Thread Rating:

FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 119
  • Posts: 3667
October 7th, 2018 at 9:03:00 AM permalink
Quote: mcallister3200

I would personally never vote for someone over 70 yo be president. Guess I’m either not voting for pres or libertarian next one, same as this one. If they’re going to turn 80 during the presidency, god forbid. Maybe I’ll change my mind on this when/if I’m 75.



Agreed. I don’t think anyone over 65 should be allowed to run.
RonC
RonC
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
  • Threads: 39
  • Posts: 4870
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
October 7th, 2018 at 9:03:19 AM permalink
"Getting more serious about a 2020 run by the day, Kamala Harris has been reaching out to Democrats in Iowa to plan a trip there at the end of the month, according to people who know about the calls. "

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/kamala-harris-heads-iowa-first-step-campaign/572266/?utm_source=twb

"Harris was likewise a firm proponent of civil asset forfeiture, sponsoring a bill to allow prosecutors to seize profits before charges were even filed. Years before that, she opposed AB 639, a bill that aimed to reform asset forfeiture. The bill easily cleared the state assembly, but was soon scuttled by a united wall of opposition from law enforcement, with whom Harris was united."

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kamala-harris-trump-obama-california-attorney-general

That is not the largest issue out there...but it is one we have talked about here...
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 217
  • Posts: 10592
October 7th, 2018 at 9:52:42 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146



Let's hope to God not. I've really enjoyed the last couple years of not seeing or hearing from Hillary. I think it's also important to note that things haven't changed so much since 2016. If she somehow made it to the General Election, I tend to think she would just lose Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by even bigger numbers.

I also don't think Trump has really done badly enough (so far at least) for Hillary to really make a case against him. Her campaign would basically be, "Correct your mistake," but I don't think you have enough people who consider Trump a mistake. Once again, I would vote for neither, in all likelihood.

Finally, she's nowhere near Progressive enough for the current climate. You're going to need to turn out the youth in droves, not just at the polls, but also out there putting feet on the ground with signs and door-to-door to have any prayer in 2020. Incumbency is a pretty big advantage.



You do not understand Hillary. She is "me-me-me" and does not see her own weaknesses. Party has indeed moved left, power brokers still like her. Press will fawn all over her, again. But as I said, the fix will not be in this time. Supers have had power reduced. So she might run but have to drop out.

Quote:

It's really just about being well-liked amongst your base and turning them out for the incumbent. Both W. and Obama had approval ratings right about at 50% for their reelection bids and both won more-or-less handily. Neither was going up against a great candidate, though. Romney certainly had a better chance than Kerry, but that 47% thing was a serious screw up.



Romney had it until the Hurricane and Obama played that perfect. The 47% thing should have been a non-story. What he was saying is you always have 47% against you, which in modern elections has almost always held true.

Quote:

I wish both parties would just go to popular vote, if you want to know the truth. It's possible that superdelegates will decide it, but I don't think that will bode well for the Democrats, if so.



Won't happen. The current process while not designed as such does test a candidate for the long haul. Other nations look at this long process and think we are nuts. As to the Supers, without this system the Democrats end up picking unelectable loons. The 1972 wipeout showed this. Dean would have been unelectable. Bernie is a nut. The GOP does not have near this problem for some reason. The GOP just nominates losers like Dole because "it is their turn to run." It was Jeb's turn to run this time, why the Bush family is so anti-Trump.

Quote:

Yeah, I have to believe they lose the white male, non-college educated, working class almost completely sooner-or-later. 2020 might not be the year, but I have to think that it's coming sooner or later. If not for Unions and economically liberal policies, they would have almost zero of this demographic anyway.



It is unions and their thinking it is still the party of JFK. I once had to explain to my dad that the Democrat Party was for all he disliked, except he was major pro-union and had a very, very hard time accepting that.

Quote:

The other issue is that if the eventual nominee is not far enough to the left, then you will have a third-party candidate who pulls some of that vote. You have to find a way to unite everyone behind one candidate, but it's not really a united party. Neither are the Republicans, but the different Republican factions seem to do a better job of at least putting up with one another. Gotta give them that.



