The Commish
Footballguy
Then you're staying home...there isn't a candidate out there genuinely concerned with the debt. That's just a reality and includes the GOP. Actions speak louder than words.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Your playbook to removing Trump from the WH in 2020 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter fantasycurse42
- Start date
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Only if the far left administration treated spending the same way the GOP has treaded tax cuts and their spending as opposed to how democrats have used "paygo" - even if imperfectly to pay for the programs they add.
You are wrong.
U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) took a careful but deliberate step towards the political center on Monday night by showing skepticism about progressive proposals like the Green New Deal and free college tuition for all, while pointing to the looming threat of America's growing national debt as a major constraint on policymaking.
https://reason.com/blog/2019/02/19/in-first-televised-townhall-klobuchar-re
Howard Schultz
"I think the greatest threat domestically to the country is this $21 trillion debt hanging over the cloud of America and future generations," Schultz tells CNBC.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/05/howard-schultz-21-trillion-debt-is-biggest-threat-to-us-domestically.html
The Commish
Footballguy
Would you please show me the portion of her voting record that shows her consistently voting in a fiscally conservative manner? I've generally looked over each of the candidates thus far, but not in great detail, so I'll be happy to admit I missed something and am wrong. I don't know a ton about her thus far.
The Commish
Footballguy
Oh....and don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying you won't hear them SAY the debt is an issue. They'll all say that. Actions speak louder than words. Of course, those who don't have a track record of voting are tough to gauge, like Schultz for example. On this particular topic, I am of the opinion that we believe it when we actually see it. I don't tend to take people at their word. It's never worked for me on this particular subject.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
If Mr. Schultz would like to talk about reducing defense expenditures and raising taxes on the nation's corporations and higher income individuals to alleviate this debt nightmare, he would resonate a lot more. But voting for him right now, if you're in a battleground state (and, god, do I hate a system that makes us have "battleground states"), is essentially a vote for Donald, only without the warm Kraftian satisfaction of a visit to the Orchid of Asia at the end of it.
NCCommish
Footballguy
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Among the many messages Republicans have been brilliant at pounding home to the average American voter is: tax cuts are the answer. Dems will raise your taxes and we need more tax cuts instead.
Tax cuts. Moar.
D-Day
Footballguy
You are free to pay more taxes now if you like. Just cut out a deduction or two and pay in another $100 per year.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
I wouldn't it's a bad faith argument that they have no intention of ever changing
The Commish
Footballguy
Thanks
Looking at her 'on the issues' site I'm not seeing a record where I'd be incredibly confident to label her "fiscal conservative" but I'm open to being wrong.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not a huge Schultz fan...but if he is such a joke why are the Democrats so fearful of him running?
Surely you can put up a candidate that would look more attractive than both Schultz and Trump on a ballot. Then voters then just pick the best one. If they don't pick your candidate, then you lose and take responsibility for not giving the voters what they wanted.
What is the problem?
NCCommish
Footballguy
Who's afraid? Not anyone I've seen or heard. Dude just wants to run a spoiler campaign if his taxes are going to go up.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
You've answered your own question when you named two Dem candidates out of over a dozen that you would vote for. If there are lots like you, then we can't defeat Donald Trump, even when all of the Dem candidates are clearly more fit for command than he is.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
All 47 candidates should commit to Elizabeth Warren as their Veep to get her out of the race.
Evidence from fivethirtyeight that Trump is different from other politicians in the steadiness of his support:
(Charts and stuff at the link.)
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I saw this 538 analysis just this morning and it left me wondering if it wasn't actually an indication of how obvious Trump's traits/tendencies were to the average person. Meaning, they saw him for what he is because he (much to our dismay) made no secrets about who he was. That's not typical and it usually takes a little bit for politicians to show their true motivations through their actions. During that time, opinions easily fluctuate as new information comes out.
I then wondered how this will play in the minds of those who aren't totally in the bag for the guy. Those that were on the fence last time wondering if he really meant the stupid #### he says or if he was simply pandering for votes now know he actually means it.
I then wondered how this will play in the minds of those who aren't totally in the bag for the guy. Those that were on the fence last time wondering if he really meant the stupid #### he says or if he was simply pandering for votes now know he actually means it.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
That's an interesting perspective. Does everyone now knowing exactly what he is help him or harm him on Election Day 2020? If you weren't turned off by Trump's disingenuousness but voted for him anyway in '16, maybe you think that things aren't so bad and better the devil you know. But if you voted for him (or for third party) thinking "he'll straighten up and grow into the job if he gets elected," then honest people are going to admit that they were completely wrong about that. The twitter joke yesterday was "how long before Trump picks a fight with a dead woman (referring to Barbara Bush)? And, hell, not a one of us here would be surprised if Donald said something nasty about the late Mrs. Bush before the week is out.
But, yeah, at least we all know for sure now.
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm one who will fully admit that I thought he was blatantly lying to get votes. He was pandering to every fringe group out there, saying exactly what they wanted to hear and it was so absurd, I thought he was just an idiot and it was going to backfire. Turns out he's a fringe moron who really believes the things he says, ESPECIALLY if he thinks they are going to get him elected/support. That started coming into focus for me when the sexual assault tapes came out.
The Commish
Footballguy
Sure....but the likelihood of honesty is virtually nothing. This thing will "end" with the admin getting China to agree to buy more stuff and have an "agreement" (minus any real way to verify or punish if not followed) to be nice to American companies. China is NOT going to stop their pursuit of intellectual property. It's the core of their success.
Widbil83
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
Heard that one now for a couple generations. Get it? If you haven't figured out that #1. You cannot run a surplus and 2. Therefore the debt will never go down, then you won't ever understand that it's meaningless. Fact is, regardless of the yearly deficit level, the overall debt will always increase. We won't see another internet bubble that generated record tax collections. Couple generations from now, the debt will be 50 T or so and guess what? They will make the same statements and continue to be wrong.
Similar threads
