My suggestion for the Dems in 2020: Ro Khanna

LAX772LR · Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:13 am

So I gotz me an idea:

First, let's quickly run through the list of "inevitables" for the 2020 Dem Presidential nomination:

KAMALA HARRIS - boring lightweight with no record of accomplishment on a national level, fodder for Trump's footprints.
JOE BIDEN - because baggaged recycled-leftovers from the Obama administration, are the proven way to beat Trump.
ELIZABETH WARREN - like Chris Christie, she had her time, and missed it. Now, she's just an also-ran for....
...BERNIE SANDERS - good luck getting the Left to not tear itself apart in the primary; way too much bad-blood still.
MARTIN O'MALLEY - every race could use a dash of DILF, but not sure what he'd actually accomplish over last time.
CORY BOOKER - the Far Left has already sworn on their grandpa's graves, that they'll abandon the Dems if they run Booker. He's Public Enemy#2 to them, and there's absolutely no reason not to take them at their word, especially after 2016.

***************************************************
So, who's left?

My suggestion would be Congressman Ro Khanna:

https://khanna.house.gov/about/about-rep-khanna

Hear me out:
Clean personal record, aggressive in the house, walks a good populist game but realizes that things need to be paid for, from California, Indian-American, beloved by the Bernie-crowd and works well with the Clinton crowd, doesn't take money from PACs nor Corporations, and young (41) with vitality.

And probably what I personally like most about him; he's not afraid to go on Fox News and take his points straight to them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Beu9k794QT0

Could be the one to finally start uniting the Left, versus further divulging into the corporate/establishment wing vs the socialist/progressive wing that we've seen over the past two years.

Your thoughts? What say you?

BobPatterson · Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:48 am

Forget Khanna, go with Kamala.

Charisma counts.

NIKV69 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:38 am

LAX772LR wrote:
So I gotz me an idea:

First, let's quickly run through the list of "inevitables" for the 2020 Dem Presidential nomination:
KAMALA HARRIS - boring lightweight with no record of accomplishment on a national level, fodder for Trump's footprints.
JOE BIDEN - because baggaged recycled-leftovers from the Obama administration, are the proven way to beat Trump.
ELIZABETH WARREN - like Chris Christie, she had her time, and missed it. Now, she's just an also-ran for....
...BERNIE SANDERS - good luck getting the Left to not tear itself apart in the primary; way too much bad-blood still.
MARTIN O'MALLEY - every race could use a dash of DILF, but not sure what he'd actually accomplish over last time.
CORY BOOKER - the Far Left has already sworn on their grandpa's graves, that they'll abandon the Dems if they run Booker. He's Public Enemy#2 to them, and there's absolutely no reason not to take them at their word, especially after 2016.

***************************************************
So, who's left?

My suggestion would be Congressman Ro Khanna:

https://khanna.house.gov/about/about-rep-khanna

Hear me out:
Clean personal record, aggressive in the house, walks a good populist game but realizes that things need to be paid for, from California, Indian-American, beloved by the Bernie-crowd and works well with the Clinton crowd, doesn't take money from PACs nor Corporations, and young (41) with vitality.

And probably what I personally like most about him; he's not afraid to go on Fox News and take his points straight to them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Beu9k794QT0

Could be the one to finally start uniting the Left, versus further divulging into the corporate/establishment wing vs the socialist/progressive wing that we've seen over the past two years.

Your thoughts? What say you?

Two words..

Andrew Cuomo

Eyad89 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:41 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Forget Khanna, go with Kamala.

Charisma counts.

How did Trump win then? Don't tell me some folks really see him as charismatic :shock:

ltbewr · Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:54 am

NIKV69 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:

Two words..

Andrew Cuomo

He has his own baggage that would be unacceptable. He is facing several corruption issues, a sellout to Wall Street, another phony neo-liberal who cannot hold a candle to his father's legacy.

petertenthije · Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:37 am

It would be better for the democrats to wait announcing anyone or even showing remote interest for the job. Otherwise Fox, Breitbart and the likes have 2 years to create just as toxic an atmosphere around <insert name> as they did with Clinton.

einsteinboricua · Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:34 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Forget Khanna, go with Kamala.

Charisma counts.

How did Trump win then? Don't tell me some folks really see him as charismatic

They found Clinton less charismatic.

LAX772LR wrote:
My suggestion would be Congressman Ro Khanna:

Let's see...person of color, from a safe CA district, only serving his first term in office (presumably 2nd if he decides to run for reelection). Not bad, but falls WAY short on many key aspects.

1. Being from California. Enough has been said about Democrats pandering only to coastal regions. I prefer Democrats pick someone from the heartland.
2. Being just in the House. It's hard for Reps to run for multiple offices. If he fares badly in early primaries, he'll switch to run for reelection (unless he's willing to risk it all), and that's assuming that CA law allows a person's name to be printed for multiple positions on the same ballot. Not only that, but to have been only 3 years in the House? I mean, sure, Obama only had 4 years in the Senate before being elected, but he had political experience in IL's legislature. And sure, Trump didn't have any political experience (but I would like to think that 2016 was an exception). And he'll be sure to hammer Ro for being a novice (especially if he has no significant legislative achievements under his name).
3. Military experience. Didn't serve. That doesn't bode well for Democrats trying to convince veterans that they DO care for them.
4. Religion. Sure, he may be Hinduist (assuming...which to many would be like "meh...") but in an era of misinformation, don't be surprised if he has to spend more time convincing folks that he's not Muslim and disproving lies rather than on the issues. We already saw this with Obama.

Ro would have much higher visibility running for Senate (sorry Feinstein, but we need new blood) and not just serving a district in the Bay area.

Democrats have plenty of options in the heartland, though it all depends on whether they want to run or not.

My option: Jason Kander from MO. SoS for 8 years in a GOP-leaning state, Army captain (served in Afghanistan), almost unseated Roy Blunt, and hails from a midwestern state with no Ivy League credentials (ie. not your typical liberal elite).

cledaybuck · Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:06 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Forget Khanna, go with Kamala.

Charisma counts.

How did Trump win then? Don't tell me some folks really see him as charismatic

They found Clinton less charismatic.

LAX772LR wrote:
My suggestion would be Congressman Ro Khanna:

Let's see...person of color, from a safe CA district, only serving his first term in office (presumably 2nd if he decides to run for reelection). Not bad, but falls WAY short on many key aspects.

1. Being from California. Enough has been said about Democrats pandering only to coastal regions. I prefer Democrats pick someone from the heartland.
2. Being just in the House. It's hard for Reps to run for multiple offices. If he fares badly in early primaries, he'll switch to run for reelection (unless he's willing to risk it all), and that's assuming that CA law allows a person's name to be printed for multiple positions on the same ballot. Not only that, but to have been only 3 years in the House? I mean, sure, Obama only had 4 years in the Senate before being elected, but he had political experience in IL's legislature. And sure, Trump didn't have any political experience (but I would like to think that 2016 was an exception). And he'll be sure to hammer Ro for being a novice (especially if he has no significant legislative achievements under his name).
3. Military experience. Didn't serve. That doesn't bode well for Democrats trying to convince veterans that they DO care for them.
4. Religion. Sure, he may be Hinduist (assuming...which to many would be like "meh...") but in an era of misinformation, don't be surprised if he has to spend more time convincing folks that he's not Muslim and disproving lies rather than on the issues. We already saw this with Obama.

Ro would have much higher visibility running for Senate (sorry Feinstein, but we need new blood) and not just serving a district in the Bay area.

Democrats have plenty of options in the heartland, though it all depends on whether they want to run or not.

My option: Jason Kander from MO. SoS for 8 years in a GOP-leaning state, Army captain (served in Afghanistan), almost unseated Roy Blunt, and hails from a midwestern state with no Ivy League credentials (ie. not your typical liberal elite).

