HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » jg10003 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Nov 5, 2010, 11:18 PM
Number of posts: 800

Journal Archives

I have decided upon my candidate. Permit to explain my conclusions

After careful consideration I have decided upon my candidate. Permit to explain my conclusions regarding each of our contenders.

Harris: I am bothered by her equivocation on universal healthcare. However I think she would be a good choice for attorney general and a great choice for the supreme court.

Booker: Too many ties to Wall Street for my taste.

Buttigieg: This was a tough decision. I like Pete, he is super smart, sincere, and youthful (I’m a senior citizen). His approach to universal healthcare makes sense to me. But there are two reasons why I decided against him.

First, I am afraid that he comes across as a technocrat, like Hillary, Gore, and Dukakis. It has been said that a presidential election is like High School. People vote for the charming class president (Bill Clinton), the cool guy who gets along with everyone (Obama), and the party dude (Bush 43). But they don’t vote for the smartest kid, the one who reminds the teacher to give homework. It’s good to be smarter then everyone else as long as you don’t make too obvious. Pete speaks seven languages, and many Americans will think less of him because of it.

The second reason I decided against Pete is the 600 pound gorilla in the room, the uncomfortable question that must be asked; can a gay man be elected? I know that just asking the question will get some people here angry and I sympathize with them. But it cannot be denied that there are some people who will never vote for a gay man under any circumstances. The question is; are there enough of these homophobic idiots to affect the election outcome? I don’t know the answer to that question. However if being gay costs Pete 1000 votes in Virginia and another 1000 votes in Florida, that might be enough to give the election to Trump. I don’t think the United States can survive another four years of Trump. Nominating Pete is a risk that I am not willing to take. Pete may very well be president someday, but this is not his time.

Biden: The focus of the election must be on Trump and the harm he has done to the nation. the Dems must keep hammering Trump on his lying, his lack of ethics, and his incompetence. This leads to the problem with Biden, namely his gaffes. I know that there is a lot more to Biden then his silly and unimportant gaffes. Biden is smart, he is one of the most experienced candidates in history, and for 50 years he has been on the right side of the issues (most of the time). But every time Biden makes one of his gaffes it diverts attention from Trump’s unfitness for office. Whenever Biden makes a gaffe it dominates the news for 48 - 72 hours. That is 3 days when Trump’s unfitness is not the lead story. Our nominee must stay on message, and that message is Trump is unfit and dangerous. There can be no distractions from that message. Trump is a master at distraction and at attacking opponents. If Biden is the nominee, Trump will make Biden’s fitness for office an issue. For this reason I do not believe that Biden can defeat Trump.

Sanders and Warren: So that leaves Sanders and Warren, which admittedly is where I wanted to be from the standpoint of my ideological outlook. The policy differences between them are to small to bother mentioning. Besides every president has to compromise, no one gets everything they want. So the question is who has the better chance of winning.

Do not underestimate Trump. He is a master of destroying his opponents. Remember “Crooked Hillary”, “Lying Ted”, “Little Marco”, “Low Energy Jeb”. These were immature schoolyard bullying taunts, but it worked. When Warren released her DNA test she did exactly what Trump wanted. Although I am sure Warren is too smart to make the same mistake twice, we can expect “Pocahontas” to be the 2020 version of “Crooked Hillary”.

It is interesting to note that Trump has yet to come up an insulting nickname for Sanders. “Crazy Bernie” refers to his policies, not his character. This is due to something for which Sanders is often criticized, not appealing to people emotionally. We all know that Sanders does not like talking about his life, his background, making small talk, etc. However this is what gives Sanders his advantage. Nothing distracts him from his message. As I said before, the way to beat Trump is to keep the discussion on Trump. No matter what juvenile insults, lies, and accusations Trump makes, Sanders will always stick to his message. If Sanders is the nominee I imagine the political conversation will go something like this:
Reporter: Senator, Trump has said you are a crazy old man. Your response?
Bernie: Medical care is a right not a privilege.
Reporter: Senator, Trump called your wife a “fatty”. What do you say to him?
Bernie: It is time for the top 1 percent to pay their fair share of taxes.
Reporter: Trump claims that your great-grandfather killed Abraham Lincoln.
Bernie: Public college should be tuition free.

Trump cannot make the election about Bernie or distract the press and public with trivialities. Bernie is to focused on his message, and to smart to fall into any trap set for him.

One more thing. we all know that whoever is the nominee, the republicans will say he or she is a socialist. If Biden or Warren is the nominee they will have to constantly explain why they are not a socialist. This puts them in a defensive position, which is never a good thing. If Sanders is the nominee he will say “yes I am a socialist and this is what I believe...”. And since Sanders has been explaining democratic socialism for 50 years, this puts him in the very position he wants. For these reasons i believe Sanders has the best chance of winning.

