1 1
JerryBaumchen

2024 Election

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

As Trump continues to claim that he won the 2020 election; would that not make him ineligible to run in 2024?

Thoughts?????

Jerry Baumchen

One term as President, then on to Pharaoh (de King o' de Nial).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2021 at 7:54 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi folks,

As Trump continues to claim that he won the 2020 election; would that not make him ineligible to run in 2024?

Thoughts?????

Jerry Baumchen

Let’s hope so.  A disillusioned left, a fired-up right and a middle forgetting about mean tweets when they fill up their gas tank, or go to the grocery store is the recipe for Trump 2.0 and I don’t think that is what the country needs.

“Ted Cruz 2024!  All of the policy none of the crazy”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly 80 percent of Republicans want to see Trump run in 2024: poll "The poll underscores the stubborn support Trump enjoys among the GOP base, backing that may be growing. Sixty-six percent of Republicans said in the same poll in May that Trump should run for the White House in three years."

Of course he's eligible to run. Even with some sort of conviction his base will claim it was politically motivated. Most legal actions can be delayed till past 2024.

The only hope for republicans is a new moderate political star to run against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The only hope for republicans is a new moderate political star to run against him.

That seems unlikely. Moderate and star would be considered oxymorons in that world. Moderates are AKA "RINOs". Just watch what is soon going to happen to Liz Cheney, and she is far from moderate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

... Just watch what is soon going to happen to Liz Cheney, and she is far from moderate.

I wouldn't bet on it.

She learned from the best, her dad.
You remember him, right?

She's got HYOOOOGE support from the rich donors who are sane enough to see how bad Trump is, while still wanting to see the Rs destroy the democracy.

I saw recently that she's raised well over 10x the amount of her opponent in recent months. Millions vs hundreds of thousands.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wolfriverjoe said:

She's got HYOOOOGE support from the rich donors who are sane enough to see how bad Trump is, while still wanting to see the Rs destroy the democracy.

One word, Wyoming. They have primaries there, and rich people from the east don't get to vote in them.  But I hope you are right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

That seems unlikely. Moderate and star would be considered oxymorons in that world. Moderates are AKA "RINOs". Just watch what is soon going to happen to Liz Cheney, and she is far from moderate.

Mostly agree but she is a moderate as far as the GOP goes. Don't forget she is from Wyoming.

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I wouldn't bet on it.
...... Millions vs hundreds of thousands.

Agree

57 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

One word, Wyoming. They have primaries there, and rich people from the east don't get to vote in them.  But I hope you are right. 

Agree. The trump base knows power flows from the primaries. Get rid of challengers there and the die is cast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Nearly 80 percent of Republicans want to see Trump run in 2024: poll "The poll underscores the stubborn support Trump enjoys among the GOP base, backing that may be growing. Sixty-six percent of Republicans said in the same poll in May that Trump should run for the White House in three years."

Of course he's eligible to run. Even with some sort of conviction his base will claim it was politically motivated. Most legal actions can be delayed till past 2024.

The only hope for republicans is a new moderate political star to run against him.

Hi Phil,

Good post.  However, re:  80 percent of Republicans

That data point disregards the many, many former R's who have left the party.  From what I have read it is mostly suburban women ( one group that heavily supported Trump in 2016 ) who are now registered as independents.

IMO the GOP is in a serious decline with no way out of their hole; it has become too deep.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

IMO the GOP is in a serious decline with no way out of their hole; it has become too deep.

Don’t underestimate the power of motivated people who want everyone else to make them comfortable. 
That said, the birth rate overall isn’t favoring them, unless they do begin to open the doors. 
Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Don’t underestimate the power of motivated people who want everyone else to make them comfortable. 

Wendy P. 

Isn’t that the cornerstone of Biden’s Build Back Better?  Make the productive class pay  for “free” stuff for others?  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Isn’t that the cornerstone of Biden’s Build Back Better?  Make the productive class pay  for “free” stuff for others?  
 

Nope.  That's the cornerstone of FOX's FUD campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
40 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope.  That's the cornerstone of FOX's FUD campaign.

No, BBB LITERALLY wants some to pay for others “free” stuff.  Free child care, free college,  free this, free that…..

 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Good post.  However, re:  80 percent of Republicans

That data point disregards the many, many former R's who have left the party.  From what I have read it is mostly suburban women (

Evening, Jerry.

I have to admit that I read that poll earlier today and it posed some questions for me, because even in my rural circles, everyone's pretty much done with him. So, I question where the poll and didn't think the questions were structured well. The talk now seems to be towards Trey Gowdy.

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Evening, Jerry.

I have to admit that I read that poll earlier today and it posed some questions for me, because even in my rural circles, everyone's pretty much done with him. So, I question where the poll and didn't think the questions were structured well. The talk now seems to be towards Trey Gowdy.

Keith

Trey Gowdy +++

The problem is the press is not done with Trump.  I believe there was a postmortem done on the 2016 election and it determined Trump received more than a billion dollars of free exposure from all spectrums of the press.  As long as Trump is the big shiny object, he will continue to suck up all of media bandwidth.

That said, I earnestly hope you are right.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No, BBB LITERALLY wants some to pay for others “free” stuff.  Free child care, free college,  free this, free that…..

 

As opposed to free money to buy up stock prices? Free child care and free college would probably bring considerably more benefit to society than a few multi-million bonus payouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

As opposed to free money to buy up stock prices? Free child care and free college would probably bring considerably more benefit to society than a few multi-million bonus payouts.

Hi Sky,

For damn sure the GI Bill after WW II did.

I suppose Brett now thinks that was a mistake.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Sky,

For damn sure the GI Bill after WW II did.

I suppose Brett now thinks that was a mistake.

Jerry Baumchen

Why wasn’t the GI Bill offered to everyone?

BTW we still have the GI Bill.  Want “free” college?  See your recruiter.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

As opposed to free money to buy up stock prices? Free child care and free college would probably bring considerably more benefit to society than a few multi-million bonus payouts.

There is no free money to buy up stock prices.  If a company wants to increase share holder value through stock buybacks they use their own money, not someone else’s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

There is no free money to buy up stock prices.  If a company wants to increase share holder value through stock buybacks they use their own money, not someone else’s.

Sure. The government slashed corporate obligations. The money that was freed up by not having to pay taxes was used in large part to buy back stocks, while dim-witted Republicans touted the "benefits" of trickle-down economics.

Those taxes would have served society better providing child care and education, if only so there would be less dim-witted Republicans who believe in trickle-down economics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure. The government slashed corporate obligations. The money that was freed up by not having to pay taxes was used in large part to buy back stocks, while dim-witted Republicans touted the "benefits" of trickle-down economics.

Those taxes would have served society better providing child care and education, if only so there would be less dim-witted Republicans who believe in trickle-down economics. 

Yeah, that low unemployment (record low for minorities) and rising real wages was proof of the failure of trickle down economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yeah, that low unemployment (record low for minorities) and rising real wages was proof of the failure of trickle down economics.

And yet the tax cuts did not pay for themselves. You seem fine with reducing revenues to increase the revenues of the rich, but you oppose increasing expenses to provide child care and education.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

And yet the tax cuts did not pay for themselves. You seem fine with reducing revenues to increase the revenues of the rich, but you oppose increasing expenses to provide child care and education.

 

The tax cuts should have come with offsetting spending cuts. The care and education of children is the responsibility of the parents first, the local community second, the state third and the federal government never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1