Does any of that matter?
1. Our current president is from probably the most elite coastal region in the country. His opponent was born in the Midwest and spent a huge amount of her life in Arkansas.
2. Our current president had no political experience whatsoever.
3. Our current president didn't serve.
4. Our current president isn't religious at all.

einsteinboricua · Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:27 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
]Does any of that matter?
1. Our current president is from probably the most elite coastal region in the country. His opponent was born in the Midwest and spent a huge amount of her life in Arkansas.
2. Our current president had no political experience whatsoever.
3. Our current president didn't serve.
4. Our current president isn't religious at all.

If you wanna convince independents and reluctant Republicans and Democrats that you've learned from 2016, then yes, it does matter.

In other words, don't underestimate the power of incumbency and don't expect an easy election in 2020. Put up a candidate that will hammer Trump to the ground in all aspects.

bagoldex · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:06 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Eyad89 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Forget Khanna, go with Kamala.

Charisma counts.

How did Trump win then? Don't tell me some folks really see him as charismatic

They found Clinton less charismatic.

LAX772LR wrote:
My suggestion would be Congressman Ro Khanna:

Let's see...person of color, from a safe CA district, only serving his first term in office (presumably 2nd if he decides to run for reelection). Not bad, but falls WAY short on many key aspects.

1. Being from California. Enough has been said about Democrats pandering only to coastal regions. I prefer Democrats pick someone from the heartland.
2. Being just in the House. It's hard for Reps to run for multiple offices. If he fares badly in early primaries, he'll switch to run for reelection (unless he's willing to risk it all), and that's assuming that CA law allows a person's name to be printed for multiple positions on the same ballot. Not only that, but to have been only 3 years in the House? I mean, sure, Obama only had 4 years in the Senate before being elected, but he had political experience in IL's legislature. And sure, Trump didn't have any political experience (but I would like to think that 2016 was an exception). And he'll be sure to hammer Ro for being a novice (especially if he has no significant legislative achievements under his name).
3. Military experience. Didn't serve. That doesn't bode well for Democrats trying to convince veterans that they DO care for them.
4. Religion. Sure, he may be Hinduist (assuming...which to many would be like "meh...") but in an era of misinformation, don't be surprised if he has to spend more time convincing folks that he's not Muslim and disproving lies rather than on the issues. We already saw this with Obama.

Ro would have much higher visibility running for Senate (sorry Feinstein, but we need new blood) and not just serving a district in the Bay area.

Democrats have plenty of options in the heartland, though it all depends on whether they want to run or not.

My option: Jason Kander from MO. SoS for 8 years in a GOP-leaning state, Army captain (served in Afghanistan), almost unseated Roy Blunt, and hails from a midwestern state with no Ivy League credentials (ie. not your typical liberal elite).

Kander might have been an option if he had won against Blunt but he's damaged goods and will probably have a very difficult time in the fundraising area. Missouri Is neither a rich state nor a heavily Democratic state so he really has no base from which to draw early campaign cash. If the party is going to look towards younger candidates from outside of the mainstream, i.e. not governors or senators, Seth Moulton would be kind of an ideal candidate. He has the military credentials, including four or five tours in the Middle East and a bronze star. He's easy on the eyes and quite articulate. Imagine what Trump is going to look and sound like when he's 74! Moulton has a somewhat bipartisan record in Congress and has made a solid point of being anti-establishment. He represents an affluent district north of Boston, attended Phillips Academy and Harvard(Harvard College, Kennedy School and HBS) and has worked in the private sector so he has some good constituencies from which to finance a serious primary challenge.

LAX772LR · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:19 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
Forget Khanna, go with Kamala.
Charisma counts.

....and since when does she have that??
She has all the appeal of a lump of mush, and hasn't done much of anything to move the needle on that, with more than a year in office.

