Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

You also forgot to mention unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan. No Republican will vote to remove trump  Also Lindsey Grham will not be running the trial,

Sorry, missed this point as I think you made it after I had read it.

First, there's no point in waiting for Republicans since nothing Trump could do would garner their support for removal office.  That's pretty clear.  I mean, they don't even agree with climate change so why bother trying to get their cooperation on anything as simple and clear as this.

Second, Graham is the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee.  Granted he won't be running the impeachment trial (Chief Justice Roberts will be), it's not much of assumption that if the chair of the Senate judiciary committee is against subpoenaing sitting members of Congress to testify then it's not likely they will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay the Dems said today they have 2 important reasons to impeach Trump. So let's see if they get the job done. Still would love to see a candidate who really wants to help America. We need someone who can bring the country together again. All this hate is too much stress. We need to be more tolerant to each other again. Not just for the holidays but for always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Okay the Dems said today they have 2 important reasons to impeach Trump. So let's see if they get the job done. Still would love to see a candidate who really wants to help America. We need someone who can bring the country together again. All this hate is too much stress. We need to be more tolerant to each other again. Not just for the holidays but for always.

Preach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

The Democrats are scared because they have no viable option to beat trump.

That's a whole lot of nonsense.  Most polling indicates that most Democratic candidates hold a lead over Trump nationally:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

That's not to say that whoever the Democratic candidate ends up being will have an easy time beating Trump, especially with the current economy.  But it's also a stretch to say that there's no viable option for beating Trump when nearly every single Democratic candidate shows they're either leading or close to beating Trump in 2020.

8 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

And thats what I am trying to say. Everything here is how

You said that it is a fact that Obstruction of Congress is not a high crime or misdemeanour.  A fact isn't open to interpretation.

10 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Except he actually did in 2011 on a hot mic.to Dimitri . Ob wait I am supposed to forget its different . because everything obama did was gold

Ughhh...  So Obama made light that he was not able to do more with American-Russo relations because of his upcoming elections and this is the same neighbourhood as Trump asking a foreign country to investigate his likely political rival.  Come on man, I enjoy talking politics but I am loath to waste my time with someone who isn't interested in being genuine.  

12 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Yes it is. If he obstructed congress then thats what they have contempt citation for.

On its own, maybe.  Depends on the context.  Here's some context.  Nixon was run up on articles of impeachment, one of which was an obstruction of Congress.  This was due to Nixon failing to comply with four legislative subpoenas.  Four.  Trump has failed to comply with dozens of subpoenas by the legislative branch.  If Nixon was going to be impeached and removed from office in part because he failed to comply with four subpoenas, how is Trump not worthy of the same measure?  Consider also that it's in connection to the first article of impeachment, abuse of power.  Not sure why you keep ignore that matter.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Okay the Dems said today they have 2 important reasons to impeach Trump. So let's see if they get the job done. Still would love to see a candidate who really wants to help America. We need someone who can bring the country together again. All this hate is too much stress. We need to be more tolerant to each other again. Not just for the holidays but for always.

That's not going to happen.  The reality is that American politics is reflective of its citizens and culture.  You're a very divided people, hence so too is your politics.  It will take an external threat for Americans to come together.  There's no one person who is going to do it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, downzy said:

That's a whole lot of nonsense.  Most polling indicates that most Democratic candidates hold a lead over Trump nationally:

Forget the national polls look at the state by state polls. He is competitive in every important one and that's important. 

Just now, downzy said:

That's not going to happen.  The reality is that American politics is reflective of its citizens and culture.  You're a very divided people, hence so too is your politics.  It will take an external threat for Americans to come together.  There's no one person who is going to do it.  

Correct.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Forget the national polls look at the state by state polls. He is competitive in every important one and that's important. 

So if Trump is competitive against most significant Democratic candidates in swing states, how is that Democrats have no viable options?  

Most sitting Presidents win re-election.  

