Mark my words; Trump 2020 is a real possibility

[roar]

@Bodigger I wouldn't say it was easy, but for sure easier than from now on. Of course all that could change with some new leadership, but American reputation has been hurt, and the world is not as malleable to American "leadership" as it has been since the end of the ww's.  And the current story is still far from over...

And then you have China rising.  I'm happy they have a little more historical baggage than the US. Who's the bigger devil?

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Bodigger said:

However, the candidates at this point are far more left than any in the past and I don't think that will fare well for the Dems.

Which positions do you consider far left? The major democratic positions are M4A, gun regulation, corporate regulation + taxes, increasing taxes on the wealthy and the Green New Deal - these are mainstream positions. Perhaps slightly left, yet still within the mainstream and not far left. However, they are not viewed as such by corporate america and lobbyists - which paint them as leftist. . . I suppose they are left in terms of politics, yet not in terms of social dynamics. To reach the far left socially, one would need to venture into reparations and decriminalizing undocumented immigration - yet these are not priorities for the dem candidates. 

For example, notice how corporations and corporate media try to frame M4A as "expensive" - costing over 30 trillion dollars!! And we will need to raise middle class taxes to pay for it. This is a corporate frame that gives the appearance that M4A is to the left of mainstream. However, it is a highly disingenuous and misleading frame. People are starting to wake up and see through this frame, yet about half the country is still mesmerized by it. 
 

Imagine if there was a plan to raise taxes on the wealthy to an 80% rate. And 70% of the population supported it. On the one hand, it is a radical increase and could be viewed as far left. In particular but wealthier people. Yet on the other hand, if 70% of the population supports it, it is mainstream in that context.

[roar]

31 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

For example, notice how corporations and corporate media try to frame M4A as "expensive" - costing over 30 trillion dollars!! And we will need to raise middle class taxes to pay for it. This is a corporate frame that gives the appearance that M4A is to the left of mainstream. However, it is a highly disingenuous and misleading frame. People are starting to wake up and see through this frame, yet about half the country is still mesmerized by it. 

If i remember correctly, you spoke in another thread about your $500 a month health insurance.  As a Norwegian, I would consider that expensive;)  Still, the American healthcare system is far more expensive than ours.  

[Forestluv]

27 minutes ago, roar said:

If i remember correctly, you spoke in another thread about your $500 a month health insurance.  As a Norwegian, I would consider that expensive;)  Still, the American healthcare system is far more expensive than ours.  

That was someone else. I have an individual employer plan that costs about $600/month. 

[SerpaeTetra]

7 hours ago, Bodigger said:

What bad things have you seen in which others have not?

I agree about the candidate going up against Trump.  However, the candidates at this point are far more left than any in the past and I don't think that will fare well for the Dems.

The entire US/World/Universe is going more left than ever, and that trend won't stop.

[roar]

@Serotoninluv That's rough. I pay zero.  And if I should need medication, that is also a lot cheaper.  Even from US manufactures.   What would you consider the cost to be for the average American?

[whoareyou]

18 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

It is one of many factors, yet the only factor Moodey's seems to care about. 

The perception of a good economy is necessary for Trump's reelection, yet it is not sufficient. 

Go back to 2016 election and see what Trump's biggest talking point was - economy. He managed very well in this area - in a sense he can say to the voters that he kept that promise.

Majority of people care more about their financial situation than any other issues that were discussed here. It's all about survival.

Put Trump to the debates against any of the candidates - and he will crush them, as you witnessed in the last election.

It's not about what you say, but how you say it. And Trump is pretty damn good at it. Non-verbal communication plays a huge role - around 50% or even more. 

Like I said, don't let your personal dislike, or bias get in the way of seeing things for what they are.

Edited October 17, 2019 by whoareyou

[Leo Gura]

On 10/16/2019 at 2:30 AM, Robi Steel said:

@Leo Gura

Nice argument

To argue against nonsense is to give it too much credit.

Trump will lose in a landslide. That's my prediction. See you Nov 2020 for my "I told ya so"

The only reason Trump won was because people didn't research his past and they didn't know what a monster he was. But now it's all out in the open, with more to come before 2020.

Or maybe I'm wrong

[d0ornokey]

@Leo Gura this is precisely why I didnt vote 

Actually I was a trump supporter in the beginning LOL. I've come some ways I think 

Edited October 17, 2019 by d0ornokey

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, whoareyou said:

Go back to 2016 election and see what Trump's biggest talking point was - economy. He managed very well in this area - in a sense he can say to the voters that he kept that promise.

Majority of people care more about their financial situation than any other issues that were discussed here. It's all about survival.

Put Trump to the debates against any of the candidates - and he will crush them, as you witnessed in the last election.

It's not about what you say, but how you say it. And Trump is pretty damn good at it. Non-verbal communication plays a huge role - around 50% or even more. 

Like I said, don't let your personal dislike, or bias get in the way of seeing things for what they are.

Trump lost the popular vote by a large margin: 3 million votes. To suggest he was more popular in the 2016 is inaccurate and misleading. He was an unpopular with the people and was able to win with a minority of votes through a biased electoral system. 