The GOP is a party based on a few core beliefs. The Democrat Party tends to be more of, "I hate that the other side is doing 'x' so if you support my issue I will support yours." While this might get you more people, in the end it makes you less united. A union guy is not going to want to sign on to someone who wants to run the coal industry out of business. A college professor probably looks at the blue collar "uneducated" worker and wonders what they have in common. Why should feminists have monolithic views on global warming?

The unions are the first to probably peel away. If they can reconcile that profitable business means profitable contracts (Walter Ruther!) and everything else the Democrats do is hurting them, they could jump. Sooner or later Blacks have to wonder what voting Democrat time after time is getting them. So the coalition has to be nurtured. But again, interests are sometimes 100% opposed.



Quote: Mission146

(Insert Name Here) would destroy Pence in an absolute landslide. He's absurdly socially conservative and he has all the personality of an unpainted fence post.



That might be what is needed after 8 years of such a bombastic personality.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 157
  • Posts: 8671
October 7th, 2018 at 10:36:53 AM permalink
While there are a number of unknowns which may affect the election, I believe people will seek to replace Trump regardless. He's not crucial to the success of the nation, and there will be no desire to tolerate him any longer. This will lead to enough consolidation from left and right around moderate candidates instead of extreme left or right. This will lead back to the true ideals of America: truth, justice, freedom, the uplifting of the oppressed, and nation that again leads by example and not by bludgeon. A nation people are proud of for high ideals not temporary economic success.
One person's freedom is another person's annoying crap.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 11753
October 7th, 2018 at 10:48:19 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

You do not understand Hillary. She is "me-me-me" and does not see her own weaknesses. Party has indeed moved left, power brokers still like her. Press will fawn all over her, again. But as I said, the fix will not be in this time. Supers have had power reduced. So she might run but have to drop out.



I think that if she does run again, it's going to look like Bush 2016 or maybe even Santorum 2016, something along those lines. She's going to be out of the ballgame fairly quickly.

I don't see why the power brokers, or anybody else, should like her. She's not going to energize the far left because she couldn't do it last time. More importantly, I really don't see why any Trump voters would swing over to Hillary. Trump may not have succeeded at all of the things he promised to do so far, (and probably won't) but everything that he has succeeded at is what he said he would do and what the Trump voters signed up for. I can't fathom any reason why a Trump-2016 voter would be a Clinton-2020 voter. What I can fathom is a few, "Never-Trump," Republicans having a change of heart from 2016 and there not being a right-of-center semi-serious third-party candidate again.

The Moderate Democrats just need to accept that they cannot win with Hillary. If she did somehow get the nomination, your far left is not only ticked off again...they're also despondent, because they know they are going to lose. The Democrats would not gain the Presidency, would not gain control of the Senate and would likely lose control of the House. It would be a completely demoralizing landslide in every conceivable way.

Quote:

Romney had it until the Hurricane and Obama played that perfect. The 47% thing should have been a non-story. What he was saying is you always have 47% against you, which in modern elections has almost always held true.



Let me refresh your memory on the Romney quote:

Quote:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. …These are people who pay no income tax. …and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”



If he would have stopped at the words, "No matter what," he'd have been fine. He didn't think he was being recorded. Do you think he would ever say that in a speech? Then again, Hillary did put essentially every white working-class male in the Rust Belt in her, "Basket of Deplorables," because you know almost all of them would at least have considered Trump. She pushed that demographic right over to his side, just like Romney did with a few economically disenfranchised people who were looking to him to create jobs, not to chastise them, "Believe they are victims."

Do you know who else, "Pays no income tax?" People who are unemployed and whose time on unemployment has run out.

Honestly, Romney, in part, completely alienated the same Rust Belt group of people that Hillary did.

Quote:

Won't happen. The current process while not designed as such does test a candidate for the long haul. Other nations look at this long process and think we are nuts. As to the Supers, without this system the Democrats end up picking unelectable loons. The 1972 wipeout showed this. Dean would have been unelectable. Bernie is a nut. The GOP does not have near this problem for some reason. The GOP just nominates losers like Dole because "it is their turn to run." It was Jeb's turn to run this time, why the Bush family is so anti-Trump.



