2020 Presidential Race

#40,651
#40,651
hog88 said:
How so? Some specific policy or initiatives would be nice.
Click to expand...
It's a long list. In the interest of not getting Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, I will limit this to only 8:

1) Trump and his aides softened the GOP platform on Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in the Ukraine. Ahead of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump campaign aides blocked language from the party platform that called for the US government to send lethal weapons to Ukraine for its war against Russian proxies. While the Trump Administration ultimately did supply arms and anti-tank weapons to the Ukraine, this was a hollow gesture, because the Ukrainians can't use the Javelin missiles in the conflict against pro-Russian separatists based on the terms of the sale. A top staffer in the US embassy in Ukraine testified last November that the Javelins aren't "actively employed in combat operations right now."

2) Trump has repeatedly lobbied for Russia to be readmitted to the G 7, even after he learned of the intelligence reports of Russian bounties being paid to the Taliban to kill American soldiers.

3) Trump proposed a cyber unit with Russia. After the July 2017 meeting of G 20 leaders, Trump said he had spoken with Putin about "forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit" to combat "election hacking." Trump quickly backtracked after Congressional leaders from both parties said it would be ridiculous to work with Russia on cybersecurity because Russia was responsible for egregious hacks against American targets, including during the 2016 Presidential election.

4) During the Helsinki Summit in July of 2018, President Trump memorably sided with Vladimir Putin's denial of Russian involvement in the hacking of the DNC, against the conclusion of his own appointed Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats. Trump later claimed that he had misspoken... but since Trump has once again sided with Putin's denial following the Helsinki Summit, that appears to have been another Trump lie.

5) Trump eased sanctions on Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, along with the three companies linked to him. The US Treasury Department sanctioned Deripaska in 2016 over his support for Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a bipartisan rebuke of the removal of these sanctions, 11 Senate Republicans supported a Democratic resolution calling for these sanctions to remain. Trump was undeterred, and still removed the sanctions, anyway.

6) Trump's withdrawal from Syria gave Vladimir Putin a key boost. Trump announced in October of 2019 that US troops were withdrawing from northern Syria. This abrupt move cleared the way for Turkey to conquer territories previously controlled by the US and allied Kurdish militias. It also gave Russia a golden opportunity to expand its influence and swiftly take over abandoned US outposts and checkpoints. This has been crucial for Putin's agenda in the region.

7) Trump repeated Kremlin talking points on ISIS. After announcing the Syrian withdrawal, Trump repeated the Kremlin talking point that, "Russia hates ISIS as much as the United States does," and that they are equal partners in the fight. However, Trump's comments don't reflect the reality on the ground. Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS.

8) Trump just ordered US troops out of Germany. The plan to remove about one-third of the force drew serious concerns from the Pentagon because it could compromise Europe-based defenses against Russia. In a letter to Trump, nearly two dozen Republican lawmakers said his decision would "strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment." However, that seems to be Donald Trump's across-the-board, foreign policy objective. "Make Russia Great Again!"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, Rifleman, tvolsfan and 1 other person
#40,652
#40,652
hUTch2002 said:
Who will you be voting for in the upcoming election? Give me a 3rd party candidate running that’s worth voting for as I’d be curious to learn more about them. Louder seems to think similarly to you but likely will sit this one out.
Click to expand...
Only thing that makes any candidate worth it is if you actually support them.

Doesnt matter if you are the only one who votes for them, or 1 out of 100 million.

If you dont actually support someone dont actually vote for them. Anything else is a corruption of the voting process. As much as people dont want to hear it, it's not an either or situation. Your vote only says I support this person, I want this person to hold this office. There is no other subtext beyond that. You support them or you dont. Anything else is justifying bad decisions and trying to explain it to yourself.

Doesnt change what you actually did. The votes only track one thing. Trying to add other data points to the study just screws the system to the point where we are, Trump or Biden.
 
#40,653
#40,653
golfballs said:
😬
Click to expand...

Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think Biden was asking the interviewer if he was a junkie. I think that was part of Biden’s “what if” scenario. The end of the video was pretty funny though where Biden couldn’t find the right words. I’m not saying that means he has dementia or is incapable of holding office but it was pretty ironic that he was trying to state that he was of sound mind but couldn’t find the right words. It was amusing to me, nothing more.
 