The fact that three to four Democratic candidates are in a statistical tie or leading against Trump in most swing states (though, Arizona and maybe Wisconsin looks like a safe bet for Trump) indicates he's not a lock and Democrats should have confidence about their chances in 2020.  Hell, the latest polling in Georgia, a state a Democrat hasn't won since 1992 (and only twice in the last 55 years), shows most Democratic challengers with a lead over Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, downzy said:

So if Trump is competitive against most significant Democratic candidates in swing states, how is that Democrats have no viable options?  

Most sitting Presidents win re-election.  

The fact that three to four Democratic candidates are in a statistical tie or leading against Trump in most swing states (though, Arizona and maybe Wisconsin looks like a safe bet for Trump) indicates he's not a lock and Democrats should have confidence about their chances in 2020.  Hell, the latest polling in Georgia, a state a Democrat hasn't won since 1992 (and only twice in the last 55 years), shows most Democratic challengers with a lead over Trump.  

Mainly the reason is because  the DNC is broke as shit and the RNC has been raising money like there is no tomorrow . 

They are basically carpet bombing the Dems in red states and swing states with ads.

I would not be surprised if there is a contested convention. 

its still way to early. But this impeachment saga is going to give the GOP ammo and all they have to do is run on the Economy.(Hence the phrase its the economy stupid) and Trump will win. The red state dems in the house are extremely worried and I think they regret joining this saga

The 2018 midterms were won becaus they focused on Healthcare and drug prices. Not impeachment and  the GOP lost the house because they were trying to say all these dems are socialists. Now it seems like they are right on the part where Trump says all they want to do is impeach at any cost

Its still early but Trump can still win the electoral college in a landslide 

Edited by Gibsonfender2323

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Mainly the reason is because  the DNC is broke as shit and the RNC has been raising money like there is no tomorrow

If money was the determinative factor then President Hillary Clinton would be running for re-election next year.

The other big factor in the imbalance is that many of the major DNC donors are sitting on the sidelines waiting to see who ends up being the candidate.  If it's a moderate like Biden or Buttigieg, then expect to see an avalanche of money pouring in.  A lot of money in the Democratic circles is being funnelled to support Presidential nominees.  Again, that changes once we get closer to a candidate. 

24 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

its still way to early. But this impeachment saga is going to give the GOP ammo and all they have to do is run on the Economy.(Hence the phrase its the economy stupid) and Trump will win. The red state dems in the house are extremely worried and I think they regret joining this saga

The economy the last year or so has trended downwards.  Yes, numbers are good, but save for the latest job report for November, GDP growth and business investment are on the decline.  It's difficult to say where the economy will be in 10 months.  

24 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

The 2018 midterms were won becaus they focused on Healthcare and drug prices.

I don't see why this dynamic will change in 2020.  It partly explains why the house is rushing to the finish line on impeachment.  House Dems knows that Trump won't be convicted in the Senate.  So by expediting the process and giving Democrats enough time to refocus the lens on healthcare, job security (not the same as unemployment), drug prices, the environment, and Trump's erratic behaviour, they'll be a strong position again in 2020.

Also keep in mind that Trump won't have the one advantage in 2020 that he had in 2016: assumptions as to who will win.  2016 wasn't decided because Trump converted a lot of Democrats or Independents; he won because a lot of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents stayed home.  Nearly everyone thought Clinton was a lock.  Why spend hours waiting in line for a candidate you're not thrilled about that everyone tells you is going to win?  A lot of people stayed home because they thought there was no way Trump would win.  A lot of people, myself included, were wrong.  That dynamic won't be in play in 2020.  There are lot of people who don't give a shit about politics but want the insanity swirling around the Trump Presidency to end.  It's what drove a lot of people to vote in 2018.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, downzy said:

I don't see why this dynamic will change in 2020.  It partly explains why the house is rushing to the finish line on impeachment.  House Dems knows that Trump won't be convicted in the Senate.  So by expediting the process and giving Democrats enough time to refocus the lens on healthcare, job security (not the same as unemployment), drug prices, the environment, and Trump's erratic behaviour, they'll be a strong position again in 2020.