The ONLY reason that mainstream media gives her the attention that they do, is because she's a minority and a woman, who might be jockeying to run for office: the vaunted double-whammy.

LAX772LR · Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:28 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
don't underestimate the power of incumbency and don't expect an easy election in 2020. Put up a candidate that will hammer Trump to the ground in all aspects.

Exactly. Assuming that he runs for reelection, Trump will be VERY difficult to beat.

He's already got a third of the populace that will support him at ANYTHING he does, and taking the power of incumbency into account: it won't be much of a stretch to see him close the remaining gap.

To win: you're going to need someone who can (1) unite the Left, which will be Herculean task numero uno, then (2) still talk a populist game that engages the Center and Independents, all while (3) fending off Trump's barrage of personal attacks, but at the same time not sinking to his level of childish interaction.

And then there's the specter of dark money, foreign interference, "fake news" and intentionally false ads, etc.
Who knows how all that's going to go, this time around.

Good luck. Anyone who believes 2020 is going to be "easy," is deluded.

BobPatterson · Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:17 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Forget Khanna, go with Kamala.
Charisma counts.

....and since when does she have that??
She has all the appeal of a lump of mush, and hasn't done much of anything to move the needle on that, with more than a year in office.

The ONLY reason that mainstream media gives her the attention that they do, is because she's a minority and a woman, who might be jockeying to run for office: the vaunted double-whammy.

.....Well !!

She impresses me as charismatic enough to attract votes. I'd vote for her.

Mush, indeed. :pessimist:

pessimist

NIKV69 · Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:04 pm

ltbewr wrote:
He has his own baggage that would be unacceptable. He is facing several corruption issues, a sellout to Wall Street, another phony neo-liberal who cannot hold a candle to his father's legacy.

None of the charges will stick. He isn't a sell out he is a Democrat that is socially Liberal who understands you can't attack the rich and have to be fiscally responsible, can't tax to death. No 2020 voter will remember his father and he and Biden are your two options at this point.

einsteinboricua wrote:
In other words, don't underestimate the power of incumbency and don't expect an easy election in 2020. Put up a candidate that will hammer Trump to the ground in all aspects.

Worst advice ever. The Dems learned the hard way to be against someone and not for something is a loser. You have to move to the center or you will continue to lose. The DNC had no policy changes from the Obama admin and they paid the price.

LAX772LR wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Forget Khanna, go with Kamala.
Charisma counts.

....and since when does she have that??
She has all the appeal of a lump of mush, and hasn't done much of anything to move the needle on that, with more than a year in office.

The ONLY reason that mainstream media gives her the attention that they do, is because she's a minority and a woman, who might be jockeying to run for office: the vaunted double-whammy.

Last thing the DNC needs a far left progressive from California. She isn't the answer. Not even close.

einsteinboricua · Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:17 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
In other words, don't underestimate the power of incumbency and don't expect an easy election in 2020. Put up a candidate that will hammer Trump to the ground in all aspects.

Worst advice ever. The Dems learned the hard way to be against someone and not for something is a loser. You have to move to the center or you will continue to lose. The DNC had no policy changes from the Obama admin and they paid the price./quote]
Trying to see where in my comment is it stated that this is being solely "against" Trump. You can hammer Trump to the ground by being his complete opposite.

Trump never served in uniform. A Democrat veteran already beats him in that aspect.
Trump never served in government. A Democrat who's served in multiple offices from local to state to federal has a more impressive resume than Trump and is better equipped to say they are not elite.

As for moving to center, Hillary was as center as can be. Heck, some Democrats called her Republican-light. Moving to center only works when the other candidate is a kook, but only works so well. Doug Jones is a centrist. Manchin is a centrist. But put them up for POTUS and they'll be knocked out from Iowa primaries faster than lightning.

What Democrats need (and you correctly stated it) is being FOR something. Being "anti-Trump" isn't good campaigning. But again you can hammer Trump to the ground by being FOR something and also being the polar opposite.

