|
Post by helen on May 19, 2019 15:46:47 GMT -5
I don't dislike Bernie because of his goals and political leanings and aspirations. They are all great and, if achieved, would be great for the country but I don't think the voters will vote for an old, angry, white guy and I also don't think the country needs one now either. Taking control of the Senate should be the primary focus of all Democrats. It's far more important than debating the merits of two unelectables.
I also don't think the voters will go for the old, white guy who is NOT angry (Biden). He tries too hard to be the sweet, old neighbor guy next door and I never actually lived next door to anyone who was presidential material. If Biden was presidential material, he would have already been elected. He's been trying to get the job for most of his adult life. Joe has a lifetime history of acting and speaking off the cuff without thinking about the impact of what he is saying or doing. It's a part of who he is and he has not improved with age.
Beware of gossip, rumors and vague polls. As long as the GOP can keep the the liberal voter's attention on un-electable candidates such as Sanders and Biden, it keeps the national spotlight off the other more electable ones.
|
|
|
Post by notmydad on May 19, 2019 16:59:03 GMT -5
Beware of gossip, rumors and vague polls. Any poll, vague or otherwise, IMO. I firmly believe many people who were planning to vote for trump in 2016 lied when they took part in polling, trying to make Hillary overconfident in key states. No way the polls could have been skewed that badly.
|
|
|
Post by notbob on May 19, 2019 17:07:57 GMT -5
Bernie only took money from small contributors.and lost for various reasons. He's offering an equitable system (socialism but remains beneath Biden in the polls. Sounds like America doesn't want a fair system. They prefer the good old boys setup. So, why insist on perfection in the system? Putin seems like the real threat. I suppose we can keep blathering about the corrupt campaign finances till "Red Dawn' happens for real. I know keith, and I know my stance is perhaps a little unrealistic at this point, but I believe with all my heart, it's what we should strive for. I don't care if it's BP or Oceana, sponsors shouldn't be allowed to manipulate elections...which simply means, we shouldn't allow sponsors to contribute any more money than what an average citizen might afford so as not to be noticed. We should ban PAC money, and lobbying perks more expensive than a pen, a coffee mug, or a golf towel with a logo on it. I'm not for pure socialism but I'm certainly not for pure capitalism either. Bernie's ideas are similar to Northern Europe which would be called social democracies and where the happiest people in the world live. Bernie may not be the most popular candidate and I doubt very much he can secure the nomination but his ideas are solid. That said, there are other candidates with similar ideas. I will likely vote for one of them in the primaries but if Biden is the nominee, he'll have my full, enthusiastic support.
|
|
|
Post by keith on May 19, 2019 19:08:58 GMT -5
OK notbob. I'm sure you understand my own agreement with your pursuit. I used to scream it...to no avail. I certainly don't wish to argue. Peace my friend.
|
|
|
Post by butterfly on May 19, 2019 22:42:53 GMT -5
If we could get rid of Citizens United it would go a long way toward solving some of this. Ridding our system of Citizens United won't be done in the courts, but it can be done legislatively. It's almost more important to flip the Senate than the presidency for that reason although I'm not convinced Democrats will overturn CU legislatively even if they have control of the executive and legislative branches since so many of them are happy reaping the benefits of being owned. As long as money dictates, we will have a lot of people entering politics for the money as opposed to working for the betterment of society. Congress CANNOT just pass a law to overturn a Supreme Court decision. The only ways Citizens United can be overturned are (1) for SCOTUS to overturn it or (2) via constitutional amendment.
SCOTUS VERY rarely overturns itself (stare decisis and all that) and IMHO the present court is extremely unlikely to overturn it due to this court's political makeup. A constitutional amendment takes forever, as it must be passed by two thirds of both houses of congress and then ratified by three quarters of the states; this whole process can take years and years and years. There is one other way, which has never been used, which is that two thirds of the states can ask congress to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments, and then any such proposed amendment must still be ratified by three fourths of the states (38 out of 50).
|
|