I believe it will for one reason Trump. He was not on the ballot in 2018 and that hurt the GOP, If Trump is on the ballot in those states then expect to see a lot of close races. The reason the USMCA was announced today is 100% damage control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, downzy said:

The economy the last year or so has trended downwards.  Yes, numbers are good, but save for the latest job report for November, GDP growth and business investment are on the decline.  It's difficult to say where the economy will be in 10 months.  

You are right but if the economy is the same as it is now and USMCA is singed and China gets done. Trump is re-elected. But if there is a recession he will not get re-elected .

I believe if Bernie  is not the nominee(which he won't be) a lot of his supporters are gonna be pissed off like in 2016 and either  vote for Trump as a protest vote or the Green/Libertarian candidate   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

I believe it will for one reason Trump. He was not on the ballot in 2018 and that hurt the GOP, If Trump is on the ballot in those states then expect to see a lot of close races. The reason the USMCA was announced today is 100% damage control

The party in power (of the White House) almost always loses seats in the mid-term.  

That's not new.  

But what's gone largely unreported was how dramatic the Democratic gains were in 2018.  

People will point to the 2010 mid-term as the bigger ass-whopping, but that's only true because Republicans benefit from district gerrymandering far more than Democrats.  

In 2010 Republicans achieved a plus 6.8 percent vote margin or advantage, but that margin was good enough for a net seat change/gain of 63 seats.  

Compare that to what the Democrats did in 2018.  

Democrats achieved a bigger voter margin of 8.6 percent over their Republican counterparts, but that only netted them with a pickup of 41 seats.  Again, Democrats won more votes in 2018 than Republicans did in 2010 but won 22 fewer seats.  Hell, Democrats won 1.2 million more votes in the 2012 House election but Republicans still maintained control of the House (and it wasn't even close; Republicans won 234 house seats while Democrats won 201 seats).  

The game is rigged with Democrats having a substantially heavier lift to gain majorities.  Democracy in America is broken and it has been for a long time.  It's why my eyes roll whenever I hear Republicans or Democrats reference the "will of the people."  Election outcomes rarely, if ever, reflect the true will of the people  

Trump on the ballot will motivate Republicans, but so too will it motivate anyone who sat at home in 2016 (again, a lot of independents and Democrats) because they thought Clinton was going to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

You are right but if the economy is the same as it is now and USMCA is singed and China gets done.

It blows my mind how Trump hasn't wrapped up negotiations with China at this point.  Granted, China has all the leverage since they know Trump is under the clock.  But the true drag on the economy from a macro level is the tariff wars imposed by Trump.  The new USMCA (I really wish they have kept the name NAFTA, I hate having to pronounce each letter of this new deal especially since it's 90 percent the same as NAFTA) won't produce any real effect in my opinion.  And even if the rosiest of prediction comes true and it's responsible for 170,000 jobs (which is 15k jobs a month, not exactly moving the needle all that much), it likely won't be felt until well after the election.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain how democrats were able to keep the house and senate for almost 50 years? That's gerrymandering!. 

From 1940s to 1990s the democrats had the majority with only the GOP being able to have a majority a total of 4 years (exaggerated) 

Edited by Gibsonfender2323

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, downzy said:

It blows my mind how Trump hasn't wrapped up negotiations with China at this point.  Granted, China has all the leverage since they know Trump is under the clock.  But the true drag on the economy from a macro level is the tariff wars imposed by Trump.  The new USMCA (I really wish they have kept the name NAFTA, I hate having to pronounce each letter of this new deal especially since it's 90 percent the same as NAFTA) won't produce any real effect in my opinion.  And even if the rosiest of prediction comes true and it's responsible for 170,000 jobs (which is 15k jobs a month, not exactly moving the needle all that much), it likely won't be felt until well after the election.  