LAX772LR · Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:59 am

NIKV69 wrote:
Last thing the DNC needs a far left progressive from California.

Harris is barely Progressive, and not REMOTELY "far Left."

In fact, the actual far Left can't stand her... for that reason!
Their dislike for her rivals their disdain for Clinton.

Observe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoaApawF75M

NIKV69 wrote:
She isn't the answer. Not even close.

Well, on that part we'll agree.

seb146 · Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:40 am

LAX772LR wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Last thing the DNC needs a far left progressive from California.

Harris is barely Progressive, and not REMOTELY "far Left."

In fact, the actual far Left can't stand her... for that reason!
Their dislike for her rivals their disdain for Clinton.

Observe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoaApawF75M

A right winger posting a far right wing video telling people what "liberals" think.

And more hatred of Clinton.

Here's an idea: why not try to figure out how we are going to pay for everything with our low wage jobs. Remember this current party in power was supposed to give us everything like good paying jobs and "better than Obamacare" health care and lower debt and deficits and non stop winning. It has been over a year. When does the winning start? You righties DEMANDED this and more from Obama less than two months in, so, where is it all? You all are in control. Let's see some results.

As far as Democratic presidential nominees, I would go with Earl Blumenauer.

LAX772LR · Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:49 am

seb146 wrote:
A right winger posting a far right wing video telling people what "liberals" think.

Huhhhhhhh????

You CLEARLY have no idea who you're seeing or what you're talking about, lol.
Dude, Jimmy Dore is to the left of Bernie Sanders, for cryin' out loud.

seb146 wrote:
And more hatred of Clinton.

Well, yeah on that part. Certainly does hate Clinton, due to the primary corruption and her refusal to dissociate DWS from the process once it became clear how compromised she was.

NIKV69 · Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:41 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Harris is barely Progressive, and not REMOTELY "far Left."

In fact, the actual far Left can't stand her...

Only time I remember someone far left showing disdain for her is when Feinstein chastised her for not seeking the death penalty against a cop killer in CA. Imagine that. A lefty progressive trying to do the right thing and another refusing to. How ironic.

Long story short Harris has as much chance as Warren. It's not going to happen even though I wish it would because it would make Trump's job at a second term that much easier.

LAX772LR · Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:30 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Only time I remember someone far left showing disdain for her is when Feinstein chastised her for not seeking the death penalty against a cop killer

Dude, just stop, LOL.
You so obviously have NO CLUE what the "far Left" holds valuable, or who they even include, much less what they stand for. Why do you just keep attributing things to them, using people that they hate? :razz:

I mean, not only does this enquoted statement speak more toward your lack of memory/exposure, than anything having to do with Harris vis-a-vis the far Left.... but you just included Diane Feinstein among them. Do you have *any idea* just how despised she is, outside of the Centrist Left???

The SINGLE BIGGEST FUNDRAISING among California for 2017 has been to UNSEAT Feinstein, most likely with Allison Hartson. They've put up more money against Feinstein than they have against any Republican!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MggVjHzZqQ

Even Kevin de Leon, who's no darling of the far Left, has as more of their support (in his now-official primary challenge) than she does.

seb146 · Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:37 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
seb146 wrote:
A right winger posting a far right wing video telling people what "liberals" think.

Huhhhhhhh????

I am sorry. Here is what I should have and meant to say:

I have seen what the right wing media is capable of. We all have. Electing him to any national position will be impossible for at least a decade. With all of the fake news and the so-called "fake news" and all of the hatred and mis-information, any brown skinned, non-Christian will not be able to do much of anything outside their district.

I live on the opposite side of San Francisco from him. I have heard a lot of good things about him. He does a lot of good for his constituents. He knows Silicon Valley and the people who live there. But, when the right wing media start going at his faith, he will lose most of the South and Midwest.

