Quest for the Presidency (2020 Edition)

[SanteeFats]

Yee Haw the more D's for POTUS the more fun just like the R's in '16.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

I don't see the problem with this quote. It's not too far off the truth. San Antonio, Las Vegas, Los Angeles did not get those names by accident.

The lands in question were taken via conquest, and we inherited a large Hispanic population along with those lands. I do not have a problem with any of our legitimate hard-working Hispanic citizens, who now after generations share our history and culture.

But those remarks give the impression that the lady in question would love to open the southern border and allow uncounted millions of poverty-stricken illiterate foreign nationals in here. This would be good for a Latino politician seeking more votes, not so good for society at large. That I do have a problem with.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

The lands in question were taken via conquest, and we inherited a large Hispanic population along with those lands. I do not have a problem with any of our legitimate hard-working Hispanic citizens, who now after generations share our history and culture.

But those remarks give the impression that the lady in question would love to open the southern border and allow uncounted millions of poverty-stricken illiterate foreign nationals in here. This would be good for a Latino politician seeking more votes, not so good for society at large. That I do have a problem with.

Funny, it never seem to be a problem when we were deposing and inserting leaders amiable to our business interests, so why is it a problem now that the leaders we inserted now made Life uninhabitable for the people that are now trying to get in the country. like it or not we are responsible for the plight of those people are in.

[turat]

It's been 23 months and we get this? This is unacceptable! From the UK Daily Mail no less.

Please keep the attacks coming!





Trump's approval rating among likely voters soars to his best in 23 MONTHS at 52 per cent after State of the Union address as border-wall shutdown talks intensify

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...S-52-cent.html

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by turat

It's been 23 months and we get this? This is unacceptable! From the UK Daily Mail no less.

Please keep the attacks coming!





Trump's approval rating among likely voters soars to his best in 23 MONTHS at 52 per cent after State of the Union address as border-wall shutdown talks intensify

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...S-52-cent.html

Rasmussen Reports have consistently shown a Republican bias. A YouGov poll conducted in the same time frame shows Trump at 42% approval.

That being said, given the bias built into the Electoral College it is possible that the Rasmussen Report is telling us something. Namely. that Trump is despised by well over half the voters nationwide, but would still win reelection while a substantial majority of the popular vote goes against him. 38% of the voters live in the FoxNews echo chamber.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

The lands in question were taken via conquest, and we inherited a large Hispanic population along with those lands. I do not have a problem with any of our legitimate hard-working Hispanic citizens, who now after generations share our history and culture.

But those remarks give the impression that the lady in question would love to open the southern border and allow uncounted millions of poverty-stricken illiterate foreign nationals in here. This would be good for a Latino politician seeking more votes, not so good for society at large. That I do have a problem with.

A. First, said immigrants would have to apply for citizenship, pass the citizenship exam, and be granted citizenship before they could vote.

B. Secondly, the folks tend to be very conservative and would seem to gravitate naturally to the Republican Party were it not for that party's racist policies and scapegoating of Latinos.

If historical trends continued, the first generation would rarely become voters, the second generation would largely sit things out because they find neither party appealing, and the third generation would be normal Americans split along the current philosophical lines.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

Funny, it never seem to be a problem when we were deposing and inserting leaders amiable to our business interests, so why is it a problem now that the leaders we inserted now made Life uninhabitable for the people that are now trying to get in the country. like it or not we are responsible for the plight of those people are in.

Bolded is a matter of conjecture. Yes, we do have SOME responsibility, I suppose.

But many of our own people are hurting now thanks to the decisions of our masters regarding economic affairs over the last several decades.

I would prefer we put our own house in order and raise the living standards for our own people first. Once we actually "Make America great Again" - and I don't expect our current incumbent to actually have much to do with that - we can start having some sympathy for those poor huddled starving masses outside the door once again.

[Quackerson]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

You might be right, but I would point out that if she bothers to campaign, speak, debate, meet voters and talk meaningfully about issues which impact their lives, she's bound to do better than Hillary Clinton in key battleground states which Ms Clinton barely even visited.

Dunno 'bout that.

I wouldn't say Gillibrand is bound to do better than Hillary Clinton in key battleground states just by default of Gillibrand running: again, her televised rollout on Colbert was far less than meaningful in terms of what she said and the generalized platitudes she offered.

Right now, Gillibrand has a certain amount of NYC-centric press coverage (NYTimes, New York magazine, etc.) by virtue of being the Senator from New York. As to if that has even translated thus far into mere name recognition in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and the like has yet to be determined.

She also has very centrist (nay, conservative) roots within the Democratic Party: she has paid a lot of lip service over the last few years to liberal/progressive platform stances, but her actual record in terms of the things she DID as a private citizen (defending Big Tobacco as a lawyer) and as an elected official (voting to defund sanctuary cities, voting to secure gun owner rights) isn't going to bode well for her if the Democratic Party is more left-leaning than centrist in the 2020 election cycle.

She may well be less widely disliked than Hillary Clinton was/is, but that doesn't necessarily mean she'll automatically outperform Clinton in 2020 should [Gillibrand] secure the nomination. That Gillibrand cut her political teeth as a Clinton democrat in 2000 and was appointed to Clinton's seat in 2009, along with her centrist actions, won't exactly help shed her (deserved) characterization as Hillary-lite.

But, fuck me, who knows? One thing is for sure: Gillibrand - along with every other Democratic hopeful re: 2020 Presidential Election - will have to work to distinguish herself from her multitude of competitors, since the 2020 Democratic nomination won't be a fait accompli a la Hillary in 2016.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

But many of our own people are hurting now thanks to the decisions of our masters regarding economic affairs over the last several decades.

I would prefer we put our own house in order and raise the living standards for our own people first. Once we actually "Make America great Again" - and I don't expect our current incumbent to actually have much to do with that - we can start having some sympathy for those poor huddled starving masses outside the door once again.

What you're going to have to resign yourself to is that when the White House's current occupant talks about "making America great again" he is not talking about you. As a matter of fact I do not see any difference between the current president and the last one. Lock both sides play is they play up the social issues in order to divert attention to the economic ones in which they both is essentially do the same thing just at a different speed this is why no matter who you choose you essentially end up with the same results.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

What you're going to have to resign yourself to is that when the White House's current occupant talks about "making America great again" he is not talking about you.

I already have.

I am hoping against hope that someone genuine comes along and really changes things, but the prospects for that are dim.