[tenta]

17 hours ago, Bodigger said:

What bad things have you seen in which others have not?

 

Don't know what you mean, re-read my comment

[tenta]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

But now it's all out in the open, with more to come before 2020.

And his supporters are ignoring it

[Bodigger]

17 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Which positions do you consider far left? The major democratic positions are M4A, gun regulation, corporate regulation + taxes, increasing taxes on the wealthy and the Green New Deal - these are mainstream positions. Perhaps slightly left, yet still within the mainstream and not far left. However, they are not viewed as such by corporate america and lobbyists - which paint them as leftist. . . I suppose they are left in terms of politics, yet not in terms of social dynamics. To reach the far left socially, one would need to venture into reparations and decriminalizing undocumented immigration - yet these are not priorities for the dem candidates. 

For example, notice how corporations and corporate media try to frame M4A as "expensive" - costing over 30 trillion dollars!! And we will need to raise middle class taxes to pay for it. This is a corporate frame that gives the appearance that M4A is to the left of mainstream. However, it is a highly disingenuous and misleading frame. People are starting to wake up and see through this frame, yet about half the country is still mesmerized by it. 
 

Imagine if there was a plan to raise taxes on the wealthy to an 80% rate. And 70% of the population supported it. On the one hand, it is a radical increase and could be viewed as far left. In particular but wealthier people. Yet on the other hand, if 70% of the population supports it, it is mainstream in that context.

M4A - I don't think the collective is too excited about the Dems forcing another health care bill after Obama-care.  The people were promised many things would be much better and they got worse....and is still bad.  I pay $1,750 and ten years ago I was paying $1,250.  The hoops we need to go though are also worse.  IMO, more government involvement is far left and M4A meets that requirement in a big way.

Gun regulation - Beto is the only one who is truthful about what the Dems position is, and that is gun confiscation.  Forced Government involvement in Constitutional rites is Far Left.

Corporate regulations + taxes - If far right is no regulations and no taxes I would think the opposite would be far left.  The collective is fine with regulations and taxes as long as we can compete with the rest of the world.  Implementing many regulations and raising corporate taxes to say 50% would advocate companies going outside the country.  This IMO is far left.  Doing this in balance and compete with the rest of the world is where I am at.

Increasing taxes on the wealthy -  If far right is lowing taxes then far left would be raising them.  My whole life has been witness to the left raising taxes and the right lowering them.  I recall when my state of Wisconsin raised taxes on tobacco to 100%....yes, 100% and the Dems said it would increase the revenue by $650,000.  Gas stations along the border went out of business because people were not only crossing the border to get there cigarettes, but they were getting there gas as well.  The state increased revenue via the tobacco tax by $250,000 and lost $16 million from gas sales and property taxes.  It will be no different on a world wide scale.  Most people get this and it is left of mainstream America.

Green New Deal - This is so far left it is unrealistic. 

More government IMO will always be left and Less will always be right and solving problems through government is a recipe for disaster.

IMO - After Tuesday nights debates, the candidate who has the best chance to beat Trump is Tulsi Gabbard.

 

[Bodigger]

5 hours ago, tenta said:

And his supporters are ignoring it

Okay, what are we ignoring?  Keep in mind, we vote for the best candidate, not the one who has the cleanest past.  I was very suspicious about Trump but more suspicious about Hilary.  Can people have that type of mindset or is this unacceptable IYO.  It ultimately comes down to which candidate the Dems put out there and how far left they are.  IMO, if they are squeaky clean and yet, too far to the left......Trump wins.

[tenta]

3 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Okay, what are we ignoring?  Keep in mind, we vote for the best candidate, not the one who has the cleanest past.  I was very suspicious about Trump but more suspicious about Hilary.  Can people have that type of mindset or is this unacceptable IYO.  It ultimately comes down to which candidate the Dems put out there and how far left they are.  IMO, if they are squeaky clean and yet, too far to the left......Trump wins.

 

Bernie and Yang are getting trump supporters, and the ones that aren't going to support them aren't supporting centrist democrats, it's about getting people to vote which ideas like medicare for all would do

Yes it comes down to the candidate but that isn't relevant here, which democratic candidates do you think trump is better than?

You are ignoring his border policy and what he has proposed about it, you are ignoring his support of dictatorships, you are ignoring his corruption, you are ignoring a lot of his blunders etc. and just focusing on "well he's republican and I am too so let's vote for him, who needs a thousand dollars a month?"

I've seen people say some deregulation trump did helped their business a bit, even for the people who are befitting from it like that would benefit more from free medicare for all or a thousand dollars a month, instead of working tons to fuel the greed of billionaires

[Forestluv]

@Bodigger To me you appear to be offering frames from a perspective on the right. From that filter, the policies will appear as being far left. For example, the tax rate on the wealthy is now the lowest in U.S. history. The wealthy now have a lower tax rate than the middle-class. From the perspective of the uber wealthy and anti-tax republicans, the wealthy are paying their fair share of taxes and taxes are bad. Yet most American's support a progressive tax structure in which the top 1% pay a higher tax rate. 