Right wing media did a lot to feed into the ignorance of low information voters about Obama and Democrats. Can you imagine what they would do with Khanna and how many of those low information voters would take that beyond?

It is just a really bad idea on a number of levels.

There is talk of Nancy Pelosi not being House Majority Leader next term. What about that position?

NIKV69 · Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:28 pm

seb146 wrote:

Right wing media did a lot to feed into the ignorance of low information voters about Obama and Democrats. Can you imagine what they would do with Khanna and how many of those low information voters would take that beyond?

You are so kind to people you think are stupid. Didn't last November teach you anything?

seb146 wrote:
There is talk of Nancy Pelosi not being House Majority Leader next term. What about that position?

You mean minority leader don't you?

LAX772LR · Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:20 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
You are so kind to people you think are stupid. Didn't last November teach you anything?

Sure did.... it taught us just how easily fooled, suckered, bamboozled, and utterly duped you types can be.

Trump's current approval rating also shows that most of you realize it now, too.
Better late than never.

seb146 · Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:53 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Right wing media did a lot to feed into the ignorance of low information voters about Obama and Democrats. Can you imagine what they would do with Khanna and how many of those low information voters would take that beyond?

You are so kind to people you think are stupid. Didn't last November teach you anything?

That a Democrat won by nearly 3,000,000 votes? And, as I already pointed out, as long as there is a base of low information voters, there will be those who will vote for sexual predators and Russian fronts no matter what.

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
There is talk of Nancy Pelosi not being House Majority Leader next term. What about that position?

You mean minority leader don't you?

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but it seems like we have found one of our "low information voters"

NIKV69 · Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:52 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Sure did.... it taught us just how easily fooled, suckered, bamboozled, and utterly duped you types can be.

Trump's current approval rating also shows that most of you realize it now, too.
Better late than never.

Yep us one tooth hicks clinging to our guns. If your horribly sampled poll on his approval is correct than you will win back the house and senate next year. We shall see.

seb146 wrote:

That a Democrat won by nearly 3,000,000 votes? And, as I already pointed out, as long as there is a base of low information voters, there will be those who will vote for sexual predators and Russian fronts no matter what.

Again California doesn't get to pick our president. Just as if a hugely Republican state had a disproportionate number of voters you would be crying we need electoral college. The popular vote propaganda is so lame.

seb146 wrote:

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but it seems like we have found one of our "low information voters"

See my post above but it's ok to call me stupid. It's your only excuse as to why the country has abandoned your high tax, high regulation and open border doctrine.

LAX772LR · Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:20 am

NIKV69 wrote:
Yep us one tooth hicks clinging to our guns.

You said it, I was just implying it. :razz:

NIKV69 wrote:
If your horribly sampled poll

Ah yes, because everyone who's not showing what you wish to be the case, must be doing it wrong. :roll:

I mean, all 12 of the nation's longest-serving and most reputable pollsters are just being mean-girls huh?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -6179.html

NIKV69 wrote:
on his approval is correct than you will win back the house and senate next year.

If the Court strikes down these ridiculously gerrymandered districts in its upcoming ruling, then there's an overwhelming possibility of that happening.

If not, who knows. I don't, and you sure as heck don't either.... so guess we'll just have to wait and see.

seb146 · Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:18 am

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

That a Democrat won by nearly 3,000,000 votes? And, as I already pointed out, as long as there is a base of low information voters, there will be those who will vote for sexual predators and Russian fronts no matter what.

Again California doesn't get to pick our president. Just as if a hugely Republican state had a disproportionate number of voters you would be crying we need electoral college. The popular vote propaganda is so lame.

The "popular vote propaganda" has actually been around for quite some time.

And, this time, the "Bible Belt" chose the president. Not many people too happy with that....

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but it seems like we have found one of our "low information voters"

See my post above but it's ok to call me stupid. It's your only excuse as to why the country has abandoned your high tax, high regulation and open border doctrine.