The saddest part of all is why the Democrats weren't pushing Trump from the beginning to push for an even stronger deal than the USMCA. As you say, it's 90% the same. Where is the Democrats and their concern for their working class voters who need a shift in trade agreement strategy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The saddest part of all is why the Democrats weren't pushing Trump from the beginning to push for an even stronger deal than the USMCA. As you say, it's 90% the same. Where is the Democrats and their concern for their working class voters who need a shift in trade agreement strategy?

No where

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The saddest part of all is why the Democrats weren't pushing Trump from the beginning to push for an even stronger deal than the USMCA. As you say, it's 90% the same. Where is the Democrats and their concern for their working class voters who need a shift in trade agreement strategy?

Sorry, but I must have been reading different news than you because that's exactly why the USMCA is still stalled in Congress.  

The executive branch is in charge of negotiating trade deals.  There's nothing Democrats in the House can do on that front.  Congress is forced to wait until the negotiations are done if the executive branch isn't working with Congressional leaders to craft the deal for easy passage.  Trump did not involve Congressional leadership in negotiations (in fairness, previous presidents usually block congressional parties from the negotiating table) and it's why the USMCA hasn't been passed by the House.  

Democrats demanded stronger protections for labour, which forced Trump back to the negotiation tables with Canada and Mexico the last few months.  

And that's why I say it's 90 percent similar to NAFTA.  It's really the protections for labour that were fought for by Democrats in the House that brought about any notable changes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Explain how democrats were able to keep the house and senate for almost 50 years? That's gerrymandering!

Ugh...  No.

I'm not going to suggest that both parties don't participate in it, but if you truly think Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for most of the second half of the 20th century you really don't know much about your history.  

From racial politics in the South to wide-scale support of progressive reforms (social security, medicare, medicaid), to the outright disasters that were the Republican administrations that led to the Great Depression, to the popularity of FDR - there's a whole host of reasons why Democrats held control of the House and Senate for as long as they did.  It wasn't until Reaganism and Republicans efforts to really tilt the tables beginning in the 1990s that we see gerrymandering taken to unprecedented levels

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
4 minutes ago, downzy said:

Ugh...  No.

I'm not going to suggest that both parties don't participate in it, but if you truly think Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for most of the second half of the 20th century you really don't know much about your history.  

 

 

Wrong

Democrats used Gerrymandering to control the house and senate for that long and in addition, there was a lot more compromise on both sides. It wasn't till the GOP started growing a spine with Regan to fight back and it wasn't until they first took back the house in 94 that the gerrymandering bullshit came up. There is no way that a Party could hold on to power in Congress that long without gerrymandering that is basic common sense  

Edited by Gibsonfender2323

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Wrong

Democrats used Gerrymandering to control the house and senate for that long and in addition, there was a lot more compromise on both sides. It wasn't till the GOP started  growing a spine with Regan to fight back 

It's kind of mind-blowing that you repeatedly post made-up nonsense that's not based in either fact or evidence and when get called out for it, you keep on posting with more nonsense.

First, gerrymandering wouldn't have an effect on the Senate.  There's two senate seats per state.  You can't gerrymander a state.  

Second, I'm not arguing that gerrymandering didn't happen from 1940 to 1990, but it wasn't the reason for why Democrats controlled the House.  

Here's an article that explains why gerrymandering has gotten worse in the last 20 years, and how it has favoured Republicans:

https://theconversation.com/4-reasons-gerrymandering-is-getting-worse-105182

The biggest takeaway should be the Dixiecrat south, where racial politics kept Democrats in power in the House from the 1930s to the early 90s.  It went from a solid Democratic base to Republican as many Dixiecrats left the Democratic party for the Republican party when race and economics priorities aligned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, downzy said:

It's kind of mind-blowing that you repeatedly post made-up nonsense that's not based in either fact or evidence and when get called out for it, you keep on posting with more nonsense.

