Keep falling!

You lefties continue on with your circle jerk!

You furriners keep on with your idiotic rants!

We real Americans?, well just keep on going forward......

Great days ahead, great days!

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Keep falling!

You lefties continue on with your circle jerk!

You furriners keep on with your idiotic rants!

We real Americans?, well just keep on going forward......

Great days ahead, great days!

Yes.

So gallantly led by a draft dodging wimp!

A career criminal, sex pest, convicted many times of bankruptcy, impeached more than once!

Yes.

What a great leader you are worshipping!

When you get your head out of his arse you might see daylight!

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Keep falling!

You lefties continue on with your circle jerk!

You furriners keep on with your idiotic rants!

We real Americans?, well just keep on going forward......

Great days ahead, great days!

Jim =

One of the recent snippets of information has it that the Dems have identified AOC as their choice of two candidates to run for POTUS 2028.

Any port in a storm will suffice I suppose.

America never ceases to amaze me.

A geriatric zombie in charge.

Replaced by either a stupid, and that saying it lightly, bloody Bimbo or a career criminal and a draft dodging coward.

In line standing to take over is a failed waitress!

Well, as far as I know she hasn't killed anyone, or contributed to their death.

Trump lied. People died, Americans and Ukrainians.

Vance visited and the Pope died.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Keep falling!

You lefties continue on with your circle jerk!

You furriners keep on with your idiotic rants!

We real Americans?, well just keep on going forward......

Great days ahead, great days!

Well this must be embarrassing, the only US president since WW2 who was more unpopular at this point in a presidency was Trump himself in 2017.

A lower approval rating than Obama, Biden, Ford … and all the rest. And his rating appears to be going down, who knows, he might even beat his own record for unpopularity soon

https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/data

All this is showing is that both ends of the spectrum are all about ideology and no public service is involved. Neither side is willing to give up on their fringe’s pet positions.

Always looking for equivalence or parallels, eh Doc.

I generally look for differences.

For one thing, the "fringe" or extreme or radicalized Right is now mainstream Right. In particular they support authoritarianism. Who does that serve?

Soon, the Left will be criticized for supporting the constitution and rule of law.

Oh, wait, that's happening now.

So, now you're into polls?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...90fbcd91280d0a&ei=16

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
All this is showing is that both ends of the spectrum are all about ideology and no public service is involved. Neither side is willing to give up on their fringe’s pet positions.

The democrats should be using this time to come up with a credible opponent to Trump, god knows he is giving them enough opportunity to look good. Someone who isn't on the fringe but can appeal to the disillusioned centre ground.

If it was an equally kooky D in power the same would go for the GOP.

Katie Porter would be a great choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Katie Porter would be a great choice.

I would like to see the Dems field a candidate that might actually win. Nominating a woman is fine and well, but it sure did not go well the last two times the Dems decided that was a good idea, we ended up with Trump as a result. A liberal woman from CA is a VERY tough sell in flyover country, and you need to win at least some swing States if you plan to be POTUS.

If Harris had won she would be making (admittedly in my opinion) every bit as big of a mess as Trump, just about different things.

The mullahs in Iran would probably have already tested a nuke. They have no respect for a woman leader.

Putin would be threatening extension of his war although Ukraine would still be getting all the aid and more than before.

The courts would be ignoring the illegals and the lack of enforcement of border security.

Our economy would be tanking because of increased tax rates and even less moderation of spending.

Yes, there would be less contentiousness about the rule of law.

If you want to find differences we certainly can… it’s just the country would still be a mess.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Always looking for equivalence or parallels, eh Doc.

I generally look for differences.

For one thing, the "fringe" or extreme or radicalized Right is now mainstream Right. In particular they support authoritarianism. Who does that serve?

Soon, the Left will be criticized for supporting the constitution and rule of law.

Oh, wait, that's happening now.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
If Harris had won she would be making (admittedly in my opinion) every bit as big of a mess as Trump, just about different things.

The mullahs in Iran would probably have already tested a nuke. They have no respect for a woman leader.

Putin would be threatening extension of his war although Ukraine would still be getting all the aid and more than before.

The courts would be ignoring the illegals and the lack of enforcement of border security.

Our economy would be tanking because of increased tax rates and even less moderation of spending.

Yes, there would be less contentiousness about the rule of law.

If you want to find differences we certainly can… it’s just the country would still be a mess.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Always looking for equivalence or parallels, eh Doc.

I generally look for differences.

For one thing, the "fringe" or extreme or radicalized Right is now mainstream Right. In particular they support authoritarianism. Who does that serve?

Soon, the Left will be criticized for supporting the constitution and rule of law.

Oh, wait, that's happening now.

What nonsense. We're a dumpster fire less than 100 days in with trump.

A Harris administration wouldn't be threatening the Constitution and the rule of law in the United States by ignoring SCOTUS orders.