#40,654
#40,654
hUTch2002 said:
Hopefully you’re right about convincing Dems not to use Twitter as a guide for what most Americans want whether Biden wins or not. I agree we don’t want the crazies on either side having control. Biden did waffle on defunding though, he just didn’t use that word. Any form of removing funding is the same thing no matter what you call it but some of the narrative of the right has been to equate less funding with dismantling and those certainly aren’t equal. There is some chatter about full dismantling but, as far as I know, that has been limited to Omar (one of the crazies) talking about Minneapolis and the local leadership in Seattle.

It sounds like you believe that once Trump is removed that things will go back to “normal” politically. I’m not so sure. Then again the system does protect itself and Reps and Dems in Washington are the same at their core so it’s possible things return to the way they were. When I talk about my concerns of Biden being influenced it is because of the faction that has risen within the party with AOC, Omar, and others that seemed to influence Pelosi pretty easily. However, it’s also concerning that one of the things this virus has shown is how much control can be exerted over people. It’s no secret Dems stand for more government and a good chunk of this country is showing through this virus that they’re happy to suck from the government teat. I really believe Biden would be under tremendous pressure from his own party to push for more extreme policies than we’ve ever seen including the Green New Deal. Yes, it would still have to go through the House and Senate so those races are also extremely important but wasn’t there a bill just signed basically giving even more EO freedom to the POTUS? If Biden wins and the GND can’t be passed I have no doubt Biden would use EO to implement it. As I’ve said before, I do think we’re on a path that isn’t good and both the Reps and Dems are taking us down that path but the Dems are pushing us down that path at a faster pace with some of their policies and that’s my concern. Do we need change? Sure, let’s start with term limits and get people like Pelosi, McConnell, Graham, and Schumer out. Those people believe we exist to serve them and prop them up when it should be the opposite.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion RT. We don’t agree on many things but that’s ok. There’s no reason we can’t discuss those differences without tearing each other down.
Click to expand...
I think it’s fair to propose a reduction in federal police funds. One of the municipalities around Chattanooga, the town of East Ridge, idk if you’re familiar with it or not. I’ve handled cases there for years. It’s a stretch of strip malls, used car lots, and seedy motels. They’ve never had any sort of mass uprising or insurrection that I’m aware of. There’s a lot of petty drug activity, some robberies, public drunkenness, and domestic violence. Typical, low-middle income blue collar crime. The City has a ****ing armored personnel carrier parked outside their police station.

Why? They don’t need that. That money didn’t make anyone safer. It didn’t prevent crime. It didn’t solve any crimes. They didn’t buy it, either. 0% chance that town collects enough revenue to buy one of those or that it would buy one, if it could. It was a federal grant of an expensive piece of equipment that had 0 benefit to the community.

About the time I started noticing their tank, Chattanooga was running a mental health court pilot program. MHC partners with all of the mental health providers in the community to attempt to reduce recidivism among people with mental health issues, who are some of the most frequent repeat offenders in the criminal court system. They managed to get it up and running through what was essentially a grass roots effort, but they had to really push for the city and county to help fund it. I don’t know their stats off the top of my head, but I know the people I placed in that program have generally done quite well. The judges and prosecutors are generally pleased with the results as well. I don’t know whether MHC receives any federal funding, but IMO, it would be a much much better investment than an armored vehicle for the city of East Ridge and it could probably be funded for 6 months on what was spent on the tank.

So I don’t agree that any reduction of funds from the police is a waffle or that it’s bad. To me, the benefit of a centrist or a moderate candidate is they can look at the crazies on both sides and find any good proposals and just not do it to the extent that the crazies want.

That said, I can agree to disagree about Biden. I don’t know for a fact that he won’t cave. I don’t know that he will play within the rules. I trust him on both more than Trump.

You’re probably right that things won’t go back to normal. But nihilism, grievance politics, and angry populism is just not my jam. Trump losing, if its half as bad as it looks in the polls, will do a lot to end the cult of personality. To me, that’s a step in the right direction.

If the wing of Democrats that act like Trumpists ever wrests control of the party away from the moderates, I’ll move on from them, too. I wouldn’t have voted for Bernie Sanders and, unless she convincingly moves more to the center, I won’t vote for AOC, either.
 