It's kind of mindblowing that you believe that only GOP does gerrymandering/. If you honestly believe that 1 political party doesn't hold on to power for 50 fucking years without Gerrymandering then there is no reason to talk. I also call bullshit when I see it The constitution is framed to prevent any party from taking power for a long time look into the history; 
If you honestly believe the Dems did not gerrymander to keep the house for 50 years then you are just as biased as you claim I am.  Here is an article explaining Gerrymandering  and how it advantages Democrats  https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-hate-gerrymanderingexcept-when-they-get-to-do-it

Edited by Gibsonfender2323

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

It's kind of mindblowing that you believe that only GOP does gerrymandering/

I never said that; in fact I said in my second to last post that both parties participate in Gerrymandering:

 

57 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

If you honestly believe that 1 political party doesn't hold on to power for 50 fucking years without Gerrymandering then there is no reason to talk.

Yes, I honestly believe why Democrats held control of the House for 50 years because I actually learned and understood the political forces that were in play at the time.  

Between 1950 and 1990, Democrats won more votes on a net margin basis over Republicans.  Don't believe me?  Go check every mid-term election and see for yourself.  In every mid-term election, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican was in the White House , Democrats won more votes for House races, generally with a net voter margin in the high single digits to low double digits.  Gerrymandering doesn't have an effect on national voter margins.  

The reality is there were simply way more Democrats in the U.S. between 1950 and 1990.

The numbers don't lie:

https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/

More Americans identified themselves as Democrat than Republican and Independents for the majority of the second half of the 20th century.

57 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

I also call bullshit when I see it The constitution is framed to prevent any party from taking power for a long time look into the history

The constitution sets up a system of checks and balances; it says nothing about political parties.  Again, if you knew your facts you would know political parties weren't really a consideration when the Constitution was first drafted and ratified.  They didn't even really exist.  George Washington didn't belong to a party when he became America's first President. Again, you're making stuff up.

57 minutes ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

Here is an article explaining Gerrymandering  and how it advantages Democrats  https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-hate-gerrymanderingexcept-when-they-get-to-do-it

Again, I know what gerrymandering is.  And I've never once in this discussion suggested Democrats aren't guilty of it.  Several districts in Maryland are particularly nefarious examples of gerrymandering by Democrats.  What gerrymandering doesn't explain is Democratic control of the House for 40+ years.  In every election Democrats won more votes for the House than Republicans, and hence won more house seats.  But things have changed.  Now you have Republicans winning control of the house despite Democrats winning more votes.  That's the difference.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The saddest part of all is why the Democrats weren't pushing Trump from the beginning to push for an even stronger deal than the USMCA. As you say, it's 90% the same. Where is the Democrats and their concern for their working class voters who need a shift in trade agreement strategy?

 

1 hour ago, Gibsonfender2323 said:

No where

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/10/democrats-trumps-trade-deal-080719

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, downzy said:

Sorry, but I must have been reading different news than you because that's exactly why the USMCA is still stalled in Congress.  

The executive branch is in charge of negotiating trade deals.  There's nothing Democrats in the House can do on that front.  Congress is forced to wait until the negotiations are done if the executive branch isn't working with Congressional leaders to craft the deal for easy passage.  Trump did not involve Congressional leadership in negotiations (in fairness, previous presidents usually block congressional parties from the negotiating table) and it's why the USMCA hasn't been passed by the House.  

Democrats demanded stronger protections for labour, which forced Trump back to the negotiation tables with Canada and Mexico the last few months.  

And that's why I say it's 90 percent similar to NAFTA.  It's really the protections for labour that were fought for by Democrats in the House that brought about any notable changes.  

Ok cool of them to ask for some protections for labor when Trump was already at the negotiating table. Very telling that the democrats never took the initiative to to to the negotiating table when they were in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Ok cool of them to ask for some protections for labor when Trump was already at the negotiating table. Very telling that the democrats never took the initiative to to to the negotiating table when they were in power.

Did you not read the article i posted above?  That’s exactly what the Democrats did when they took over the house early this year as a result of their win in the mid-terms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×