It wouldn't have thrown the world's markets and economies into turmoil with absurd tariffs.

It wouldn't have a SecDef who sends classified battle plans to his wife.

You'll need to remind me about what trump has done to rein Putin in rather than encourage him.

You talk about moderation of spending while supporting and electing trump, who increased the national debt by $8 trillion dollars during his first term and god knows what he is doing now.

Don't you dare try to blame us for your fucked up disaster of a presidency.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

If you want to find differences we certainly can… it’s just the country would still be a mess.

Doc, I don't believe any of the opinion points you made in that post.

You want a difference?

Okay.

THE major difference is that Harris wouldn't try to crush the system as it has endured for over 200 years, seeking power and retribution on behalf of herself and a cult following.

She would have protected the essential institutions and the environment, and she would have appointed QUAIFIED people in support, who act in good faith towards "We the People", not loyalists to Dear Leader.

IOW, the "system" would work, and respect the separation of powers and the rule of law and would not hinge on her ego or whatever ideology she owns.

She would not be operating in an alt-reality.

Her international diplomacy would NOT be mob boss bully style. She would respect our friends.

And she would not pardon J6 criminals.

She would never make reference to American carnage to manipulate fear and discontent or stoke division or chaos for the sake of power.

She would never use conspiracy theories to gain support.

She has zero despot aspirations.

Project 2025 would be shut down.

She could get legislative cooperation not out of fear but out of desire to do the right thing.

Elon Musk wouldn't be in our faces, and the watchdogs wouldn't be fired.

And much, much more.

I know Harris would not remove rights by Executive Order recognized by the Courts through the 14th Amendment just because she did not like the result.

Trump did that.

And we likely wouldn’t be in the Trump bear market.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
All this is showing is that both ends of the spectrum are all about ideology and no public service is involved. Neither side is willing to give up on their fringe’s pet positions.

Closed Borders, Lower Inflation, no men in women's sports and cutting Government waste are "fringe pet positions, got it.

Lower inflation

You must not read the news.

. . . looks like Steve checked his 401K and decided to delete his post. I do not see how anyone could characterize the first 100+ days of the Trump administration as a "success" . . . sure there are some positives to point to like the effort to secure the border and the activities of DOGE, but even those were done in a club-fisted and haphazard manner.

Steve Ahrenberg and JTEX, etc.

Here's your wet dream.

https://youtu.be/RmPxtWxv7U4?si=T4_wV5o7dT4tGGsw

And I have a question:

Why is it that so many MAGAt women of influence have duck lips?

AOC is correct in that video.

It is federal law. Passed by Republicans.

I don’t necessarily agree with your points either.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

If you want to find differences we certainly can… it’s just the country would still be a mess.

Doc, I don't believe any of the opinion points you made in that post.

You want a difference?

Okay.

THE major difference is that Harris wouldn't try to crush the system as it has endured for over 200 years, She would continue the incremental change of the system from what it was. seeking power and retribution on behalf of herself and a cult following.

She would have protected the essential institutions and the environment, and she would have appointed QUAIFIED people in support, who act in good faith towards "We the People", not loyalists to Dear Leader.
Baloney. She probably would have chosen folks who were a bit smarter than Trump’s and worked slower; but make no mistake that they would have been chosen for loyalty to the regime and its ideology.

IOW, the "system" would work, and respect the separation of powers and the rule of law and would not hinge on her ego or whatever ideology she owns.
The democrats are better at co-opting the system than Trump, for sure.

She would not be operating in an alt-reality.
Some of her beliefs seem pretty alternative reality. Way different than Trump’s, but not reality as experienced by flyover land.

Her international diplomacy would NOT be mob boss bully style. She would respect our friends.
When has the USG not used its position to push their agenda? She certainly would offend them LESS, but ask Saeed…

And she would not pardon J6 criminals.
Nope, she’d continue to ignore the BLM/social Justice warriors.

She would never make reference to American carnage to manipulate fear and discontent or stoke division or chaos for the sake of power.
Not sure what you are saying here. If you are implying that she would not make economic and use of force threats to get her policies to move forward, she’d be the first. Trump is egregious for how much and how often he does it.

She would never use conspiracy theories to gain support.
Sorry, just different ones.

She has zero despot aspirations.
Bull. She’s a politician. Politicians are there for power.

Project 2025 would be shut down.

She could get legislative cooperation not out of fear but out of desire to do the right thing.
It would be same old same old partisanship.

Elon Musk wouldn't be in our faces, and the watchdogs wouldn't be fired.
True, Elon would not be there and in your face… but the watchdogs were pretty useless. No bite, and no bark, either.

And much, much more.

Yep, your version of false equivalence.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Katie Porter would be a great choice.

