The man has been pushing for universal, single-payer healthcare since the 90s.  He has been on the right side of history more times than anyone in the field, even before it was popular to do so.

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, Frott Scost said:

The guy who has had one job in govt. and basically admitted on live tv that he f#&%ed that up and is polling at 0% with africian americans and 4% overall will not win the nomination.  He, along with anyone not named Harris, Biden, Sanders or Warren should drop out. 

 

Now that seems anti-democratic.

[Ratt Mhule]

3 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Now that seems anti-democratic.

 

Just my opinion. He is taking a lot of peoples money and not really gaining much traction in this race.  Id say the same about Bernie if he was consistently polling in 5-6th place and still asking for donations.

[Danny Bateman]

21 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Just my opinion. He is taking a lot of peoples money and not really gaining much traction in this race.  Id say the same about Bernie if he was consistently polling in 5-6th place and still asking for donations.

I was mostly just poking the bear for fun

 

But the Q poll yesterday had him in 4th place at 11%. He's slumped a bit to 3rd quite a few polls. JMHO of course but one could say either he or Warren should drop out if they want to consolidate the progressive vote for the best chance at a progressive nominee.

 

I do know I'll be very excited to see them on the same debate stage this week. I'd like to see them compare and contrast with each other.

 

I also think that Buttigieg would make an excellent president but I agree he doesn't appear to have the juice at this point. Probably about expanding name recognition for a cabinet spot, a VP nom or a state run in Indiana at this point.

[TGHusker]

44 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Biden would be the Mike Riley of presidents. Not good, but not controversial.

 

We need another good president, though, and soon. An FDR, a Lincoln, someone to steer the country away from the chaos we seem hell-bent on sailing toward.

I love that comparison Knapp.  I had to chuckle when I read it.  Spot on.

 

I agree.  We need someone who can get us out of the deeply partisan cycle we are in.  Unfortunately an FDR, a Lincoln, a Churchill (yea wrong country but it applies) seem to rise to the top only during the most tragic of situations. I don't want a tragic situation to occur to our nation........... But wait  like a civil war, a Great Depression. WW2, .............  the very core of  our republic form of democracy is at stake currently.  We have a criminal in the WH and enablers in Congress.  Thus it is time for a FDR or a Lincoln.  We need someone who can break the partisan walls in DC.   I think it can only happen if the GOP gets a kick in the butt and the new president shows themselves as someone who is a uniter and not a divider.    There have been other presidents, not in the Wash, Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson category, who were great for their particular historical situation.  We need someone who understands the current political/social environment and speak hope to all Americans and not talk down certain groups. 

[TGHusker]

50 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

I would happily cast my vote for Warren if she were to be the nominee.  She has good policy positions imo and has done her research.  But to say she is prepared more than a man who is about 20 years ahead of the times is disingenuous.  I get he is too far left for people, but he was calling for LGBTQ rights and marriage equality 20 years ago.  Bernie was fighting for civil rights and getting arrested for it 40+ years ago.  The man has been pushing for universal, single-payer healthcare since the 90s.  He has been on the right side of history more times than anyone in the field, even before it was popular to do so.

I stand corrected on the more 'prepared statement.

[Ratt Mhule]

9 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

I was mostly just poking the bear for fun

 

But the Q poll yesterday had him in 4th place at 11%. He's slumped a bit to 3rd quite a few polls. JMHO of course but one could say either he or Warren should drop out if they want to consolidate the progressive vote for the best chance at a progressive nominee.

 

I do know I'll be very excited to see them on the same debate stage this week. I'd like to see them compare and contrast with each other.

 

I also think that Buttigieg would make an excellent president but I agree he doesn't appear to have the juice at this point. Probably about expanding name recognition for a cabinet spot, a VP nom or a state run in Indiana at this point.

 

I dont think both of them will still be in it by the time Nebraska has the chance to vote.

 

As for Buttigieg, I think it has more to do with the negative press coming out of South Bend than anything. He is very unpopular with blacks and you need that base to win the nomination.

[knapplc]

On 7/29/2019 at 11:34 AM, commando said:

i wonder how much of that will go to small farmers and how much will go to large corporations?

 

23 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Farmers who have revenues  over a certain amount don’t qualify. 

 

 

Just saw this headline and thought of this. 

 

Quote

 

Majority of Trump’s Trade Aid Went to Biggest Farms, Study Finds

More than half of the Trump administration’s trade-war aid for farmers went to just one-tenth of the recipients in the program, according to an analysis of payments by an environmental organization.

 

Eighty-two farming operations received more than $500,000 each in payments through April under the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Market Facilitation Program, according to the Environmental Working Group, which analyzed payment records it obtained through the Freedom of Information Act covering $8.4 billion in payments.

 

One farm, DeLine Farm Partnership of Charleston, Missouri, has so far received $2.8 million in trade aid payments, according to the analysis.

 

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a Republican who has long favored payment limits on farm subsidies, said the findings show the need for “hard payment caps” on the assistance.

 

Trade aid and other farm subsidies are “meant to help people over humps beyond their own control,” Grassley told reporters. “Some large farmers do have the benefit of having resources to get over those humps without government help.”

 

The Trump administration has announced a new $16 billion round of trade aid for farmers this year as the trade dispute with China continues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jsneb83]

1 hour ago, Frott Scost said:

 

I dont think both of them will still be in it by the time Nebraska has the chance to vote.

 

As for Buttigieg, I think it has more to do with the negative press coming out of South Bend than anything. He is very unpopular with blacks and you need that base to win the nomination.

Honestly, I don't think anything short of firing/jailing the officer on the spot would have made much of a difference.

[Fru]

 

Nice. 

[Danny Bateman]

I believe this guy was a Never Trumper at one point.

What a breathtaking fall. This is what you get reduced to when you go hunting for arguments to make Trump seem OK.

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Danny Bateman said:

I believe this guy was a Never Trumper at one point.

What a breathtaking fall. This is what you get reduced to when you go hunting for arguments to make Trump seem OK.

 

 

 

 

That tweet makes absolutely no sense.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Gee....maybe they have "run amok" because the leader of the country is such a complete imbecile that they don't have good enough leadership to understand the direction he's going.

 

OR....maybe they have "run amok" because they are reporting to him what is going on in the world and he a) doesn't read it...and/or b) doesn't understand it.  So, they are trying to dumb it down so much that it's incomprehensible.  

 

Or....maybe all the above.  I'll go for this option.

[TGHusker]

2 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

I believe this guy was a Never Trumper at one point.

What a breathtaking fall. This is what you get reduced to when you go hunting for arguments to make Trump seem OK.

 

 

 

Yes he was.     Trump and humility in the same sentence don't go together.