Kansas Crimson

Posted: **Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:08 am**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:34 am Corporations demonize themselves.

We need to gravitate away from the era of candidates being vaguely “pro-business,” and corporations being able to socialize losses and privatize profits, and avoid paying taxes to boot.

On a related note, I’m amazed how many voters will vilify poor folks on food stamps, while shrugging off big businesses that get more gummint handouts than anyone

These are the same people who celebrate the ICE raid in Mississippi but don't care that the CEO of the company that hired illegal aliens gets off with a slap on the wrist (if that).

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:11 pm**

Yes! Do this Hickenlooper!

(Can't believe Nostralobster didn't inform us of this, last Spring:)

Posted: **Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:25 pm**

Go Julian!

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:33 pm**

Gotta wonder if chiknbut isn't behind this:

Joe Walsh: Trump Needs a Primary Challenge

The case for a contender from the right.

[...]

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:40 pm**

...goals were conservative and clear: restrain executive power and reduce the debt.

lulz

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:48 pm**

and this part of the article should be dissected:

I didn’t vote for Mr. Trump in 2016 because I liked him. I voted for him because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton. Once he was elected, I gave him a fair hearing, and tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. But I soon realized that I couldn’t support him because of the danger he poses to the country, especially the division he sows at every chance, culminating a few weeks ago in his ugly, racist attack on four minority congresswomen.

This is the same refrain as beaverfever and so many other conservatives.

How and why did they wait to give him a fair hearing “once he was elected?” What about Trump’s campaign, or anything else, deserved the benefit of the doubt? How did it take such voters so long do decide they couldn’t support him?

As if there were no red flags prior to the election.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:55 pm**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:48 pm and this part of the article should be dissected:

How and why did they wait to give him a fair hearing “once he was elected?” What about Trump’s campaign, or anything else, deserved the benefit of the doubt? How did it take such voters so long do decide they couldn’t support him?

As if there were no red flags prior to the election.

Obviously they only use the "give him a fair hearing" bullshit because it makes them feel less guilty about inflicting Trump on the rest of the world.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:01 pm**

Perhaps the real question is, how many conservatives feel guilty about inflicting Trump on the rest of the world, and how many are gleeful that they finally got the guy they’d been waiting for.

Posted: **Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:27 pm**

I get the impression that Sanders and Warren will team up. Could be wrong, as there's a long way to go, but that's what I would put my money on right now. Would prefer Yang/Gabbard ticket, but I think it will probably be Sanders/Warren.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:10 am**

While on one hand I dig many of their policies, on the other hand that ticket is damn near 150 years old!

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:30 am**

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:27 pm I get the impression that Sanders and Warren will team up. Could be wrong, as there's a long way to go, but that's what I would put my money on right now. Would prefer Yang/Gabbard ticket, but I think it will probably be Sanders/Warren.

Hmmmm. So which one is the presidential nominee and which one is the running mate?
What are those in the know (that you know personally) telling you?

The bad joke is the Dems will be running their candidate against a complete piece of shit person - and they very well may lose.
Speaks volumes about the Democratic Party - and the voters in this country.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:52 am**

Sanders and Warren are too radical for the average good folks. That’s what it says.

Give us a ticket that ain’t too radical.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:57 am**

lobster wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:27 pm I get the impression that Sanders and Warren will team up. Could be wrong, as there's a long way to go, but that's what I would put my money on right now. Would prefer Yang/Gabbard ticket, but I think it will probably be Sanders/Warren.

I seriously doubt that Sanders &/or Warren are naive enough to choose the other for a running mate, should they ever be in such a position. And because of that, I'd be thrilled to take the other side of the bet where you "would put your money". The people who support either one of them are probably close to 95% likely to support the other one. Where's the general election strategy in that? Why do you think the knee-grow Muslim from Kenya picked Joe Biden as a running mate in 2008? Why do you think Trump picked Pence? Why did GW Bush pick Cheney? I'll spare you the details, but it was to broaden their appeal, to pull in voters in the general eletion who otherwise wouldn't vote for them.

Besides, why would Warren let Sanders hold her back?

Warren leaps ahead of Sanders in new Fox News poll where all top Democrats beat Trump

A Fox News poll released Thursday found Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) in the same place they were in March — 31 percent for Biden and 8 percent for Harris — while the two candidates in between them swapped places. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is now in second place in the Democratic presidential race, with 20 percent, according to the new Fox News poll, while Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) now has 10 percent. No other candidate tops 3 percent.

In March, Sanders was at 23 percent and Warren at 4 percent; she has gained ground steadily since then in the Fox News polls, and her "gains come at Sanders' expense," Fox News reports. Each of the top Democrats beats President Trump in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup, Biden by 12 points, Sanders by 9, Warren by 7, and Harris by 6 points, right at the margin of error. Trump doesn't hit 40 percent in any of the matchups.

All of the top Democrats currently have net positive favorability ratings in the poll — Biden is +8, Sanders +7, Warren +6, Harris +1 — while Trump is at -14 (42 percent to 56 percent). "Voters who have a negative view of both Biden and Trump back Biden by a 43-10 percent margin in the head-to-head matchup," Fox News said.

[...]

Anything, anything can happen between now and Nov. of 2020, but this is a FOX news poll, and the numbers and trends don't look so good for an incumbent candidate, at least at this point. Think about it, Trump doesn't break 40% against any of the democrats.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:09 am**

I think there's some polling that indicates that the second choice of Sanders voters is, surprisingly, Biden, not Warren.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:07 pm**

What is the deadline for Republicans to get some names in for a presidential primary?
And what happened to Paul Ryan (you remember the guy... was on the 2012 R ticket as Vice President, is from the swing state of Wisconsin, was the Majority Leader, ducked out of taking in Trump)?

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:15 pm**

DrPepper wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:07 pm And what happened to Paul Ryan ......?

MISSING......presumed looking for his spine

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:30 pm**

Fox board of directors.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:36 pm**

Bill Weld is in I believe. Former libertarian.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:38 pm**

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:52 am Sanders and Warren are too radical for the average good folks. That’s what it says.

Give us a ticket that ain’t too radical.

I think we've passed that line of electing traditional politicians. I could be wrong, so take this with a grain of salt, but I think having two radical candidates would get enough of their base to show up and vote. We know the left tends to not get out and vote like the right base does, but having a radical ticket could inspire them to actually vote.

@Shirley, Sanders is doing better than Warren right now. His Joe Rogan podcast boosted his likability and I would not rely too much on those mainstream media polls. There's no way Sanders would become a vice president at this time, so it makes more sense that Warren would become his vice president. Also, a lot of voters would rather have a male president and this can improve the chances if Sanders is the president candidate.

A lot can change though and it's still very early.

Posted: **Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:56 pm**

Why would Sanders not be a VP now? Do you attribute this to Sanders or to voters?

Whould “a lot of voters” choose a woman over an out gay man?

Kansas Crimson

who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?