I would like to see the Dems field a candidate that might actually win. Nominating a woman is fine and well, but it sure did not go well the last two times the Dems decided that was a good idea, we ended up with Trump as a result. A liberal woman from CA is a VERY tough sell in flyover country, and you need to win at least some swing States if you plan to be POTUS.

This is spot on. I have said this many times, the only reason Trump won both times is the Democrats ran a woman. When they ran Biden who was definitely not a good candidate they won but just barely. No matter what anyone says there are a lot of people of both parties who are not ready for a women POTUS. I personally know people who are hard core Democrats who would not vote for a woman no matter how qualified she was. If the Dem's would run a middle of the road well qualified male they would clean up.

The only hope for the GOP is for some of them to stand up and oppose Trump but they are all afraid to do that because Trump is so vindictive. If the GOP keeps doing what it is doing now and not opposing Trump they are going to be in a world of hurt come the next mid term elections.

quote:

If the Dem's would run a middle of the road well qualified male they would clean up.

What if he's black?

Anyway, if your opinion is true, it wouldn't change to Dem platform much, just the perception.

The gender bias thing is more related to voters rather than the party, which BTW makes Doc Butler's arguments above kinda flat.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

If the Dem's would run a middle of the road well qualified male they would clean up.

What if he's black?

Anyway, if your opinion is true, it wouldn't change to Dem platform much, just the perception.

The gender bias thing is more related to voters rather than the party, which BTW makes Doc Butler's arguments above kinda flat.

I believe that a liberal black man from CA would get trounced in the electoral college.

The Dems need to ask themselves a very simple question, do you want to push the agenda of the far left and embrace identity politics, or do you want to win?

Far left policies are a loser nationally, that is just the facts.

quote:

The Dems need to ask themselves a very simple question, do you want to push the agenda of the far left and embrace identity politics, or do you want to win?

Far left policies are a loser nationally, that is just the facts.

Okay, let me flip it for you to consider.

The GOPers asked themselves a very simple question, do you want to push the agenda of the far Right and embrace identity politics, since you want to win?

Far Right politics are a winner nationally. That is apparently fact.

So, if the Dems can run a "middle of the road well qualified male" and win in your opinion, then why can't and didn't the GOPers do that?

Saeed pls let me explain how the draft worked in the U.S. during the late 1960s when you accuse Trump of draft dodging. All full time students were deferred. Trump received 5 deferments ( one for each year of college and one for post grad). I received 4 for the same reason. Every full time male student received this deferment. Nothing to due with draft dodging.

Then why did he fake the bone spurs?

I had student deferments too, but didn't need the bone spurs excuse.

He had to have had a physical by a licensed Dr. to submit to the draft board proof that he had bone spurs.

Yea, sure.

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

The Dems need to ask themselves a very simple question, do you want to push the agenda of the far left and embrace identity politics, or do you want to win?

Far left policies are a loser nationally, that is just the facts.

Okay, let me flip it for you to consider.

The GOPers asked themselves a very simple question, do you want to push the agenda of the far Right and embrace identity politics, since you want to win?

Far Right politics are a winner nationally. That is apparently fact.

So, if the Dems can run a "middle of the road well qualified male" and win in your opinion, then why can't and didn't the GOPers do that?

Maybe you have not noticed, the GOP no longer has moderates or traditional Republicans in the party. Have you heard of Donald Trump and MAGA? Trump owns the GOP, it is what the party wants, a far-right winger.

We were speaking about the Dems and who they might nominate as a candidate, a far-left liberal black man from California is not going to win the electoral college.....it does not get much simpler than that.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

If the Dem's would run a middle of the road well qualified male they would clean up.

What if he's black?

Anyway, if your opinion is true, it wouldn't change to Dem platform much, just the perception.

The gender bias thing is more related to voters rather than the party, which BTW makes Doc Butler's arguments above kinda flat.

I believe that a liberal black man from CA would get trounced in the electoral college.

The Dems need to ask themselves a very simple question, do you want to push the agenda of the far left and embrace identity politics, or do you want to win?

Far left policies are a loser nationally, that is just the facts.

This is correct. The Dems let the Maggots define them with trans politics and the Dems engage. We end up dying on a stupid political hill.

quote:

Maybe you have not noticed, the GOP no longer has moderates or traditional Republicans in the party. Have you heard of Donald Trump and MAGA? Trump owns the GOP, it is what the party wants, a far-right winger.

That in part was my point. Yes, that's what the party wants or wanted.

I don't mean to divert the conversation. I just like to explore beyond what may seem obvious.

We know that the GOP has run off moderates or traditional or IMO sensible republicans. Some now call them RINOs. I still don't understand what happened. There have been lots of supposed answers, grievances of various types for example. We know a lot of it is fomented hate.

Some commentary or "news" is about the Left can't get their act together and are in disarray, etc. What to do to be on the winning side next time?