Actually it was Republicans who "abandoned" high tax and high regulation. Seems to work well in India and Russia. Why should we need things like education and clean water and health care? We need to look more like China, right?

Besides, YOU are the one saying you are stupid. I simply called you low information. There is a huge difference.

NIKV69 · Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:22 am

seb146 wrote:

And, this time, the "Bible Belt" chose the president. Not many people too happy with that....

Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Florida are not in the bible belt. Your statement is beyond ridiculous and further proves my point that you can't accept the independents abandoned you. Not everyone that voted for Trump is a right winger. The independent voters are the difference in our presidential election. Far left and right voters don't really matter. They are voting same way every time.
.

seb146 wrote:

Besides, YOU are the one saying you are stupid. I simply called you low information. There is a huge difference.

Please explain the difference.

seb146 · Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:23 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

And, this time, the "Bible Belt" chose the president. Not many people too happy with that....

Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Florida are not in the bible belt. Your statement is beyond ridiculous and further proves my point that you can't accept the independents abandoned you. Not everyone that voted for Trump is a right winger. The independent voters are the difference in our presidential election. Far left and right voters don't really matter. They are voting same way every time.

.
Actually, Indiana and Florida are in the Bible Belt. And it was the low information voter that made the difference. Which leads very nicely into the next point:

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Besides, YOU are the one saying you are stupid. I simply called you low information. There is a huge difference.

Please explain the difference.

Low information voters get their information from a few biased sources and believe them for one reason or another. They take the information with a grain of salt but don't want to take the time to research. Also, they feel that "well, someone else will speak up if this were not true..." Stupid is "this one source calls themselves news and repeats this one claim over and over so it must be true and anyone who says different is fake" or "this one thing has been repeated over and over again so it must be true, no need to research it."

NIKV69 · Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:58 pm

seb146 wrote:
.
Actually, Indiana and Florida are in the Bible Belt. And it was the low information voter that made the difference. Which leads very nicely into the next point:

Wrong again. Only the extreme north (pan handle) of Florida is in the bible belt. Most of the state from Orlando down is not and those voters are not (to use your favorite term) "righties". Indiana is the opposite. Only extreme south is in the bible belt. The urban areas such as Indiana and Fort Wayne are not :righties. In fact WI,OH, PA, FL, MI all voted for Obama in 2012. That was the difference. Not the bible belt.

seb146 wrote:

or "this one thing has been repeated over and over again so it must be true, no need to research it.

seb146 · Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:03 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
.
Actually, Indiana and Florida are in the Bible Belt. And it was the low information voter that made the difference. Which leads very nicely into the next point:

Wrong again. Only the extreme north (pan handle) of Florida is in the bible belt. Most of the state from Orlando down is not and those voters are not (to use your favorite term) "righties". Indiana is the opposite. Only extreme south is in the bible belt. The urban areas such as Indiana and Fort Wayne are not :righties. In fact WI,OH, PA, FL, MI all voted for Obama in 2012. That was the difference. Not the bible belt.

seb146 wrote:

or "this one thing has been repeated over and over again so it must be true, no need to research it.

Mike Pence, the ultimate evangelical in the Republican party was governor of Indiana. He made sure there were "Biblical" laws on the books before he left. Remember the pizza place that refused to cater gay weddings or the anti trans bill? All because the Bible.

As far as your equating low information with stupid, think of it this way: Imagine the differences between evangelicals and Christians. It is a thin line, but there is a huge difference.

NIKV69 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:47 am

seb146 wrote:

Mike Pence, the ultimate evangelical in the Republican party was governor of Indiana. He made sure there were "Biblical" laws on the books before he left. Remember the pizza place that refused to cater gay weddings or the anti trans bill? All because the Bible.

So what? You realize that neighbor state Illinois has the same area in the southern tip that is in the bible belt? Doesn't make the whole state in the bible belt and they don't vote Red.

The Bible belt had nothing to do with the outcome. Never does. It's the swing voters, the voters that voted Obama in 2012. Ohio, Florida and PA.

seb146 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:04 am

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Mike Pence, the ultimate evangelical in the Republican party was governor of Indiana. He made sure there were "Biblical" laws on the books before he left. Remember the pizza place that refused to cater gay weddings or the anti trans bill? All because the Bible.

So what? You realize that neighbor state Illinois has the same area in the southern tip that is in the bible belt? Doesn't make the whole state in the bible belt and they don't vote Red.

The Bible belt had nothing to do with the outcome. Never does. It's the swing voters, the voters that voted Obama in 2012. Ohio, Florida and PA.

The same three states that implemented strict voter ID laws to combat a problem that does not exist.

einsteinboricua · Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:38 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Again California doesn't get to pick our president. Just as if a hugely Republican state had a disproportionate number of voters you would be crying we need electoral college. The popular vote propaganda is so lame.

Had California's margin been slightly smaller and instead been a razor-thin majority for Clinton in WI, MI, and PA, would you still say that CA picked the president?

NIKV69 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:00 pm

seb146 wrote:

The same three states that implemented strict voter ID laws to combat a problem that does not exist.

So since your Bible belt remark has been debunked now you are saying Hillary lost crucial swing states because of voter suppression? :footinmouth:

einsteinboricua wrote:
Had California's margin been slightly smaller and instead been a razor-thin majority for Clinton in WI, MI, and PA, would you still say that CA picked the president?

It wasn't and by population if we used popular vote NY and CA would pick our president. Which is why we have and need the electoral college.

LittleFokker · Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:17 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

The same three states that implemented strict voter ID laws to combat a problem that does not exist.

So since your Bible belt remark has been debunked now you are saying Hillary lost crucial swing states because of voter suppression?

einsteinboricua wrote:
Had California's margin been slightly smaller and instead been a razor-thin majority for Clinton in WI, MI, and PA, would you still say that CA picked the president?

It wasn't and by population if we used popular vote NY and CA would pick our president. Which is why we have and need the electoral college.

More ass backward logic from you. If the electoral college was done away with, one vote from CA would count exactly the same as one vote from AL or one vote from OH. The EC guarantees that 3 out of our top 4 most populous states are electorally irrelevant, because "everybody knows" how they're going to vote. There's just no defending it anymore. The EC, like the 2nd Amendment, needs to be flushed down the toilet of history where it belongs.

einsteinboricua · Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:58 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
Had California's margin been slightly smaller and instead been a razor-thin majority for Clinton in WI, MI, and PA, would you still say that CA picked the president?

It wasn't and by population if we used popular vote NY and CA would pick our president. Which is why we have and need the electoral college.

You didn't answer my question. It's a simple "Yes or No" answer:

Had WI, MI, and PA ended up with razor thin margins for Clinton, would you still say that CA (or NY) picked the president?

And as for your "NY/CA picks the president if a popular vote is enacted" argument, is it fair to say then that had a national popular vote been enacted back in 2004, TX, GA, AL, and IN were who picked the president (their combined margin exceeded Bush's margin against Kerry)?

A little bit of information regarding NYC (because you and many others are SO concerned with NYC being a campaign stop exclusively): Had you excluded the 5 boroughs, Clinton would have still carried the state of New York, though by a razor thin margin. So the fact that NY is blue because of NYC is laughable (for now): there are simply more Democrats in the state than Republicans.

seb146 · Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:42 am

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

The same three states that implemented strict voter ID laws to combat a problem that does not exist.

So since your Bible belt remark has been debunked now you are saying Hillary lost crucial swing states because of voter suppression?

Riiiight.... YOUR map of the "Bible belt" is not what the rest of us have so you are right.

And, yes, voter suppression is a thing. I know your "news" tells you it is not but it is. Step outside your right wing echo chamber and read and you will see. Click on web sites that are not right wing sites. Go look up voter suppression. Go look up what states vote with the Bible.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net