How does popular vote NOT test a candidate for the long haul? It looks hopeless, then a candidate drops out. You would whittle the field down the same exact way.

I also don't know how you can bring up Democratic Superdelegates so favorably. You just basically said powerbrokers are the problem above, but the problem is partially mitigated because the superdelegates have had their power reduced.

As I recall, the whole field pretty well sucked in 2004.

Quote:

It is unions and their thinking it is still the party of JFK. I once had to explain to my dad that the Democrat Party was for all he disliked, except he was major pro-union and had a very, very hard time accepting that.



It is what it is. The Democrats still have the Unions, whether you like it or not. Rightfully so. Why should workers put social conservatism above labor views that they think are beneficial to them anyway? I think they mostly care about what that piece of paper they get every other Friday says on it.

Quote:

The GOP is a party based on a few core beliefs. The Democrat Party tends to be more of, "I hate that the other side is doing 'x' so if you support my issue I will support yours." While this might get you more people, in the end it makes you less united. A union guy is not going to want to sign on to someone who wants to run the coal industry out of business. A college professor probably looks at the blue collar "uneducated" worker and wonders what they have in common. Why should feminists have monolithic views on global warming?



In the most general of terms, you can break each party down into two general and overarching general philosophies. I think that the GOP does a better job of not alienating certain segments of its own supporters, I'll give them that much. Of course, like Romney, they occasionally manage to screw that up. That still only gets you your base, though. You still have to be able to convince Independents no matter how you slice it.

I think the far left is becoming so fervent in its SJW beliefs as to be borderline ridiculous. Also, as you saw with Franken, Democrats will turn on their own without a second's hesitation. It doesn't even have to be something like that. It seems that many on the far left, especially the much younger and less mature ones, make it a personal goal to be the most liberal. As a result, they like to jump all over anyone who says anything that they disagree with even slightly...even if that disagreement is perceived rather than actually real. Anything that's not PC, jump on the person. "Shame, shame!"

That's my view on it, anyway. They're basically the equivalent of religious adherents who attend every service and whisper in hushed tones about those who aren't, "Godly," enough and gossip with each other about every little thing. At least the most vocal of them. There's almost zero difference.

Quote:

The unions are the first to probably peel away. If they can reconcile that profitable business means profitable contracts (Walter Ruther!) and everything else the Democrats do is hurting them, they could jump. Sooner or later Blacks have to wonder what voting Democrat time after time is getting them. So the coalition has to be nurtured. But again, interests are sometimes 100% opposed.



There's nothing to reconcile because that's not always true. Again, it's the same thing with USW having to negotiate any raises when they voluntarily gave up raises that they'd already had negotiated when business was down.

The IAWAW strike at Tecnocap just ended back in August after four months:

http://www.theintelligencer.net/news/top-headlines/2018/08/tecnocap-strike-ends-after-130-days-in-glen-dale/

The company wanted them to eat more of their health insurance costs, basically.

Even the USW agreement is set to see any wage increases largely offset by increases to their insurance premiums.

The fact of the matter is that only the first part of, "Trickle-Down," is ever guaranteed to happen, the tax cuts. When it comes time for the workers to get their share, sometimes not going to happen without a strike or a threat of a strike. After all, businesses exist to make the bottom line as big as possible, so it's understandable why they would want to keep those proceeds or invest them in other areas, workers are arguably more of a sunk cost than they are an investment, from a business standpoint.

Quote:

That might be what is needed after 8 years of such a bombastic personality.



If we're going to go with a fairly bland Republican, I'll take Jeb Bush. Honestly, I don't think Pence is Moderate enough to ever win. I think most independents would be a hard no.
Last edited by: Mission146 on Oct 7, 2018
Vultures can't be choosers.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 217
  • Posts: 10592
October 7th, 2018 at 11:12:23 AM permalink
Quote: Mission146

I think that if she does run again, it's going to look like Bush 2016 or maybe even Santorum 2016, something along those lines. She's going to be out of the ballgame fairly quickly.

I don't see why the power brokers, or anybody else, should like her.



Pretend you are a powerbroker.

"Hey, how's the family? Good that you keep them safe. Man needs to have family."

Get it? You really think Biden just decided not to run on his own? The Clintons are experts at destroying people to get their way.