Warren is great, but I fear she may get the Al Gore treatment from the press.

For most of his career Gore had a reputation as being a boy scout. His honesty and integrity were unchallenged. Karl Rove then employed his strategy of attacking his opponent's strength, and the media went along with it (the internet, Love Canal, Love Story, etc). Soon many people believed that Gore was the biggest liar since Nixon.

trump has already shown that he will try to make Warren's credibility an issue. He will claim that she lied about her being part Native American, and that all of her many accomplishments in life are due to affirmative action based on that lie. This tactic will resonate for many people who are opposed to affirmative action. The media will report trump's allegations in a misguided attempt to be even handed (the old problem of false equivalency). Also because it makes for entertaining TV and a close race is good for ratings.

I think Warren would be a great president, but I am worried that she may get Gored.

I had a strange and scary thought; after trump loses he defects to Russia to avoid prison.

trump knows that he will be indicted by SDNY on January 21st. So after the inauguration of a democratic president on January 20 he gets on his jet and flies to Moscow. Putin gives him a luxurious retirement in exchange for information on nuclear secrets, the CIA, our Nato allies, etc.

Farfetched? Maybe. But these days anything is possible.

How can trump impose tariffs without congressional approval? I thought that only congress...

can impose taxes.

A larger question: What rights do prisoners forfeit and retain.

Most prisoners are citizens or legal residents. Pete is right when he says that prisoners give up rights, specifically the right to freedom. However they do retain other rights, such as freedom of religion. So the question is “what other rights do prisoners forfeit and which do they retain.

I suggest that prisoners forfeit any right that is incompatible with incarceration. For example, the right to bear arms is incompatible with keeping a person in prison (even the NRA would not suggest that prison inmates have a right to have a gun). Fourth amendment rights regarding warrantless searches are also incompatible with maintaining a prison. However free speech and prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishments can be protected without compromising the operation of a prison.

Allowing prisoners to vote does not interfere with the functioning of a prison. Therefore prisoners have a right to vote.

Upper middle class is not the same as rich. A two income family of professionals (dentists, ....

lawyers, CPAs', systems analyst, etc) will have an income in the low six figures. With intelligent budgeting, and conservative investments (e.g; a couple of rental properties or long term mutual funds), they can expect to have $2,000,0000 by retirement. That allows them a comfortable retirement without constant finiancial worries. But they are not wealthy. There won't be any 200 foot yachts, private jets, or 30 room mansions. Although they are better of than many, or even most, people, they are not part of the plutocracy that runs the world.

An honest question from an old man about proper LGBTQ nomenclature

I fully support equal rights for everyone, including LGBTQ. However I am in my 60's and a bit confused. When I was young "queer" was an insult. Today it's the last letter of LGBTQ. What, if any, is the difference between gay and queer. Also lately I have been seeing LGBTQIA, which leaves me saying to myself, "huh". I don't mean to offend anyone, I just genuinely want to understand. Thank you.

Shakespare predicted trump and McCain, only he named them Macbeth and Banquo

“By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes.”
the witches (describing Macbeth), act III scene IV

"Lesser than Macbeth, and greater."......Not so happy, yet much happier.
the witches (describing Banquo), act I scene III

"In the great hand of God I stand; and thence
Against the undivulg'd pretence I fight
Of treasonous malice!"
Banquo, act II scene III

"Thou canst not say I did it: never shake
Thy gory locks at me."
Macbeth (upon seeing Banquo's ghost), act III scene IV

A Princess Vanishes. A Video Offers Alarming Clues.

Source: New York Times

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The princess known as Sheikha Latifa had not left Dubai, the glittering emirate ruled by her father, in 18 years. Her requests to travel and study elsewhere had been denied. Her passport had been taken away. Her friends’ apartments were forbidden to her, her palace off-limits to them.

“There’s no justice here,” she said in a video she secretly recorded last year. “Especially if you’re a female, your life is so disposable.”

So it was with a jolt of astonishment that her friends overseas read a WhatsApp message from her last March announcing that she had left Dubai “for good.”

Her escape — planned over several years with the help of a Finnish capoeira trainer and a self-proclaimed French ex-spy — lasted less than a week.

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/10/world/middleeast/princess-latifa-sheikha-dubai.html

Fox legal analyst; Trump violated the law by appointing Matt Whitaker as acting attorney general


Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano....explained that Whitaker was not confirmed by the Senate and therefore violates the law.

“Under the law, the person running the Department of Justice must have been approved by the United States Senate for some previous position. Even on an interim post,” Napolitano said.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »