The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[mustafur]

It's all over the current news.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ian-asset-groomed-to-ensure-trump-re-election
https://www.nationalreview.com/news...oming-tulsi-gabbard-as-third-party-candidate/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html

Hillary loves pushing the Russia narrative, it gives her an excuse for her terrible candidacy and lets her ignore the crucial flaws of her campaign that even now, 3 years after she lost she has yet to address properly.

Tulsi doesn't take any Corporate Money and only takes individual Donations, unlike what Hillary was taking in her bid and yet she is the one to say who is a Plant.

 

[Rallywagon]

She doesn't use the term "plant" or "Russia agent". "Asset" could mean anything, including being used without her knowledge or consent.

There's a whole lot of other people in the world a whole lot less semantic than you though.
But, I guess, to be fair, the Clinton's quite deliberate with their words. Such as "is."

 

[longshot1314]

I disliked Hillary before but her simultaneously calling out third parties and slandering a candidate I support has galvanized my opinion that she's equally as despicable as Trump.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Looking forward to watching this.

 

[Northstar]

I'm just wondering who on earth selected those pictures. Bernie looks like a cross between Gilbert Godfried and Mr. Magoo, AoC has a decent pic but Michael's looks like they pulled it off of an ATM security feed at 2AM.

 

[Dotini]

Tucker interviews Tulsi, gotta luv 'em both, who in turn calls for Republicans and Libertarians to support her campaign. Putting it all on the line; it's open political war, and time to choose sides. Obviously she's an insidious peacenik hippy surfer gal, a Russian agent. So I'll take the side of the establishment.

Spoiler

 

[ryzno]

Tucker interviews Tulsi, gotta luv 'em both, who in turn calls for Republicans and Libertarians to support her campaign. Putting it all on the line; it's open political war, and time to choose sides. Obviously she's an insidious peacenik hippy surfer gal, a Russian agent. So I'll take the side of the establishment.

Spoiler

She's the only Dem that has a CHANCE of getting my vote.

 

[Dotini]

She's the only Dem that has a CHANCE of getting my vote.

Love overcomes all. Is she hot, or wot?

 

[Famine]

Michael's looks like they pulled it off of an ATM security feed at 2AM.

He looks like Jabba the Hutt came out as lesbian.

 

[PocketZeven]

She's the only Dem that has a CHANCE of getting my vote.

Whats wrong with Bernie?

 

[ryzno]

Whats wrong with Bernie?

I don't like a few things he's been preaching.

 

[Biggles]

It's pretty clear to me that the Russians were a

There's a whole lot of other people in the world a whole lot less semantic than you though.
But, I guess, to be fair, the Clinton's quite deliberate with their words. Such as "is."

To be honest, I am trying to make some sense of the inexplicable. In a political season full of weirdness, this ranks right up there. Attacking a Democratic candidate who is barely a blip on the polling landscape & has given no indication of running as an independent candidate makes no sense ... & serves only as an untimely & embarrassing distraction from the message Democrats are trying to put out there.

 

[Rallywagon]

It's pretty clear to me that the Russians were a


To be honest, I am trying to make some sense of the inexplicable. In a political season full of weirdness, this ranks right up there. Attacking a Democratic candidate who is barely a blip on the polling landscape & has given no indication of running as an independent candidate makes no sense ... & serves only as an untimely & embarrassing distraction from the message Democrats are trying to put out there.

It's probably to make sure that Warren is the main candidate. I think in the scheme of things, either Warren or uncle creeper are the goals of the establishment Democrats. This was a public chance to try and smash any stray breeze from blowing into Gabbards sail.
But, the complete lack of tact may work more in Gabbards favor. I'd bet that it might give Republicans not wanting trump an object of desire.

 

[BobK]

the message Democrats are trying to put out there.

You mean they have a message? Other than "Impeach Trump!"?

 

[Dotini]

You mean they have a message? Other than "Impeach Trump!"?