Quote:

She's not going to energize the far left because she couldn't do it last time. More importantly, I really don't see why any Trump voters would swing over to Hillary. Trump may not have succeeded at all of the things he promised to do so far, (and probably won't) but everything that he has succeeded at is what he said he would do and what the Trump voters signed up for. I can't fathom any reason why a Trump-2016 voter would be a Clinton-2020 voter. What I can fathom is a few, "Never-Trump," Republicans having a change of heart from 2016 and there not being a right-of-center semi-serious third-party candidate again.

The Moderate Democrats just need to accept that they cannot win with Hillary. If she did somehow get the nomination, your far left is not only ticked off again...they're also despondent, because they know they are going to lose. The Democrats would not gain the Presidency, would not gain control of the Senate and would likely lose control of the House. It would be a completely demoralizing landslide in every conceivable way.



For some reason, a large amount of people think people "like her." Or think she is likable. Or that we should like her. Really, she is the least personable pol I can think of in my lifetime that has gotten as far as she has. It really came out in the campaign. The "rope box" around her during that parade. Saw a state fair she was at, she was eating some kind of fair food, what ain't the question. People asking her "how do you like it?" She just ignored them, no nod, no thumbs up, nothing. Just a "how much longer do I have to be around these hicks" look on her face. But for some reason, she keeps getting push from the media.



Let me refresh your memory on the Romney quote:

Quote:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. …These are people who pay no income tax. …and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”



He spoke the truth though.

Quote:

How does popular vote NOT test a candidate for the long haul? It looks hopeless, then a candidate drops out. You would whittle the field down the same exact way.



I am not following. Primaries use the popular vote. Caucuses are open to all, though on the Democrat side they winnow off the unviable candidates. Doing it in stages tests the long haul though. But I would like to get it down to just 4-6 weeks.

Quote:

I also don't know how you can bring up Democratic Superdelegates so favorably. You just basically said powerbrokers are the problem above, but the problem is partially mitigated because the superdelegates have had their power reduced.

As I recall, the whole field pretty well sucked in 2004.



2004 was a bad field, same as 1992 was. In both cases, nobody wanted to spend the effort early when a Bush looked unbeatable. Bill Clinton would have never gotten the nomination in a stronger field. Come to think of it, he got it the same way Hillary did, just 1 other candidate most of the way and said candidate was a loon. I am not trying to sound favorable to the Supers, just explaining it as it is. They are like an engine governor to the party, keeping it from revving so fast it blows the engine.


Quote:

I think the far left is becoming so fervent in its SJW believes as to be borderline ridiculous. Also, as you saw with Franken, Democrats will turn on their own without a second's hesitation. It doesn't even have to be something like that. It seems that many on the far left, especially the much younger and less mature ones, make it a personal goal to be the most liberal. As a result, they like to jump all over anyone who says anything that they disagree with even slightly...even if that disagreement is perceived rather than actually real. Anything that's not PC, jump on the person. "Shame, shame!"



The SJW thing is a bunch of crazies, and hopefully eventually collapses under its own weight. These people do not live in the real world. I saw a YT video on student loan debt where the girl wanted to be a lawyer specializing in "social justice." That is not a law specialty, that is a hobby. Maybe one day they realize they cannot make the world "fair" and give up. More likely is they continue to congregate in colleges and a few cities and leave the rest of us alone. Though they are good for laughs.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that only the first part of, "Trickle-Down," is ever guaranteed to happen, the tax cuts. When it comes time for the workers to get their share, sometimes not going to happen without a strike or a threat of a strike. After all, businesses exist to make the bottom line as big as possible, so it's understandable why they would want to keep those proceeds or invest them in other areas, workers are arguably more of a sunk cost than they are an investment, from a business standpoint.



People think supply-side is "magic" and the next week they should get a raise. Not how it works. Tax cut means some guy decides to buy a car. Car needs steel and other materials. Steel mill and other mills hire. Those materials need gas to produce. I help make the gas well happen. While making it happen, I buy coffee at the college bookstore and pizza at DiCarlos. Those people spend their money wherever. You are better off because we are all better off.
Tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 11753
October 7th, 2018 at 11:27:53 AM permalink
Democratic Predictions

John Delaney It bears mentioning that John Delaney has already announced he is running. I will list everything I know about John Delaney:

1.) John Delaney is a Democrat.

