Whom Should the Dems Run for President in 2020?

[EagleSmack]

I think that the public will not stand for "cyclical changes" if the Democrats carry out the changes which I suggested.

And this is telling...

I can see it now... "The public demands that we end elections!"

It reminds me of a Politician who took advantage of every political junket. His response was "My constituents want me to go to these conferences." Firm in his belief that his numerous attendances to sunny warm places paid for by the taxpayers and lobbyists was approved of without reservation.

 

[Twin_Moose]

And this is telling...

I can see it now... "The public demands that we end elections!"

It reminds me of a Politician who took advantage of every political junket. His response was "My constituents want me to go to these conferences." Firm in his belief that his numerous attendances to sunny warm places paid for by the taxpayers and lobbyists was approved of without reservation.

Digit doesn't realize that the "cyclical changes" are needed to keep the pendulum from swinging to far to one side or the other in the political spectrum

 

[EagleSmack]

The only reason the Dems. appear to be moving in this direction is to cultivate the youth vote that want a cradle to grave support policy.

If achieved it could last for a time. But it is unsustainable of course. The youth do turn 26 at some point and the ideals like that are seen for what they are. Then another group of youth comes behind. Look at our aging hippies! The group that had so many ideals and dreams of revolution are now being ridiculed by the millennials just as the Boomers ridiculed the Greatest Generation as they aged.

Oh and guess what... the children being born today are not millennials. Yes... the millennials are entering the work place and they are having a wee bit of difficulty accepting the facts of life.

Digit doesn't realize that the "cyclical changes" are needed to keep the pendulum from swinging to far to one side or the other in the political spectrum

He's a dreamer.

 

[Walter]

It was already booming when loud-mouth was elected.

Record black and Latino and women employment. More jobs available than workers to fill them. Yer so full of shit.

Hi! EagleSmack

I think that the public will not stand for "cyclical changes" if the Democrats carry out the changes which I suggested. There are 84 million Americans living below the poverty line and it is only going to get worse. If another huge downturn like 2008 takes place, there will be demands to Nationalize Real Estate and Health Care.

Where do you get yer shit statistics?

 

[Hoid]

Record black and Latino and women employment. More jobs available than workers to fill them. Yer so full of shit.


Where do you get yer shit statistics?

how could yuo be so underwater on GE?

It took something extra special to pick a loser out of all those winners.

 

[Twin_Moose]

If achieved it could last for a time. But it is unsustainable of course. The youth do turn 26 at some point and the ideals like that are seen for what they are. Then another group of youth comes behind. Look at our aging hippies! The group that had so many ideals and dreams of revolution are now being ridiculed by the millennials just as the Boomers ridiculed the Greatest Generation as they aged.

Oh and guess what... the children being born today are not millennials. Yes... the millennials are entering the work place and they are having a wee bit of difficulty accepting the facts of life.

I agree and a lot of this is being drummed into them on school campuses, no basis in real life, the it's not fair crowd has a larger voice until they move onto life and find out the real world is not fair to everyone, and never will be.

 

[Hoid]

Record black and Latino and women employment. More jobs available than workers to fill them. Yer so full of shit.


Where do you get yer shit statistics?

at least change back to the right identity to answer questions about it?

you've been doing all day every day for how many years now?

 

[JLM]

Hillary is history. The on-going obcession with Hillary is used to deflect away from the serious shortcomings of the POTUS.

That baffles me a little bit. Short comings of the POTUS wouldn't be concern if people would just reflect for a moment on what the alternative could have been on 11/8/16.

 

[Twin_Moose]

And she is still running around and crying that it was her turn, if she can't let go how can the country? smooth transition of power :lol:

 

[JLM]

And she is still running around and crying that it was her turn, if she can't let go how can the country? smooth transition of power :lol:

Sure would have been nice to be a fly on the wall wherever Hillary was that night! :lol:

 

[Walter]

Sure would have been nice to be a fly on the wall wherever Hillary was that night! :lol:

She got drunk and started throwing things.

 

[JLM]

She got drunk and started throwing things.

Just that fact alone should disqualify her from EVER being president (or head dog catcher)

 

[OpposingDigit]

I never suggested anything about not having elections or the like .....

I think that if the Democrats increased the supreme court to 15 judges and that the Citizens United decision and public financing of elections and healthcare and education all be public funded and without private choice ..... No other politician would ever be elected if they ever suggested going back to these issues once the Democrat appointed judges had reversed all opposing rulings pertaining to healthcare and election funding and education being totally public funding.

As a last resort, the Democrats could turn to the constitution and place as many justices as necessary on the supreme court in order to reverse the Marbury versus Madison decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

In the U.S., the constitution (1787) gave all the power to elected representatives, but in 1803 a rightwing justice changed the system all by his lonesome (Marbury versus Madison) and which gave all the power to the Supreme Court and said that it could strike down any law passed in congress.

What we are seeing today is a supreme court acting out of "Political" bias. Therefore, they should not have absolute power over elected "Political" representatives.

 

[Vbeacher]

Joe Biden is a clear choice, if he wishes to do it. I wouldn't blame him if he bolts from the paddock, though.

Biden would be great except for his age. He'll be 77 by then. Actually, his birthday is Nov 20 so he'll be near enough 78.

That baffles me a little bit. Short comings of the POTUS wouldn't be concern if people would just reflect for a moment on what the alternative could have been on 11/8/16.

Intelligent, stable government?

 

[EagleSmack]

Biden would be great except for his age. He'll be 77 by then. Actually, his birthday is Nov 20 so he'll be near enough 78.

That would be an interesting election. But I wonder if he would be able to mobilize the Alt-Left and Sander's people.

 

[Walter]

The next thing Biden gets right about foreign policy will be the first thing he gets right about foreign policy.

 

[EagleSmack]

The next thing Biden gets right about foreign policy will be the first thing he gets right about foreign policy.

Never mind that they would run out all of his quotes from his early years and his inability to control himself from groping.

He'd get a good thrashing.

 

[Twin_Moose]

I never suggested anything about not having elections or the like .....

I think that if the Democrats increased the supreme court to 15 judges and that the Citizens United decision and public financing of elections and healthcare and education all be public funded and without private choice ..... No other politician would ever be elected if they ever suggested going back to these issues once the Democrat appointed judges had reversed all opposing rulings pertaining to healthcare and election funding and education being totally public funding.

As a last resort, the Democrats could turn to the constitution and place as many justices as necessary on the supreme court in order to reverse the Marbury versus Madison decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

In the U.S., the constitution (1787) gave all the power to elected representatives, but in 1803 a rightwing justice changed the system all by his lonesome (Marbury versus Madison) and which gave all the power to the Supreme Court and said that it could strike down any law passed in congress.

What we are seeing today is a supreme court acting out of "Political" bias. Therefore, they should not have absolute power over elected "Political" representatives.

So how would it be a democratic society if the only judges allowed would be liberal?

 

[JLM]

Biden would be great except for his age. He'll be 77 by then. Actually, his birthday is Nov 20 so he'll be near enough 78.



Intelligent, stable government?

But totally dishonest and corrupt! Actually what it would have been would be a third term of old Bill! (He might be a wee bit safer with the likes of Monica)

 

[OpposingDigit]

Hi! Twin Moose

Good Point. That is why I think that they should reverse the Marbury versus Madison decision and have Congress with final say and not the supreme court. Congress can change laws anytime, but the supreme court rulings last 2 generations.