The Democrats have two wings, two messages trying to fight it out. One is neoliberalism (Hillary/Warren, etc,) the other socialism (Bernie, Harris, et al) Neither is antiwar. That is Tulsi's only real wedge, and it is small but sharp. The Republicans might like her as a spoiler, but there are precious few antiwar Republicans. About half the Libertarians like me might go for her, but that would be what, 1 or 2%?

 

[mustafur]

The Democrats have two wings, two messages trying to fight it out. One is neoliberalism (Hillary/Warren, etc,) the other socialism (Bernie, Harris, et al) Neither is antiwar. That is Tulsi's only real wedge, and it is small but sharp. The Republicans might like her as a spoiler, but there are precious few antiwar Republicans. About half the Libertarians like me might go for her, but that would be what, 1 or 2%?

How is Bernie not Anti-war?

Also Harris is a total Neo-Liberal much more so then Warren.

 

[Northstar]

How is Bernie not Anti-war?

He may not be supportive of wars themselves, but he is oddly supportive of one of the most wasteful warmachines ever. I don't know that it in itself is enough to remove the "anti-war" tag, but it sure as hell puts it into question.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't like a few things he's been preaching.

I am curious about what things? Considering the things you have shared about yourself, I would say that Bernie would be the perfect candidate. Voting Trump would not be to your benefit.

You mean they have a message? Other than "Impeach Trump!"?

 

[mustafur]

He may not be supportive of wars themselves, but he is oddly supportive of one of the most wasteful warmachines ever. I don't know that it in itself is enough to remove the "anti-war" tag, but it sure as hell puts it into question.

Really? that put's it into question when he hasn't backed any military expansion bill, I don't know his reasons for that event or what not but that isn't backing a war nor does it say he was supportive of them even existing.

His whole policy is about reducing the Military budget to help pay for Universal Healthcare and the like.

The dangerous Candidate IMO is Warren, she parades her self as like Bernie but she is very pro war(even backed a bill to give trump a bigger Military budget they he asked for, then deflected when asked about it) and has nearly walked back every legislation she started with, plus she has committed to taking corporate money in the General if she is the nominee, as well as the money she raised for her campaign was done in 2016 for her senate bid where she got significantly more then she needed for that from big paying donors so she could use in the 2020 primary so that she can say that she can afford to only take individual donations.

 

[Northstar]

but that isn't backing a war nor does it say he was supportive of them even existing.

Of course, which is why I said that him backing that project isn't enough to remove the anti-war tag. It does bring up the question of why he is supportive of the project though. You just don't spend 1.2 trillion dollars on something with the intent to let it collect dust.

His whole policy is about reducing the Military budget to help pay for Universal Healthcare and the like.

And Trump's was all about "Making America Great Again!" and we all know how that has turned out.

 

[mustafur]

Of course, which is why I said that him backing that project isn't enough to remove the anti-war tag. It does bring up the question of why he is supportive of the project though. You just don't spend 1.2 trillion dollars on something with the intent to let it collect dust.



And Trump's was all about "Making America Great Again!" and we all know how that has turned out.

The difference is Bernie has a track record because he has been in politics all this time, Trump on the other hand was a complete roll of the dice as he had no track Record.

 

[Northstar]

The difference is Bernie has a track record because he has been in politics all this time, Trump on the other hand was a complete roll of the dice as he had no track Record.

That doesn't really change anything. Politicians in the U.S. have a habit of saying one thing than doing another. The fighter jet is an example of this, Bernie says he is anti-war and wants to cut the military budget, yet supported a nuclear-ready fighter jet that cost 1.2 trillion. It makes you wonder if he perhaps is just "Anti-Warthathedidn'tstart" instead of just being against war overall.

 

[mustafur]

That doesn't really change anything. Politicians in the U.S. have a habit of saying one thing than doing another. The fighter jet is an example of this, Bernie says he is anti-war and wants to cut the military budget, yet supported a nuclear-ready fighter jet that cost 1.2 trillion. It makes you wonder if he perhaps is just "Anti-Warthathedidn'tstart" instead of just being against war overall.