/List

Actually, I know that John Delaney is also both white and male. Those are probably strikes one and two for anybody not named, "Joe Biden," or, "Bernie Sanders."

CONCLUSION: Non-Factor

Ahhh....screw the list. I don't really know enough about the Democratic side to make predictions without help. Let's see what BeachBumBabs said:

Quote: beachbumbabs

Predictions. Candidates. Democrats. If Biden declares, he will win, and several other strong candidates will not run. If he doesn't become a candidate, Kamela Harris will run, and win. Other candidates in a non-Biden race will be Booker, Warren, Avenatti, Steyer, maybe Bernie, couple others I don't see yet. I don't see any of them other than maybe Warren and for sure Harris being a serious contender against Trump.

I'd like to see Amy Klobuchar run, but I don't think she will - if she did, it's conceivable she could win the nomination, but I think she's too nice in this age of mean. Harris is not nice, which is in her favor for a race against Trump - she also scares the hell out of a lot of men, including the Senators she serves with. She is the only person fast and deft enough to grind and disrupt Trump (other than Biden, but he's a different kind of tough). Hillary will not run again.



I think Biden has a pretty good chance to win if he runs, with only Oprah or Michelle Obama being major threats to him if either of them decide to run. Of course, Obama won't if Biden does.

For Oprah, it's really just a question of whether or not she wishes to be President. She'd win the Democratic nomination, against anybody, in an absolute landslide. She would dominate Trump in the REPUBLICAN WOMAN demographic, not speaking to what she would do to him among women overall. She has said she's not running, though.

If Avenatti wins the Democratic nomination, I will start voting for Republicans. I won't even look at who they are. Just Republicans, solid ticket, rest of my life.

I think Bernie is too old. What!? Biden is only two years younger!? Damn!

I don't know enough about anyone else BBB said to have an opinion. Isn't Kirsten Gillibrand supposed to be a Senator who is considering running?

So far, here is my order that I would vote for candidates in the Democratic Primary, assuming they ran and subject to change:

1.) Michelle Obama
2.) Joe Biden
3.) Oprah Winfrey

I think any of those three could conceivably beat Trump, with Oprah probably having the best chance, but would be far from locks. I think Biden could make Trump look the most silly in a debate, quite frankly, I think he'd wipe the floor with him. He was very charitable and merciful to Sarah Palin (fortunately for her) and made Paul Ryan look like an idiot.
Last edited by: Mission146 on Oct 7, 2018
Vultures can't be choosers.
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 118
  • Posts: 11753
October 7th, 2018 at 11:51:59 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

Pretend you are a powerbroker.

"Hey, how's the family? Good that you keep them safe. Man needs to have family."

Get it? You really think Biden just decided not to run on his own? The Clintons are experts at destroying people to get their way.



If you say so. I just don't think the power brokers would want Clinton 2020 because they might decide they have at least a passing interest in winning, instead.

Quote:

For some reason, a large amount of people think people "like her." Or think she is likable. Or that we should like her. Really, she is the least personable pol I can think of in my lifetime that has gotten as far as she has. It really came out in the campaign. The "rope box" around her during that parade. Saw a state fair she was at, she was eating some kind of fair food, what ain't the question. People asking her "how do you like it?" She just ignored them, no nod, no thumbs up, nothing. Just a "how much longer do I have to be around these hicks" look on her face. But for some reason, she keeps getting push from the media.



I don't particularly care for anything about her. I especially don't care for candidates of destiny rather than choice. She would have been more likely than Trump to compel me to vote for her, but that said, she didn't come even particularly close to getting my vote.

Quote:

He spoke the truth though.



If you believe that, I hope you never run for office. You had guys long out of work in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, they didn't want handouts...they wanted jobs. The economy was recovering, but it wasn't quite there for everybody yet. Romney could have made a compelling argument that he could get it there even faster than Obama, instead he disenfranchised them. Good work. Obama-Trump voters were a big part of 2016, the votes who lost it for Romney won it for Trump.

