Unbeatable Democratic ticket

[JSt0rm]

Fundies are hypocrites?

I'm. Shocked.

Im not. But dont expect the gop to be able to use that ammunition again.

 

[dainthomas]

A combination of Warren-Yang.

 

[Sunburn74]

Lol. Bloomberg. Might as well be running Kanye west at that point.

 

[thraashman]

Howard Dean - P
Chelsea Clinton - VP

Honestly, I'd totally vote for Chelsea. Been involved in presidential politics since she was young. Highly educated. Has experience as a major part of running the highly respected Clinton Foundation. And seems to be a genuinely good person if you ever see how polite she is towards Twitter trolls.

 

[CZroe]

Honestly, I'd totally vote for Chelsea. Been involved in presidential politics since she was young. Highly educated. Has experience as a major part of running the highly respected Clinton Foundation. And seems to be a genuinely good person if you ever see how polite she is towards Twitter trolls.

Yeah, and the OP would vote for Mike'n'Shelly. Not saying no one would vote for them... just saying the team-up is similarly "unbeatable"

...and by "unbeatable" I mean imminently beatable. 😉

 

[Puffnstuff]

At this point I'd vote for a stuffed bear over Trump.

 

[Jaskalas]

You'll pry my big gulp from my cold dead fingers! (I don't even use those oversized cups)

Still, the concept of the nanny state is antithetical to my Libertarian roots. While I adopted sane economy policy, I do still desire a government that respects our freedom of choice to a large extent. Bloomberg represents the opposite of that, in the portrayal of him in many news stories. It strikes me as the European approach to government, when I envision something a bit more... progressive... and less intrusive.

My philosophy is I'll give you Basic Income and after that IDGAF what you do with it. Could be anything and I don't care. Our government shouldn't care. If a person has a roof over their head and enough cash to survive, yet fails to do so, I support programs that can help pick people up off the street and rehab / reform them and set them on a healthy path if possible. But that helping hand is not the same as treating them as prisoners out in society at large.

Ergo, the media at large has painted a rather villainous image of Bloomberg, and that imagine is what sticks. I wonder how many others share that image of him. Then I wonder how accurate it is, or if the man was simply doing the sort(s) of things a Mayor in a local government is likely to be involved in, as opposed to a President. I would be at least open to hearing what the man has to say on various topics, before dismissing the idea of supporting him.

 

[Jaskalas]

At this point I'd vote for a stuffed bear over Trump.

Trump was never a factor in the equation, quite honestly. While the DNC struggles to name a challenger, the fact remains that we are united behind whoever it is in the end, the one who opposes Trump is guaranteed our support.

 

[sportage]

Not to change the subject, but I do believe Mitt Romney is getting ready to run.
And Mitt plus <insert name> just might be the unbeatable ticket. Especially with what the democrats have to offer.
Think about it....
If impeachment is inevitable and if the facts look very damaging for Trump and if republicans can envision actually losing the 2020 election to "any" democrat, then republicans will want "someone" to step in. Door number two.
When the basket has a big hole in it, a smart man (or woman) would not want to put all their eggs in that one flawed basket. The smart alternative would be to have another basket ready to go. A basket minus the hole or at least with a much smaller hole.
If things get really bad for Donald Trump, someone must step in to fill that gap. And hell... Mitt Romney might as well be that gap filler.

PS. In the real world I can not envision any "unbeatable" democratic ticket unless Obama ran again. And why shouldn't he? If Donald trump can rewrite all the rules and thumb his nose at the constitution then why can't Obama?
Run... get elected by getting more votes than Trump.... then let the congress and the courts fight it out. By then, people would welcome and insist that Obama remain and serve out his third term.

 

[HomerJS]

Not to change the subject, but I do believe Mitt Romney is getting ready to run.
And Mitt plus <insert name> just might be the unbeatable ticket. Especially with what the democrats have to offer.
Think about it....
If impeachment is inevitable and if the facts look very damaging for Trump and if republicans can envision actually losing the 2020 election to "any" democrat, then republicans will want "someone" to step in. Door number two.
When the basket has a big hole in it, a smart man (or woman) would not want to put all their eggs in that one flawed basket. The smart alternative would be to have another basket ready to go. A basket minus the hole or at least with a much smaller hole.
If things get really bad for Donald Trump, someone must step in to fill that gap. And hell... Mitt Romney might as well be that gap filler.