#40,655
#40,655
Orangeslice13 said:
It’s really not that hard to understand.
My father is 82. He’s going through some serious dementia issues right now. In the last month it’s gotten so bad he’s being evaluated to see if he will be allowed to return home.
His behavior was “Bidenesk” 3-4 months ago.
Biden isn’t going to survive a presidency. Hell, he may not make it to the election. Trump is starting to do things my dad did 2 years ago. So neither guy is fit to be president.

It’s a giant **** show.
Click to expand...
Empathy for your dad.

The Bidens should be ashamed. At least Jill should. Feeling shame requires cognition so Joe gets a pass.
 
#40,656
#40,656
hUTch2002 said:
Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think Biden was asking the interviewer if he was a junkie. I think that was part of Biden’s “what if” scenario. The end of the video was pretty funny though where Biden couldn’t find the right words. I’m not saying that means he has dementia or is incapable of holding office but it was pretty ironic that he was trying to state that he was of sound mind but couldn’t find the right words. It was amusing to me, nothing more.
Click to expand...
No he wasn't but he is very thin skinned and can't handle when he gets asked any question that isn't a softball. When he starts smiling you know he's about to lose it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#40,657
#40,657
LouderVol said:
Only thing that makes any candidate worth it is if you actually support them.

Doesnt matter if you are the only one who votes for them, or 1 out of 100 million.

If you dont actually support someone dont actually vote for them. Anything else is a corruption of the voting process. As much as people dont want to hear it, it's not an either or situation. Your vote only says I support this person, I want this person to hold this office. There is no other subtext beyond that. You support them or you dont. Anything else is justifying bad decisions and trying to explain it to yourself.

Doesnt change what you actually did. The votes only track one thing. Trying to add other data points to the study just screws the system to the point where we are, Trump or Biden.
Click to expand...
How much do you have to support someone before voting for them is justified?
100% - never going to happen
90%?
75%?
58.4%?

If you support one candidate 73% and the opponent 12%, would you be justified in voting for the 73%?

Would you be justified in withholding your vote and letting the 12% candidate win?
 
#40,658
#40,658
utvolpj said:
So they'll go back to quietly taking freedoms, raising taxes, starting wars, etc? Just like the good old days
Click to expand...
Uhh, starting wars? I'm pretty sure the last American President to do that was a Republican. Also, Barack Obama did not raise taxes. Bill Clinton did, but that was a long time ago. As far as taking freedoms, you are probably referring to gun control legislation... Biden might attempt that, but it will still need Congressional approval and won't get it. It never does. Your concerns are mostly moot.
 
#40,659
#40,659
LouderVol said:
Only thing that makes any candidate worth it is if you actually support them.

Doesnt matter if you are the only one who votes for them, or 1 out of 100 million.

If you dont actually support someone dont actually vote for them. Anything else is a corruption of the voting process. As much as people dont want to hear it, it's not an either or situation. Your vote only says I support this person, I want this person to hold this office. There is no other subtext beyond that. You support them or you dont. Anything else is justifying bad decisions and trying to explain it to yourself.

Doesnt change what you actually did. The votes only track one thing. Trying to add other data points to the study just screws the system to the point where we are, Trump or Biden.
Click to expand...
Makes sense and you’ve already said you might be sitting this one out which aligns with your views given that, at this point, you don’t have a candidate you support. The way rdj was coming across was as if he had a 3rd party candidate he supported but he doesn’t. He also comes across as someone that will vote 3rd party simply to vote against the two party system. That would be in contradiction to his posts chiding others for voting for the lesser evil. We shall see if I’m correct or not. I was actually just trying to see who he supported and why but my plan went awry.
 
#40,660
#40,660
luthervol said:
How much do you have to support someone before voting for them is justified?
100% - never going to happen
90%?
75%?
58.4%?

If you support one candidate 73% and the opponent 12%, would you be justified in voting for the 73%?

Would you be justified in withholding your vote and letting the 12% candidate win?
Click to expand...
That depends on the individual. I would think it's at least 50%, hard to say you support someone if you disagree with them more than you agree, my opinion of course. Personally I am probably hovering around 75%, my guy Amash I was at 80-85%. Still had things I disagreed with, but if there had been enough there to support I would have voted.

And you should base that percentage on what they have done more so than what they say they will do if they have a history in politics. Which everyone, sans Trump, had before they ran.

