Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ReddFoxx

  1. Everyone has health issues with them sometimes being more serious than others and that's not something one should be criticized or judged for. But when it comes to the presidency these are things have to be considered because it is a high stress position that requires much travel. I'm not being mean, but Sanders looks far too frail to be President and this heart attack doesn't suggest that he is in that great of condition. It's also not great that the campaign tried to make it seem like something minor.

  2. 57 minutes ago, DRW50 said:


    I'd say they aren't as different in Iowa, given how much federal officials end up being tied into local issues there like ethanol, but if you're too tired to respond, that's fine. This will be my last post directed to you here or elsewhere on the board.

    As I already stated, Democrats won three out of the 4 House seats in Iowa last year and that happened even though the incumbent Republican Governor was being elected. In rural states the state-level offices are often view quite separately than the federal ones. I was rude in my previous post, so I will apologize for that. The situation the country is in is just frustrating, but I shouldn't take it out on posters here.

  3. 11 hours ago, DRW50 said:


    Their governor was reelected even with a wave so I think statewide it's probably gone. 

    Federal and state offices are different, but I'm not going to argue about it. The constant negativity and "concern" from some is tiresome.

  4. The Iowa Congressional delegation flipped from 3-1 Republican to 3-1 Democratic last year. Along with Michigan and Pennsylvania it was one of the states that Trump carried that really helped Democrats retake the House last year. Ernst definitely loses if Trump loses that state and he's 14% underwater in approval right now. I'm guessing that Iowa flips back Democratic next year because of the tariffs.

  5. This is just a funny story about someone I found out has been on GH. I don't watch the show, but I noticed this actor was in it when the channel was left on ABC at my house was one day. A few months ago there was an event at a synagogue where actors and some regular folks did monologues of former homeless people who had told their stories and Parry Shen was one of the actors to portray one of the people. There was a rule about not filming the program due to equity rules. Now all through the program there was a lady sitting next to us and she didn't try to film anyone before Parry Shen came out. My mom (who is on the board of a non-profit involved with the show) politely told her that filming was not allowed and she stopped. Most of the other performers were women and men who weren't particularly attractive, so it was clear why that woman was filming him. I just thought that was a fun story.

  6. There is also the fact that Clinton's impeachment looked clearly partisan and didn't have much substance to support removal. Trump knows that he is really in trouble here and even if removal isn't like because of the Republican Senate, the entire process can damage his re-election prospects even more than they already are.

  7. I think that McConnell's actions are more about insulating himself from trouble. His wife is under investigation and he would want less trouble. He's not rattled enough to turn against Trump, but enough to buy himself some insurance in case things really boil over.

  8. 3 hours ago, Khan said:

    And here's POLITICO patting the Washington Post's editorial board on their backs for breaking open this latest clusterf**k earlier this month.  (Your thoughts, @DRW50?)





    Except that "vague scandal with no real substance" ultimately turned many progressives and fence-straddlers away from voting for Hillary and either voting third party or sitting out altogether.  No wrongdoing was found on her part, yet the "scandal" it created was enough for those voters (including myself) to doubt whether she would preside with the nation's best interests at heart.  Hence, the #IGuessI'mWithHer noise that trended for a hot minute on social media.


    And it wasn't as if her emails dominated the news cycles only during the campaign's final, critical weeks either.  We'd spent the better part of a year (and maybe more) talking about them, even though the scandal around them had been debunked long ago.


    I'm worried the same [!@#$%^&*] is about to start all over again with Biden.

    Which is why I said could. The public can be swayed by scandal without substance, but I think with everything that happened over the past couple of years that the electorate will be a little more cautious about buying into such things. But I do think another nominee than Biden is a safer choice.

  9. Sanders is not a good candidate either because he's got liabilities. I think Biden could get around this just because it looks like a retread of what was done to Clinton (a vague scandal with no real substance and Trump getting help from a foreign power). It's better that this play out now rather than at this time next year. That aside, another nominee would probably be best for other reasons (Biden's memory issues are a problem).

  10. Pelosi handled this properly. So many wanted her to just rush right to the impeachment inquiry, but she didn't move too fast and acted only when it was sensible to proceed. Everything in the Mueller Report was unscrupulous, but it was so muddled that it would have been hard to build a strong enough case. This phone call with Ukraine is an actually opening to go directly after Trump and the whistle blower's testimony could take him down. The Republican Senate passed a non-binding resolution regarding the inquiry over the phone call, so you know that there is something real here. When McConnell suddenly agreed to pass election security that was a big clue.

  11. Sanders avoids socially liberal settings because he's one of those people who believes that the "Heartland" is put off by minorities and LGBT people. More than anyone he is trying to get votes from working class white voters who really don't vote based on their wallets, but on social issues over all. He's convinced that an economic message will get them to support him, but that's not at all accurate.

  12. There is an idea among the left that Trump being re-elected and destroying the country would push the country far left enough to elect the type of leaders that they want. The problem with that logic is that Trump being elected in the first place hasn't raised their political fortunes (almost none of the far left's preferred candidate's even made it out of primaries in last year's elections). A damaged economy and democracy being in shambles after two terms of Trump probably would give the Democratic Party an electoral realignment in 2024, but undoing all the harm Trump would have done would take decades.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.