PS. In the real world I can not envision any "unbeatable" democratic ticket unless Obama ran again. And why shouldn't he? If Donald trump can rewrite all the rules and thumb his nose at the constitution then why can't Obama?
Run... get elected by getting more votes than Trump.... then let the congress and the courts fight it out. By then, people would welcome and insist that Obama remain and serve out his third term.

Trumptards consider Mitt establishment. Trump will rail on him and too many lemmings will follow suit. Mitt will lose more of them then independents he would pick up.

 

[CZroe]

Trumptards consider Mitt establishment. Trump will rail on him and too many lemmings will follow suit. Mitt will lose more of them then independents he would pick up.

It would be a contingency where Trump is out of the picture (self-implodes, kicked out of office, etc).

 

[dawp]

Howard Dean - P
Chelsea Clinton - VP

is she old enough?

 

[Perknose]

Federal soda tax incoming.

Which would be a good thing. Or maybe you just like doing nothing and subsidizing the health costs of other folks avoidable obesity.

 

[Perknose]

Still, the concept of the nanny state is antithetical to my Libertarian roots.

How do you feel about stoplights?

 

[CZroe]

Which would be a good thing. Or maybe you just like doing nothing and subsidizing the health costs of other folks avoidable obesity.

The potential impact on individual freedom is a major reason why some people object to government-sponsored healthcare.

 

[Perknose]

The potential impact on individual freedom is a major reason why some people object to government-sponsored healthcare.

How do you feel about government sponsored speed limits on roads?

 

[Moonbeam]

The potential impact on individual freedom is a major reason why some people object to government-sponsored healthcare.

I think what you really mean is that you worry that no matter how insane anybody might be in their own head, they will have the right to act on that insanity subject to whether or not they limit or harm the rights of others. Remember, selfish and emotionally underdeveloped people, like children, are subject to the limits of adult supervision. Lots of people grow up having not faced this fact. This is often referred to as growing up with a sense of entitlement.

 

[CZroe]

How do you feel about government sponsored speed limits on roads?

Simple: Driving is privilege, not a right, thus you have no right to break their established speed limits. On the other hand, eating is a fundamental human right. Eating only what the government allows based on a public impact that was also forced on you intrudes on that freedom.

If you want coverage with private health care you may have to prove you are healthy or pay more as a result of your diet/health. Universal healthcare disrupts this balance since you're covered regardless and, suddenly, your freedoms are justifably limited by their (government-mandated!) impact on others.

 

[CZroe]

I think what you really mean is that you worry that no matter how insane anybody might be in their own head, they will have the right to act on that insanity subject to whether or not they limit or harm the rights of others. Remember, selfish and emotionally underdeveloped people, like children, are subject to the limits of adult supervision. Lots of people grow up having not faced this fact. This is often referred to as growing up with a sense of entitlement.

Not at all. It only affects the cost to others in the event of government-imposed universal healthcare.

Again, the justification to further limit freedoms in the name of others was an argument AGAINST government healthcare all along. Using that same healthcare rationale to justify further limiting freedoms only confirms their initial objection. It doesn't sway them into supporting a soda ban as Perk was trying to do. Quite the opposite.

 

[Moonbeam]

Not at all. It only affects the cost to others in the event of government-imposed universal healthcare. Again, the justification to further limit freedoms in the name of others was an argument AGAINST government healthcare all along.

As I mentioned, there are any number of individuals that are only too happy to live in a society governed by democratically enacted laws, as, according to the Declaration of Independence, that predated the establishment of this government, forming a government according to the will of the people, but who do not like that part of the deal, that their rights won’t be whatever they personally wish them to be, but rather as enacted by the government according to the will of the people. Any Joe Blow can make up his own rules so long as he or she is willing to live in the jungle. That would certainly be anybody who rejects will of the people health care. Similarly, you will have to pay all due taxes.

 

[Muse]

You could put Obama with anyone and get a good response, but I can't see any reason to think that Bloomberg would be a particularly strong candidate.

I don't know if he has the chops. He has the money and evidently the politics. But he doesn't appear to have the appetite for public appearances... I, at least, haven't seen him in the spotlight. He's got to love being in front of a lectern to even think about candidacy.