The Left put forward their best show, the standard stuff. The Right calls it radical, and reacts radically.

The Left really doesn't know how to handle Trumpism. Carry on with a male moderate candidate next time or fight radical with radical? What about the meantime?

After all, Trump won and now like a rapist in a whore house he's rampant with the willing.

The way I see it the only way forward is to help the moderate and traditional conservatives get the party back on track.

I don't know how to Un radicalize people.

I'll link a video which hopefully shows what I mean. I'm sure his recommendations rile conservatives, the radical for sure and maybe the RINO's too. But the guy can't do otherwise or chooses not to. He's a liberal with good intentions.

https://youtu.be/zTQoc5Jrciw?si=T9_vTQ7p_t-UuAoJ

Is There a Cure to Trumpism?

I hate to point out the painfully obvious but I will anyway. If Harris is the best show the Dems can muster, then they are doomed. Harris was a terrible candidate....hence the election of Trump. The Dems need a candidate that can win the middle, a far-left candidate from California is just not going to get that job done. It is not near as complicated as you are making it ME.

The last three elections have left most voters feeling the choice is between the lesser of two evils. Trump beats Clinton because folks hate Hillary. Biden beats Trump because Trump is a turd. Trump beats Harris for two reasons. One, Biden stayed in the race too long. Two, Harris failed to differentiate herself from Biden. What a treat it would be to actually have a choice between two viable candidates.

Well, there's lots to agree with in your opinion posts above.

IMO, Harris was not a "terrible candidate" nor "far-left". But that's just my opinion.

As I said before, the "lesser of two evils" fails to register with me. I don't and didn't consider Harris or the Dem agendas evil. I considered and still do more and more Trump and Trumpism evil.

Folks hated HRC in large part because the repugs had many years and many ways to foment hate of her and were successful at it. Much of it was lies. Benghazi for example - 6 or 7 farce investigations all for political damage. Take the Hegseth fiasco for example. Repugs made a big deal out of HRC's server, got lots of hate and political mileage out of it. Now Hegseth's screw up is much worse. If you don't believe me, I can give details as to why. Anyway, it's hypocritical to the core. And it was a distraction from the core values of the two parties. In the case of Hegseth and others, they do in fact represent the core values of the GOPers.

Yes, Biden stayed in the race too long, and they let him. Too bad. If Biden had been a sharp younger man, he would have beat Trump again. Which brings me to the point of agreement that "Harris failed to differentiate herself from Biden". Why should she? Biden was a winner along with his and his party's agendas, except for his dementia. IMO, it would have been stupid to make a big deal out of differentiation.

If and when the time comes, do you think Vance will try hard to differentiate from Trump?

That viewpoint will lead to another Dem loss.

If Harris was not a terrible candidate, how come she faired worse than Biden in EVERY county in the US?

Inflation had been extremely high during the early Biden admin, at least Trump acknowledged it and claimed(falsely I might add) that he had a plan to deal with it.

If Harris not far-left, then who is? The trans issue alone alienated many moderate voters.

Quite simply, the vast majority of Americans do not embrace the left's social positions.

Harris failed give anyone a reason to vote for her other than to stop Trump...it wasn't enough.

Want to see the Dems win? Pivot to the center, run someone who can win in flyover country. The current Dem platform is a loser in middle America.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
And we likely wouldn’t be in the Trump bear market.

Something that may have been overlooked, is this, that there is a lot of capital invested in offshore means of production already, and the resulting production is exported from the country of origin.
Moving factories is expensive, even within a country, and not worth a gamble if the environment is uncertain."Uncertain" is a word we need to be able to spell.

If our tariffs discourage exports to the US, there may be other markets.
If our tariffs discourage importing raw materials, the production may be done somewhere with no tariffs.

In a static environment, simple first-order models can work. When things are changing, maybe not.
Many B-school students ended up there from engineering because of poor math skills.
A 100% tariff will not offset a five-to-one difference in production costs.
Keep this in mind...

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
That viewpoint will lead to another Dem loss.

If Harris was not a terrible candidate, how come she faired worse than Biden in EVERY county in the US?

Inflation had been extremely high during the early Biden admin, at least Trump acknowledged it and claimed(falsely I might add) that he had a plan to deal with it.

If Harris not far-left, then who is? The trans issue alone alienated many moderate voters.

Quite simply, the vast majority of Americans do not embrace the left's social positions.

Harris failed give anyone a reason to vote for her other than to stop Trump...it wasn't enough.

Want to see the Dems win? Pivot to the center, run someone who can win in flyover country. The current Dem platform is a loser in middle America.

I would hate to see the perverted form of a liberal who could win over the hearts and minds of True Believer Trump supporters.

I can't imagine a more depraved sort of person.

Oh, wait, there is one. But he doesn't say he's a liberal, and he is a fake Christian.