Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Joe Biden Debates Donald Trump September 29


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, CBH1926 said:

Single payer medical care failed in Vermont .

One of the bluest states with population of under 700k and 95% white.

 

Anyone who thinks this could work for the rest of the country is out of their mind.

Its like not being able to swim in 3 ft kids pool and deciding that you should try Bidwell Rapids on Chilko river next.

It will never work unless they could somehow manage to remove the "for profit" component. I think what makes the most sense is to keep private insurance for those with employer group plans and expand Medicaid for those who don't get insurance through their employer.

 

This is the problem with trying to win a nomination. The candidates are trying to appeal to an idealistic Democrat base, because they believe that some of these ideas are what is going to garner them the nomination. Meanwhile, the general public sees these ideas as too radical and those voters who might otherwise be convinced to vote for someone other than Trump, vote Republican again, because the Dems have put forth a candidate that they can't get behind.

 

These Democratic hopefuls have to walk a fine line. Be far enough left that delegates will consider them a viable candidate, but stay close enough to the center that the general population will vote for them. This is why Bernie is probably (or should be) sunk and the more likely candidates are Sleepy Joe, or possibly a darkhorse like Harris or Mayor Pete.

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

It will never work unless they could somehow manage to remove the "for profit" component. I think what makes the most sense is to keep private insurance for those with employer group plans and expand Medicaid for those who don't get insurance through their employer.

 

This is the problem with trying to win a nomination. The candidates are trying to appeal to an idealistic Democrat base, because they believe that some of these ideas are what is going to garner them the nomination. Meanwhile, the general public sees these ideas as too radical and those voters who might otherwise be convinced to vote for someone other than Trump, vote Republican again, because the Dems have put forth a candidate that they can't get behind.

 

These Democratic hopefuls have to walk a fine line. Be far enough left that delegates will consider them a viable candidate, but stay close enough to the center that the general population will vote for them. This is why Bernie is probably (or should be) sunk and the more likely candidates are Sleepy Joe, or possibly a darkhorse like Harris or Mayor Pete.

I could see a Joe/Harris ticket for the general. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2019 at 10:31 AM, RUPERTKBD said:

This is the problem with trying to win a nomination. The candidates are trying to appeal to an idealistic Democrat base, because they believe that some of these ideas are what is going to garner them the nomination. Meanwhile, the general public sees these ideas as too radical and those voters who might otherwise be convinced to vote for someone other than Trump, vote Republican again, because the Dems have put forth a candidate that they can't get behind.

 

These Democratic hopefuls have to walk a fine line. Be far enough left that delegates will consider them a viable candidate, but stay close enough to the center that the general population will vote for them. This is why Bernie is probably (or should be) sunk and the more likely candidates are Sleepy Joe, or possibly a darkhorse like Harris or Mayor Pete.

Agreed.

 

I wonder though, if this just provides more ammo for Trump and his name calling.  If the candidates can't stand up for what they believe in (moderating their stance after the primary) how suitable are they to lead?  At least that seems like a viable attack angle.  And, if they are too mild, like Uncle Joe, would they fare any better than Romney did?

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

Agreed.

 

I wonder though, if this just provides more ammo for Trump and his name calling.  If the candidates can't stand up for what they believe in (moderating their stance after the primary) how suitable are they to lead?  At least that seems like a viable attack angle.  And, if they are too mild, like Uncle Joe, would they fare any better than Romney did?

I'm sure it does and I fully expect Trump to be pounding the "Socialism" drum, loud and hard. It's one of the reasons that the Right and their proxies, like Faux News pay so much attention to the Squad. They really have little clout, but they would love to make it appear otherwise.

 

SE Cupp made an excellent point a few weeks ago, in regards to the rise of the far Left in the Democratic Party:

 

In 2009, the Tea Party was established as the "Far Right" if you will, in response to what their members considered the too moderate vision of the Republican Party. The influence of the Tea Party turned the Republican Party into something unrecognizable to many moderate Republicans like Cupp herself and some of the other more outspoken members of the Party like Ana Navarro and Max Boot.

 

This radicalization is part of what paved the way for Trump and if the Dems aren't careful, they can experience this same type of "takeover", only in their case, by the radical Left.

 

IMO, this is why people like Nancy Pelosi need to reign in the radicals. There's plenty of time for progressive-ism, but first thing first: They need to unseat Donald Trump.Then they can start gradually implementing policies like Green Energy and Education reform.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

I'm sure it does and I fully expect Trump to be pounding the "Socialism" drum, loud and hard. It's one of the reasons that the Right and their proxies, like Faux News pay so much attention to the Squad. They really have little clout, but they would love to make it appear otherwise.