 

[Muse]

is she old enough?

Chelsea Victoria Clinton is an American author and global health advocate. She is the only child of former U.S. President Bill Clinton and former U.S. Secretary of State and 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Wikipedia
Born: February 27, 1980 (age 39 years), Little Rock, AR

Height: 5′ 9″
Spouse: Marc Mezvinsky (m. 2010)
Children: Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, Jasper Clinton Mezvinsky, Aidan Clinton Mezvinsky
Education: Stanford University (2001)

 

[CZroe]

As I mentioned, there are any number of individuals that are only too happy to live in a society governed by democratically enacted laws, as, according to the Declaration of Independence, that predated the establishment of this government, forming a government according to the will of the people, but who do not like that part of the deal, that their rights won’t be whatever they personally wish them to be, but rather as enacted by the government according to the will of the people. Any Joe Blow can make up his own rules so long as he or she is willing to live in the jungle. That would certainly be anybody who rejects will of the people health care. Similarly, you will have to pay all due taxes.

The entire point of making this country a constitutional republic was to avoid the trappings of pure democracy... namely, mob rule imposing on minority/individual feeedoms. We are a democracy in as much as we can be without violating constitutional protections. The Constitution never supported the government's power to compel you to buy something (insurance), which is why the penalty for not having insurance had to be interpreted both a tax and a fine in order to get by the Justice Department.

The point still stands: Making others financially responsible for your health brings with it the justification to limit your freedoms for the sake of health. The people who argued against it because they predicted ramifications like a "soda tax" aren't going to suddenly say "Ah! I get it. Perk is right. I should give up my soda for the benefit of others." His argument plays right into their original objection and will change no minds. I'm simply pointing out how little impact that logic will have with anyone who does not believe the government should have that power in the first place. He needs a stronger argument.

 

[Moonbeam]

The entire point of making this country a constitutional republic was to avoid the trappings of pure democracy... namely, mob rule imposing on minority/individual feeedoms. We are a democracy in as much as we can be without violating constitutional protections. The Constitution never supported the government's power to compel you to buy something (insurance), which is why the penalty for not having insurance had to be interpreted both a tax and a fine in order to get by the Justice Department.

The point still stands: Making others financially responsible for your health brings with it the justification to limit your freedoms for the sake of health. The people who argued against it because they predicted ramifications like a "soda tax" aren't going to suddenly say "Ah! I get it. Perk is right. I should give up my soda for the benefit of others." His argument plays right into their original objection and will change no minds. I'm simply pointing out how little impact that logic will have with anyone who does not believe the government should have that power in the first place. He needs a stronger argument.

News flash: No argument works with children or anybody who doesn't abide by the will of the people subject to the constitution. You simply protest that because you don't like a law that is legally passed your rights are being denied. Leave and move to a country of your liking, but we know what you will say to that. It all fits right in there with entitlement mentality. No bigot will look at his own bigotry and see anything but logic. That is why bigotry is an inescapable mental prison. The bars are invisible. Now, off with you. Your fears, that you will be bound by the will of others happened long ago in your childhood just like it happened to everybody else and to me. Your only way out now is to die to your sacred beliefs. Trust me. That will temporarily lead to despair but from there to freedom. Nobody wants to lance a boil but everybody is happy once it is done.

 

[CZroe]

News flash: No argument works with children or anybody who doesn't abide by the will of the people subject to the constitution. You simply protest that because you don't like a law that is legally passed your rights are being denied. Leave and move to a country of your liking, but we know what you will say to that. It all fits right in there with entitlement mentality. No bigot will look at his own bigotry and see anything but logic. That is why bigotry is an inescapable mental prison. The bars are invisible. Now, off with you. Your fears, that you will be bound by the will of others happened long ago in your childhood just like it happened to everybody else and to me. Your only way out now is to die to your sacred beliefs. Trust me. That will temporarily lead to despair but from there to freedom. Nobody wants to lance a boil but everybody is happy once it is done.

Did you confuse me for someone else? I said that universal healthcare would justify it... same as Perknose. The problem with using that rationale alone is that it also confirms the fears of universal healthcare opponents. In light of this, you need a stronger argument if the goal is to justify a soda ban to those who would also oppose universal healthcare.