To me that's what an educated population meant to the founding fathers, and why we have an EC. It's impossible to think the general population is going to know every candidates history. It's reasonable to think a select pool of people would have that understanding, and they could be voted for to represent the uniformed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#40,661
#40,661
BowlBrother85 said:
Uhh, starting wars? I'm pretty sure the last American President to do that was a Republican. Also, Barack Obama did not raise taxes. Bill Clinton did, but that was a long time ago. As far as taking freedoms, you are probably referring to gun control legislation... Biden might attempt that, but it will still need Congressional approval and won't get it. It never does. Your concerns are mostly moot.
Click to expand...
How many countries were we directly involved in because of Obama? Drone strikes, even against us citizens, were a daily occurrence. Taxes and debt went up under Obama. NDAA ring a bell wrt freedoms? Were you not paying attention?
 
#40,662
#40,662
LouderVol said:
That depends on the individual. I would think it's at least 50%, hard to say you support someone if you disagree with them more than you agree, my opinion of course. Personally I am probably hovering around 75%, my guy Amash I was at 80-85%. Still had things I disagreed with, but if there had been enough there to support I would have voted.

And you should base that percentage on what they have done more so than what they say they will do if they have a history in politics. Which everyone, sans Trump, had before they ran.

To me that's what an educated population meant to the founding fathers, and why we have an EC. It's impossible to think the general population is going to know every candidates history. It's reasonable to think a select pool of people would have that understanding, and they could be voted for to represent the uniformed.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that.
I've always advocated that people rank their top issues and assign them a weighted number the total of which is 100.
Look at the choices and their stances on your prioritized list and then vote for the one that gives you the highest score.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#40,664
#40,664
utvolpj said:
How many countries were we directly involved in because of Obama? Drone strikes, even against us citizens, were a daily occurrence. Taxes and debt went up under Obama. NDAA ring a bell wrt freedoms? Were you not paying attention?
Click to expand...
Obama increased taxes on high-income taxpayers via: a) expiration of the Bush income tax cuts for the top 2% of income earners starting in 2013 and b) payroll tax increases on the top 5% of earners as part of the ACA... but that was it. Drone strikes against US citizens were not a daily occurrence. He certainly did not start any wars, unlike GWB. Wtf?
 
Last edited:
#40,665
#40,665
hUTch2002 said:
Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think Biden was asking the interviewer if he was a junkie. I think that was part of Biden’s “what if” scenario. The end of the video was pretty funny though where Biden couldn’t find the right words. I’m not saying that means he has dementia or is incapable of holding office but it was pretty ironic that he was trying to state that he was of sound mind but couldn’t find the right words. It was amusing to me, nothing more.
Click to expand...


What is of more value to you, someone who can speak quickly and find the right words, but is full of nonsense and bullshiite literally every time he does speak, or someone not as quick but who is not a lying imbecile, like the first guy?
 
#40,667
#40,667
BowlBrother85 said:
Obama increased taxes on high-income taxpayers via: a) expiration of the Bush income tax cuts for the top 2% of income earners starting in 2013 and b) payroll tax increases on the top 5% of earners as part of the ACA. Drone strikes against US citizens were not a daily occurrence. He certainly did not start any wars, unlike GWB. Wtf?
Click to expand...
Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc were all gwb wars?
 
#40,668
#40,668
lawgator1 said:
What is of more value to you, someone who can speak quickly and find the right words, but is full of nonsense and bullshiite literally every time he does speak, or someone not as quick but who is not a lying imbecile, like the first guy?
Click to expand...
What they say is not as important as what they do.
 
#40,671
#40,671
volfanjustin said:
So let me ask you all leftists this, let's say he wins how are you all going to defend him when he stutters all over the place when speaking with another country's leader or disappears for hours every day because Jill put him back in the bunker?
Click to expand...
He can read and he can also drink a glass of water with one hand.

Trump has set the lowest bar possible. If Biden doesn't crap himself at the inauguration and never says one word until the next election he will have done a much,much, much better job than Trump.
 
#40,672
#40,672
BowlBrother85 said:
See post #40,470 from @carlos86. There will be 3 debates. The Biden campaign agreed to them over two months ago. The Trump campaign is talking about this so much, that it is starting to appear as if maybe they are the ones who don't want to debate... or they are just ignorant of the facts. Either one is easy to believe.
Click to expand...
The McSally campaign and the Trump campaign have something in common.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top