 

SE Cupp made an excellent point a few weeks ago, in regards to the rise of the far Left in the Democratic Party:

 

In 2009, the Tea Party was established as the "Far Right" if you will, in response to what their members considered the too moderate vision of the Republican Party. The influence of the Tea Party turned the Republican Party into something unrecognizable to many moderate Republicans like Cupp herself and some of the other more outspoken members of the Party like Ana Navarro and Max Boot.

 

This radicalization is part of what paved the way for Trump and if the Dems aren't careful, they can experience this same type of "takeover", only in their case, by the radical Left.

 

IMO, this is why people like Nancy Pelosi need to reign in the radicals. There's plenty of time for progressive-ism, but first thing first: They need to unseat Donald Trump.Then they can start gradually implementing policies like Green Energy and Education reform.

I wonder if I agree w her on Tea Party impact.  The movement brought in some new blood, but how much has it really changed for the party? There's plenty of complaints if hypocrisy from Dem supporters regarding rising debt under GOP leadership.  And it is deserved.   No politician seems to consistently give a crap about spending, at least not when it comes time to vote on a bill.  The Tea Party, and to some degree the Donald, were supposed to address the debt.  Oops.

 

Might be right on it paving the way for Trump, though.  The tea party thought they were taxed enough.  I think the whole party, and many voters, have had enough of being called racists.  Going bombastic, and amping up the name calling as opposed to debating it, seems to work for Trump.

 

 

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

I wonder if I agree w her on Tea Party impact.  The movement brought in some new blood, but how much has it really changed for the party? There's plenty of complaints if hypocrisy from Dem supporters regarding rising debt under GOP leadership.  And it is deserved.   No politician seems to consistently give a crap about spending, at least not when it comes time to vote on a bill.  The Tea Party, and to some degree the Donald, were supposed to address the debt.  Oops.

 

Might be right on it paving the way for Trump, though.  The tea party thought they were taxed enough.  I think the whole party, and many voters, have had enough of being called racists.  Going bombastic, and amping up the name calling as opposed to debating it, seems to work for Trump.

 

 

It's all a matter of opinion, I suppose, but I see a lot of the "demonization" of the other side as a direct result of the rise of the Tea Party.

 

Over the past decade or so, I've seen a lot of stories about long-time moderate Republicans who were "primaried" by Tea Party candidates and Bi-partisanship seems to have definitely suffered as a result.

 

Certainly, the Democrats are responsible for this divide as well, but it seems to me that the tea Party was the impetus for the mess we have currently in the US political system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

It's all a matter of opinion, I suppose, but I see a lot of the "demonization" of the other side as a direct result of the rise of the Tea Party.

 

Over the past decade or so, I've seen a lot of stories about long-time moderate Republicans who were "primaried" by Tea Party candidates and Bi-partisanship seems to have definitely suffered as a result.

 

Certainly, the Democrats are responsible for this divide as well, but it seems to me that the tea Party was the impetus for the mess we have currently in the US political system.

Perhaps.  But demonization of the GOP goes way back, with perhaps every GOP president being likened to Hitler, since after Ike's time. 

 

The change brought by the tea party might just be an attempt to stop moderating the GOP.  The Bushes have shown little more than lip service on limiting government and spending.  McCain and Romney were quite moderate themselves. Conservatives, who should actually care about those two items a lot, need something else. 

 

As the mainstream GOP have moderated (fiscally, at least), haven't the Dems moved further away, to distinguish themselves from moderate GOP if nothing else?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, infinitecarnage said:

 

 

Yeah....too bad Faux isn't hosting the debates. Then we could hear, "Do you think Trump is the best president in the history of America or the best president in the history of the Universe?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Yeah....too bad Faux isn't hosting the debates. Then we could hear, "Do you think Trump is the best president in the history of America or the best president in the history of the Universe?"

At least we know that the debate would be fair and balanced. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 1:41 PM, HerrDrFunk said:

LOL. As a Metal Gear fan, I got a huge kick out of this (and quite a few wrong!): 

 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/is-this-quote-from-marianne-williamson-or-metal-gear-solid.html

I was addicted to the original when it came out. As soon as I completed the game the first time around and got the invisibility cloak (bandana?), all I did was choke out every single enemy soldier for what seemed like three days. Good times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

They should narrow this field, Harris, Biden, Sanders and Warren are the only ones they have a chance.

It will.  Next set of debates require 2% in polls and 135,000 unique campaign contributions.   There are a bunch who won't get there.  

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

Yeah well... apparently so do windmills, so...

 

what were they chanting?

Oh yeah, that is why I never wanted to live in the Netherlands.

I am not sure what they were screaming.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -DLC- locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...