Quote:

I am not following. Primaries use the popular vote. Caucuses are open to all, though on the Democrat side they winnow off the unviable candidates. Doing it in stages tests the long haul though. But I would like to get it down to just 4-6 weeks.



You could do it in stages and still have it be based on popular vote. The states don't all have to vote on the same day.

Quote:

2004 was a bad field, same as 1992 was. In both cases, nobody wanted to spend the effort early when a Bush looked unbeatable. Bill Clinton would have never gotten the nomination in a stronger field. Come to think of it, he got it the same way Hillary did, just 1 other candidate most of the way and said candidate was a loon. I am not trying to sound favorable to the Supers, just explaining it as it is. They are like an engine governor to the party, keeping it from revving so fast it blows the engine.



I'm afraid I'm not old enough to have an opinion on this. The only thing I can say for sure is that there were two other guys besides Clinton who both got a similar number of votes.

Quote:

The SJW thing is a bunch of crazies, and hopefully eventually collapses under its own weight. These people do not live in the real world. I saw a YT video on student loan debt where the girl wanted to be a lawyer specializing in "social justice." That is not a law specialty, that is a hobby. Maybe one day they realize they cannot make the world "fair" and give up. More likely is they continue to congregate in colleges and a few cities and leave the rest of us alone. Though they are good for laughs.



I don't find anything about them even remotely amusing.

Quote:

People think supply-side is "magic" and the next week they should get a raise. Not how it works. Tax cut means some guy decides to buy a car. Car needs steel and other materials. Steel mill and other mills hire. Those materials need gas to produce. I help make the gas well happen. While making it happen, I buy coffee at the college bookstore and pizza at DiCarlos. Those people spend their money wherever. You are better off because we are all better off.



I'm just explaining why Unions favor Democrats and encourage their members to do the same. Although, I will say that a handful of rich guys aren't out buying thousands of economy cars.

And, for those already working, even if you were right, product demand would go up which drives up prices...but their wages haven't changed.
Vultures can't be choosers.
darkoz
darkoz
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
  • Threads: 207
  • Posts: 5079
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146tringlomane
October 7th, 2018 at 12:13:09 PM permalink
Well my prediction for 2024 election

Trump declares voting rigged (even though he won in 2020)

Republicans pass bill eliminating votes and declare Trump president for life

Any person right or left who says a peep against trump thrown in prison and investigated by the newly appointed FBI

9 Republican justices overturn everything including the 13th amendment (Kanye in chains saying its the best thing that happened to him)

Trumps son changes his name to Snow in anticipation of the Hungry games
Sandybestdog
Sandybestdog
Joined: Feb 3, 2015
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 170
Thanks for this post from:
Mission146
October 7th, 2018 at 12:50:34 PM permalink
Wow rereading that Romney quote it's just as relevant today, and I never really cared for Romney. Of course the same can be said on the right side. It doesn't matter what happens 47% will vote that way. The fight is for the 6% in the middle. Also how enthusiastic your base is because that affects turnout.

With this new Democratic Socialism movement seeming to gain momentum, quite frankly I don't see why the Democratic party is getting 99% of the vote. I mean think about their message. It's basically "vote for me because I deem this 1% rich guy over here shouldn't have all that money so I'm going to take it away from it him and use it to pay for your health care, education, jobs etc." It's basically just a legal bribe to get votes and power. The answer is 50% do fall for that. The bright side is 49% somehow don't. They don't want redistribution of wealth and government controlled everything because some people believe in the traditional work ethic. Also if you have ever actually tried to use a government program you realize that very little actually gets to the end recipient. It just all gets eaten in the bureaucracy.

I was and am a huge Trump supporter (from the beginning). I never thought he would win. No shot whatsoever. The American people proved they could get something right once, I don't have faith that they will get it right again. It was a perfect storm that came together at the right time. If the election were this year, I think Trump loses. He will carry Florida and Ohio and possibly Michigan but I think he loses Pennsylvania.

I think Biden probably has the best chance, although I think his age is a legitimate factor. I think the American people see right through the fakeness of Senators Spartacus and Harris. They are just attention seekers with no substance.

  • Jump to: