Author Topic: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2  (Read 8574 times)

Offline yannessa_is_god

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6852
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #180 on: November 01, 2019, 04:40:49 PM »
Keeping in mind that impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors..."

It would be one thing if there was no evidence of a crime, but in this case not only did the White House itself release a transcript of the President committing a crime (abusing his power for something of personal gain....dirt on a political rival), his own team and former team members have either wittingly or unwittingly admitted that this President committed a crime (think Mulvaney admitting out loud that this is how this White House does business).

There is nothing "Banana Republic" about Congress doing it's job. Them not impeaching him for political gain (i.e. being afraid of backlash at the voting booth) for have been much more morally wrong than what they are doing currently, which is clearly doing the right thing.

It's ok to support a criminal POTUS...that is your right (Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were two of the most popular Presidents of the Twentieth Century).. But to make false equivalencies or even worse against the side trying to prosecute criminal activity is either being intellectually dishonest, being outright dishonest, or admitting that you have not watched or read the news over the past two months.

Unrelated, but those paranoid about the media, ANOTHER actual news journalist left Fox News yesterday. Catherine Herridge left just 20 days after Shep Smith left. Both on their way out made mention that facts matter (both taking shots at FNC). Be careful from where you consume your media...
« Last Edit: November 01, 2019, 04:53:19 PM by yannessa_is_god »

Offline BALDWINTRACK

  • All State
  • ****
  • Posts: 3280
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #181 on: November 01, 2019, 08:16:41 PM »
Well FOX competes with MSNBC and CNN. All three are fake.

Offline yannessa_is_god

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6852
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #182 on: November 02, 2019, 09:24:56 AM »
To your point Herridge is going to CBS News, probably the most respected of the broadcast networks evening news.

Shep is unemployed but I'm sure someone of his stature (making 7 digits) probably has a noncompete clause for a while. With thay said he will almost certainly resurface at a nice news gig.

Offline RyanHS93

  • Varsity
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #183 on: November 02, 2019, 05:25:49 PM »
Coach  I have to agree  So sad what's happening  The good news 48% of American people polled DO NOT want removal. Assuming no movement that will allow the Senate to quickly dismiss this non sense  I believe 51 votes can lead to dismissal    So far 18 witnesses called for a 29 minute phone call LOL  Month long investigation after wasting 40 million on the Russian Collusion Delusion   

emm8   Really surprised you didn't knock Trump for the lousy unemployment rate  3.5 jump to 3.6%  If you remember knocking the prior months job report    Septemberís number was revised up to 180,000 from 136,000 



Offline BALDWINTRACK

  • All State
  • ****
  • Posts: 3280
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #184 on: November 06, 2019, 07:18:37 AM »
Unless Trump is his own entity heís in an awful lot of trouble next year. Democrats are at an all time high watermark all OVR the place.

For a Democrat to be elected governor of Kentucky we are talking about a 15-20 point swing from normalcy.

Offline yannessa_is_god

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6852
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #185 on: November 06, 2019, 08:34:34 AM »
While everything that you say is true this was only a minor to moderate upset for a few reasons.

One is that the incumbent Bevin was I believe the least popular governor in the country (mostly for reasons that you will see below).

The other is that the Democrat Beshear is a second generation of a popular and recent governor (his dad was Bevin's predecessor). The older Beshear was a popular governor who was term limited. He expanded medicade which I do not know if it was popular at the time or not but in retrospect is now popular because of what Bevin did (he gutted their exchanges in a Trumpian/Rand Paulian way).

Healthcare was probably the biggest issue. While Kentucky has never been a healthy state (usually in the bottom 11 whether lead by a Republican or a Democrat), their life expectancy has fallen for three straight years under Bevin and the states' other health measures and metrics have suffered under Bevin's leadership, directly correlated to his health care plan vs the Obama/Beshear era.

With that said while this is a nice win for Dems it isn't a horrible loss for Republicans. For one, Bevin was a nemesis of their own Senior Senator Mitch McConell. Second Kentucky is not in play in the 2020 general election by any measure. Turnout for an offcycle Gubernatorial race is almost always going to be lower than a Presidential election. If anything, only losing by around 4700 votes (give or take depending on where the absentees and provisional ballots end up) despite being so unpopular has to be reassuring for Trump, as the Trump voter proved in Alabama when voting for a child molester a couple of years ago and again with a very unpopular governor that they will vote for whoever has the R by their name so long that they support or at least do not oppose Trump. Also keeping in mind that the Libertarian got 28000 votes, in the case of Bevin and his policies almost certainly would have taken votes from Bevin. The only bad for Republicans is that this was the first litmus as to whether impeachment would galvanize Republicans more, which it clearly did not. From all accounts impeachment did not really impact this election either way.

For Dems the lesson simply is that in states like this in particular a moderate Democrat can win. Healthcare was the biggest topic of discussion, not impeachment. They do need message discipline. The other good trend for them is that they continue to expand their vote in the suburban areas. They have owned urban while the GOP has owned rural. In this case much like other recent elections they improved in suburban areas. They also won a few rural counties in this case.

Offline RyanHS93

  • Varsity
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #186 on: November 06, 2019, 08:36:55 AM »
Well Said God  My thoughts exactly  I cant believe Bevin was that close Even at the rally he seemed like a A HOLE

I don't think so  I followed some of that and the Democrat seemed like the better choice IMO   The other five running in Kentucky all won and some won big   

Louisville decided the election 

Offline BALDWINTRACK

  • All State
  • ****
  • Posts: 3280
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #187 on: November 06, 2019, 07:49:53 PM »
I was in Louisville recently. Really enjoyed the city.

Offline RyanHS93

  • Varsity
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #188 on: November 07, 2019, 08:15:30 PM »
My eyes will be on Louisiana  Trump should help flip that seat if he still has juice 

How about that attorney for the whistleblower   Past tweets are real bad  One said CNN will help take down Trump 

Offline BALDWINTRACK

  • All State
  • ****
  • Posts: 3280
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #189 on: November 08, 2019, 08:47:58 AM »
People are in Trump fatigue. I like him as a president but Iíd literally vote for anybody over him at this point because Iím exhausted by him. That in my mind will be his downfall.

Offline coach99

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9964
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #190 on: November 08, 2019, 11:24:28 AM »
The media is making a big deal about 'flipping' the states representation and so forth, but I really think that will have little to do with Trump getting elected.  The people may be fed up with the local political scene and changing it up, with the sorry slate of Dem Presidential candidates, I don't see them winning the big one.

Offline yannessa_is_god

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6852
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #191 on: November 12, 2019, 02:15:28 PM »
I've been meaning to respond coach99 (I've been in football and hockey mode over politics mode lol).

But I mostly agree with your take about not every election being a referendum on Trump. That is not giving the voters themselves enough credit.

In the case of Virginia that was not at all a surprise...that state seems to be becoming bluer by the election. Literally nothing to see here. Regarding Kentucky the Democrat that is winning ran a "local election" to the point of coach99, focusing on issues that matter in Kentucky, as opposed to the incumbent Republican Bevin who nearing election day ran an anti-impeachment campaign (which is absurd considering that the governor of a state has zero vote on impeachment of the POTUS, is not in line for succession should removal happen, etc). All that he or she can do is maybe shape public opinion. Again credit to the voters for seeing through that. I have no doubt that Kentucky voters as a majority support Trump, but supporting (or opposing) Trump is the job of their Senators and Representatives, not their governor.

Where I disagree some is that in most midterms, after a new President is elected, the opposite party does well usually in united opposition to the new POTUS. While the Dems had  particularly big gains against a uniquely unpopular POTUS, this trend has been normal since 1994 at least. Dems in 2018 did run a campaign focused on Trump's tax cuts and attacks on health care, and it paid off. With that said it usually still takes a strong candidate to turn a seat or to primary someone of the same party. And it takes the voters to think for themselves on said candidates and issues.

Offline RyanHS93

  • Varsity
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #192 on: November 16, 2019, 10:05:26 AM »
Impeachment  I hope Democrats can provide a better witness moving forward  Absolute  joke so far   Maybe one that actually knows something would help   The woman yesterday was such a waste of time   

Q: "Do you have any information regarding POTUS accepting bribes?"

Yovanovitch: "No"

Q: Do you have any evidence of any criminal activity from POTUS?"

Yovanovitch: "No"


 

Offline yannessa_is_god

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6852
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #193 on: November 16, 2019, 11:41:25 AM »
I have not seen anything from yesterday admittedly. Too busy this morning doing yard work etc.

Wednesday was most damning to Trump especially Bill Taylor's testimony. Very honest and credible.

With that said I have only been reading about it mostly. I've been too busy to watch the hearings live or to even watch a single clip thus far.

The only unrelated amusing clip that I've seen from recent days was Nancy Pelosi  explaining to the President what "exculpatory" means lol. Otherwise have just been reading here and there. And again admittedly no transcripts yet...just highlights.

Offline yannessa_is_god

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6852
Re: Forgetting or ignoring history part 2
« Reply #194 on: November 22, 2019, 11:53:29 AM »
November Democratic Debate Review:


I will just go in descending order of stage position rather than racking and stacking.


Tom Steyer:
Standout Moment from Wednesday: wanting Term Limits...that is actually something that Trump ran on that he has failed to do anything about as POTUS
What he brings: He's the kind hearted Trump...feels that he can privately buy the Presidency but fights for social programs and climate change initiatives; he is also so irrelevant that no one is going to attack him, and he is so wealthy that he is a potential donor for anyone and everyone lol (second point sounds familiar)
His Pitfalls: Zero experience (sounds familiar), polling terribly
Outlook: He will not make the next debate stage but may choose to hang around in the race because he can afford to. Maybe pounces sort of once it comes down to a race of three or four. Otherwise I just think that he is trying to build his brand not so much to win the Presdidency but rather to be an influential Democratic donor and activist

Corey Booker:
Standout Moment: "I have been a black voter ever since I turned 18"
What he brings: The past two or three debates he has been more relaxed and likeable/charming, which is a shame because the first few debates he did not come across as either and did not build his brand earlier the same way that Yang or Mayor Pete did. Relatively liberal on social issues but actually somewhere in the middle of the remaining field.
His pitfalls: Not polling well enough, and as the field currently stands not really enough lanes to the White House as POTUS (he's not as liberal as Bernie/Warren, not as centrist or incrementalist as Klobuchar or Biden, not as pragmatic as Buttigieg).
Outlook: He probably does not make the December debate stage, but he is better suited as a diversity or compromise VP candidate than any of the others to bow out to date. I truly think that he could fit with anyone policy wise on the stage and he seems to be well liked by the remaining field maybe aside from Gabbard.

Tulsi Gabbard:
Standout Moment: Going after Buttigieg on his "troops to Mexico comment" and the resulting back and fourth over that and Assad
What she brings: Different view points, military background...definitely the most different candidate that I've seen in a while either side. Probably have to go back to Huntsman on the GOP side I think 2012 unless he was 2008?
Her pitfalls: She has zero allies on the Democratic side seemingly because she is so far out there and so willing to attack anyone at any time. She would also be most difficult to trust on many issues because of her susceptible to conspiracy theories and is willing to peddle them. She reminds me more of someone who is a Trump lite in that regard. Just very little appeal for would be Democratic voters.
Outlook: She is not polling well and thus will not be on the next debate stage, and as I mentioned she would bring zero value to a VP ticket because she does not see eye to eye with many on the stage on foreign policy among other things. With that said her name is out there and I can definitely see book deals, cable tv shows, etc. What will be missed is the debate entertainment, as she was the last one remaining of the field (i.e. Delaney/DeBlasio/Swalwell) who was wiling to just toss bombs out there and watch them explode so to speak. She is descent debate prep for Trump in that regard also.

Andrew Yang:
Standout Moment: Every time that he got to speak..he did not get much opportunity, but he is clearly popular with the crowds
What he brings: Likability and being an outsider, big ideas
His Pitfalls: Zero experience, his ideas are too big and too expensive
Outlook: He has a shot to be on the next stage, which would be impressive. I am curious to see how long he continues or can continue. Kind of like Steyer he has the money to stay in as long as he wants, and probably has the potential for the same outcomes. He is still a wild card of sorts!

Amy Klobuchar:
Standout Moment: the $17000 in campaign donations from ex-boyfriends comment in particular was memorable and her argument for 3 months paid maternity/paternity leave rather than 6 months but in general a good night for her
What she brings: Common sense and incrementalism, as well as someone who actually can work with both sides (albeit not as well as she advertises, she definitely could in a better climate to do so). Literally everything that she says makes sense, which would be a welcome change vs the current POTUS and many of the other candidates from the left.
Her Pitfalls: Americans don't seem to value common sense enough these days. She will struggle to do really any better than 6th in her own primary because she is not liberal enough and doesn't make outlandish promises, and should for some reason she were to win the nomination, she does not make enough outlandish promises to counter Trump. Too many both sides want free stuff, and she is the most honest in the field of not making those promises.
Outlook: She also has a chance to be on the next stage and I would think that she should try hanging in as long as possible in case other lanes open up (Biden scandal or if Kamala or Buttigieg were to drop out for example) and definitely has a pathway to VP nomination, as she while disagreeing with many on the stage regarding promises has not alienated herself by any stretch.

Kamala Harris:
Standout Moment: Not taking a direct shot at Buttigieg on race relations and rather staying above the fray
What she brings: She is experienced and knowledgeable, and she is the only one aside from Biden embracing the "Obama coalition" now that Castro is off of the stage, which is not a terrible strategy.
Her pitfalls: Her record does not always match her rhetoric, and she still has awkward moments while debating, although this last debate was her most polished looking since the first one. I also do not think that she has fundraised well enough and has not really built her brand at all.
Outlook: She is still a huge wild card because of her gender, color, rhetoric, and willingness to embrace the "Obama coalition" as a pathway to victory. She of course is in the VP race if she has to drop off.

Pete Buttigieg:
Standout Moment: Being listed in Forbes as the poorest candidate on stage (keeping in mind that in a previous debate he mentioned that he drives a Chevy Cobalt)
What he brings: A lot of knowledge and a very pragmatic approach to big ideas...he seems to best marry the Warren wing of the party to the Klobuchar wing of the party, as well as youth and a charm that doesn't bash one on the head with charm. He also explains his positions well and does not over promise. Because of his relative poorness he is the anti-Trump more so than most on the stage.
His pitfalls: He is still struggling with the African American voter, which Bernie found out in 2016 can be really difficult to find votes in the South and as Hillary found out can make it difficult to rally votes in a general election. His youth also could be a turnoff for the older Democrat. His appeal seems to be mostly to the white Obama voter, which may not be enough to win a primary or a general election.
Outlook: Still a wild card. He is polling very well in certain areas (i.e. he is actually leading in Iowa now), so he is someone who like Obama 2008 can still catch fire at the right time (as long as he is not peaking too early). His VP appeal oddly enough is not as solid as, say, a Klobuchar or a Booker IMO, but he has a long and bright future more so than the rest of the field even if he does not win the nomination.

Bernie Sanders:
Standout Moment: Almost every time that he spoke
What he brings: Post heart attack Bernie has reinvented himself a bit. He still brings a mix of angry old man experience and an appeal to younger voters, but post heart attack he has been less loud and less demonstrative and honestly kinder and gentler and more respectful than I can remember. I like him better now than I did only three months ago, which is weird for a known commodity now. He has been honest about how to pay for his programs, but still believes in them. He like Biden has years of experience as well and can play that card, but has a record that he can still stand behind unlike Biden who has to run from some of his previous votes/positions.
His Pitfalls: Warren is still polling ahead of him, and if he cannot beat her, his pathway to the Presidency is narrow.
Outlook: He fundraises well and is very very popular among Democratic voters, period. He is in this race for the long haul.

Elizabeth Warren:
Standout Moment: Oddly enough nothing major that damages her or puts her over. She had a run-in with Corey Booker over her proposed wealth tax (Booker simply bringing up a point that has been brought up before that that has failed in other countries), but even that exchange was not that memorable in that I had to think about it.
What she brings: Preparedness and lots of plans and ideas. She got a tremendous jump on the rest of the field for that alone, and continues to poll well and fundraise well. She generally speaking speaks very well to her plans, unlike, say, Biden.
Her Pitfalls: the wealth tax on the top .1% is her only explanation as to how she is going to pay for universal childcare, universal healthcare, housing for all, etc. Should she win she would be the easiest target to the Republicans who only will vote for Trump because he has an R by his name. She is everything that the average Republican does not like.
Outlook: Buttigieg is trying really hard in Iowa, which makes her path not as obvious as it was just three weeks ago. With that said she is really popular and fundraises well and as I've said before IMO is the most likely individual to be on a ticket, whether as President or VP.

Joe Biden:
Memorable Moment: His hot and cold responses just minutes apart from eachother. For instance, he had a rambling incoherent answer to a Steyer claim, but just minutes later had a sharp response to another question.
What he brings: Basically promising Obama's third term in office, trying to appeal to the same coalition, promising to govern much the same way, and bring back Obama programs that Trump has p!ssed on. Aside from that, he is still the front runner in part because of his appeal to African Americans amazingly being better than the two black candidates on stage.
His Pitfalls: He is more like Trump than anyone cares to admit. While he is more genuine and means better, his cognitive ability at his advanced age is much more noticeable than, say Bernie (he had a Trump like slip-up when he said something along the lines of the only every black female Senator supporting him, when there was a black female senator on stage who has been one of his bigger rivals lol). He is squarely in the swamp much like Trump. Even his family businesses and connections mirrors Trump in terms of corruptness. While he promises to bring back Obama's way of doing things, voters tend to want "change" candidates these days, which Biden does not speak well to.
Outlook: His appeal is still very weird. Where I get it is the fact that he is more center than everyone remaining on the stage except for maybe Klobuchar, but the Obama voter appeal is not as obvious to me as it is to him I guess. Just because he is polling well it remains to be seen if he can fundraise well and if he can get voters out. He is obviously in for the long haul barring corruption.