The Jet was already being made, why don't you look at whether he supported it's existence in the first place, it's clearly not the same thing.

 

[Northstar]

The Jet was already being made, why don't you look at whether he supported it's existence in the first place, it's clearly not the same thing.

It doesn't matter if it was already being made, you don't have to be around from the start of something to be against it.

 

[mustafur]

It doesn't matter if it was already being made, you don't have to be around from the start of something to be against it.

But he was against it being made, the thing was going to be made regardless as Neocons run the congress, it would of just went to another state had he opposed it.

It's a flawed argument because it makes no sense, whether he accepted it in Vermont or not the thing was getting made regardless, he is Senator of VERMONT keep in mind, if he becomes president he will not be senator of VERMONT.

 

[Northstar]

But he was against it being made, the thing was going to be made regardless as Neocons run the congress, it would of just went to another state had he opposed it.

If anything that makes him look worse! Now he's anti-war... unless it works in his favor than the military industrial complex is welcome with open arms!

I realize it would be made either way, but supporting it in any capacity is really not a good look when you're trying to look like an anti-war candidate.

 

[mustafur]

If anything that makes him look worse! Now he's anti-war... unless it works in his favor than the military industrial complex is welcome with open arms!

I realize it would be made either way, but supporting it in any capacity is really not a good look when you're trying to look like an anti-war candidate.

Maybe to you, but from a state perspective it's jobs that would otherwise go to any other state, regardless of your opinion on those Jobs.

What is important is what his take is on that program existing in the first place because it's things like that, that will determine it's existence, especially on future versions that will be pushed.

 

[Rallywagon]

Idk... Vermont already has a flight wing stationed there. Seems that this program is just bringing them new equipment via the f35 to use. I don't really see this as supporting a war machine as much as just making sure your national guard units are trained and using the current model vehicles.
Its not like Lockheed is building a factory there and Vermont is giving then huge tax breaks or anything like that. They are essential just updating their fleet and adding some specialized skilled labor jobs to the economy in the process. I think its a bit of a stretch to say Sanders supports wars because of this.

 

[Exorcet]

A few things about the F-35. It's actually cheap. The program cost is expensive and makes headlines because the project is the largest of its type ever. The F-35 program was designed up front to modernize the entire combined NATO air force. This is essentially what the older F-16 and F-18 did, but "accidentally" over time. The latter didn't generate headlines over massive program costs because the program cost crept up over time instead of being set up front.

Additionally, since the fall of the USSR the US has canceled many military programs which have essentially ended up wasting money. A good example is the F-22 vs the F-15. We were supposed to get 750 F-22's to replace the F-15, but the order was cut to less than 200, driving up the price of F-22's while leaving the USAF with many old F-15. These F-15's are still around and are approaching the age where they must be replaced. They wouldn't have needed these aircraft in the first place if F-22 orders weren't downsized. We might repeat the scenario if the F-35 numbers are reduced.

My stance is that current plans should be maintained. Reduce the military by planning for the future better, and not shortsightedly cutting programs that are doing fine right now and will come back to bite us later.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Mayor Pete Buttigieg is now polling in third place in Iowa. He seems like a strong candidate. Being from the midwest helps (I feel like midwesterners are the least-detested people in the US, not to mention the importance of the midwestern swing states). He should be able to bring out the progressive vote, even if they wouldn't be his first choice (because LGBTQ wokeness, yo) and he should also be able to pull a large amount of independent voters throughout the country due to his military service. I struggle to think of anyone left of center (and quite a few right of center, to be honest) who would have a serious problem with him.

If Biden drops out, Pete might jump straight to the front. He's probably also in a good position to pick up Klobuchar voters, maybe even some of Yang's and Beto's. At that point, it will likely just be a war of numbers. Who has more support...the progressives or the moderates. The fact that many early states are probably more moderate leads me to think one thing.