Regarding M4A. . . M4A is a most likely a more efficient system than private. Even the strongly conservative Mercatus study (funded by the Koch brothers) intended to show M4A as being outrageously more expensive - concluded that M4A would save about 7% under an efficient scenario and cost about 7% more under an inefficient scenario. So the range is about the same cost. And that is from a conservative anti-M4A group. For the sake of argument, we could say that M4A is roughly the same cost as private. . . However, regarding quality and coverage - there is no comparison. Public health care is by far a more ethical, just system of health care that would raise the overall community health. . . Think about it: the health care industry profits off of human illness. There entire business model is to squeeze out as much profit out of human illness. Health care and pharmaceutical executives are making outrageous profits over sick people and denying people as much coverage as possible. Hundreds of billions in profits over people suffering. It has gotten so extreme that pharmaceutical executives intentionally got people addicted to opioids in the midwest to raise their profits. The records and courts have shown that they new exactly what they were doing. Intentionally getting people addicted and to opioids and experiencing suffering on a massive scale. This is private corporate health care. It is inhuman and barbaric. There is an extreme conflict of interest that is unethical and should be removed. It is why ever developed country (other than the U.S.) has switched to public health care. Once the U.S. goes public, we will never go back.  . . Imagine private fire departments that had a business model of profiting off of people's houses burning down and denying as much coverage as possible. Imagine hundreds of thousands of people going bankrupt and homeless because they couldn't afford to pay the fire department. That would be demented and cruel. 

Overall, I think a nonprofit public health care system is far more ethical and superior than a for-profit private health care system. I haven't seen any argument against this foundation. One may argue that the government is corrupt and incompetent and would screw up health care, yet that is another argument that I would consider relatively weak. 

[Bodigger]

10 minutes ago, tenta said:

You are ignoring his border policy and what he has proposed about it, you are ignoring his support of dictatorships, you are ignoring his corruption, you are ignoring a lot of his blunders etc. and just focusing on "well he's republican and I am too so let's vote for him, who needs a thousand dollars a month?"

I've seen people say some deregulation trump did helped their business a bit, even for the people who are befitting from it like that would benefit more from free medicare for all or a thousand dollars a month, instead of working tons to fuel the greed of billionaires

Border Policy - Trump=Come in legally / Dems=Open to anyone.  I am definitely not ignoring that one.

Supports of dictatorships - What support am I ignoring?

Corruption - There is plenty of corruption on both sides.  Which Trump corruption bothers you the most?

Blunders - I blunder myself all the time, but I learn from my blunders.  Which Trump blunders bother you the most?

Deregulation - Tell me, which one of Trump's deregulatory bills bothers you the most?

[tenta]

By the way, all of the backlash against pointing out climate change has not been backed by facts, mostly just "I don't like you're saying this", like trump's tweet

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Border Policy - Trump=Come in legally / Dems=Open to anyone.  I am definitely not ignoring that one.

You are using right-wing talking points. Dems are not for "open borders". That is a hardcore republican frame. 

[tenta]

2 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Border Policy - Trump=Come in legally

It's not that simple, do you know about his proposals of shooting immigrants and how he has separated families? And also coming into the US legally should be easier

 

13 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Bodigger To me you appear to be offering frames from a perspective on the right. From that filter, the policies will appear as being far left. For example, the tax rate on the wealthy is now the lowest in U.S. history. The wealthy now have a lower tax rate than the middle-class. From the perspective of the uber wealthy and anti-tax republicans, the wealthy are paying their fair share of taxes and taxes are bad. Yet most American's support a progressive tax structure in which the top 1% pay a higher tax rate. 

Regarding M4A. . . M4A is a most likely a more efficient system than private. Even the strongly conservative Mercatus study (funded by the Koch brothers) intended to show M4A as being outrageously more expensive - concluded that M4A would save about 7% under an efficient scenario and cost about 7% more under an inefficient scenario. So the range is about the same cost. And that is from a conservative anti-M4A group. For the sake of argument, we could say that M4A is roughly the same cost as private. . . However, regarding quality and coverage - there is no comparison. Public health care is by far a more ethical, just system of health care that would raise the overall community health. . . Think about it: the health care industry profits off of human illness. There entire business model is to squeeze out as much profit out of human illness. Health care and pharmaceutical executives are making outrageous profits over sick people and denying people as much coverage as possible. Hundreds of billions in profits over people suffering. It has gotten so extreme that pharmaceutical executives intentionally got people addicted to opioids in the midwest to raise their profits. The records and courts have shown that they new exactly what they were doing. Intentionally getting people addicted and to opioids and experiencing suffering on a massive scale. This is private corporate health care. It is inhuman and barbaric. There is an extreme conflict of interest that is unethical and should be removed. It is why ever developed country (other than the U.S.) has switched to public health care. Once the U.S. goes public, we will never go back.  . . Imagine private fire departments that had a business model of profiting off of people's houses burning down and denying as much coverage as possible. Imagine hundreds of thousands of people going bankrupt and homeless because they couldn't afford to pay the fire department. That would be demented and cruel. 

Even if the policies are far left, it doesn't mean they're wrong