Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not even remotely the same scenario. Not....even....close. You’re trying to compare a non incumbent election with an incumbent election. It’s always easy in the absence of bad economy or other significant disruptive issues for an incumbent to win. Even in 1992 Bush wins without Perot in there and Bush won in 2004 despite most thinking it was unlikely
Not even remotely the same scenario. Not....even....close. You’re trying to compare a non incumbent election with an incumbent election. It’s always easy in the absence of bad economy or other significant disruptive issues for an incumbent to win. Even in 1992 Bush wins without Perot in there and Bush won in 2004 despite most thinking it was unlikely
Bloomberg isnt anything like Trump. Trump is an anti establishment disruptor nationalist. Bloomberg is a globalist and in bed with China. If anything, the very fact that Trump is taking on China should make you vote for him. God knows no one else has.
He claims he is taking on China, but then everytime I turn around he tweets he has made another trade deal with them, when truth is I think we need to cut them off altogether. They have used their cheap labor to siphon jobs out of the USA, which has weakened our economy. They are stealing our technology, spying on us and our military. They are buying up our land and food supplies all the while attacking our military ships and terrorizing smaller nations like Vietnam, Hong Kong as well as colonizing parts of the Caribbean and African continent. Not to mention they have been sending us products that are making Americans sick, either it be tainted toys, dog food, dry wall, etc. Everyone seems to be worried about Russia, and here I am thinking China is the bigger threat. And no one in Washington seems to have the balls to say anything to them. All talk and no action.
'Under Trump', without any year specified, would indicate his Presidency so far.
His Presidency so far = adding to the debt, not the deficit.
Deficit = the shortfall for any given year
The Debt = what the yearly deficits added together (all of them, not just during Trump) add up to/the accumulation of the yearly deficits.
He absolutely has increased the deficit, significantly, like as much as 50% since taking office. On top of needlessly increasing the military's bloated budget, his 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut has done nothing but increase the deficit, wealth inequality, and artificially inflate the stock market due to corporate stock buybacks.
Now with his latest budget proposal Trump wants to offset his trillion-dollar gift to the super wealthy by cutting back on already badly underfunded social programs like medicare, medicaid, SNAP, and TANF.
Trickle-down economics doesn't work. It didn't work when Reagan tried it, it didn't work when Bush tried it, and it's not working now. Investing in working people and putting dollars in the pockets of those who are going to spend it in their communities is how we build a strong middle class and small-business oriented society.
I have to agree with Fareed. Bernie Sanders does not appeal across the aisle and I have to agree that Trump will beat him. I told my husband that I might have to vote for Trump over Sanders, and he told me that he would shoot me in the head first. He has TDS really bad.
Actually, I'd probably do a write in for Bill Weld instead. I think it will be a repeat of 2016 if Sanders is the nominee. Too many people will stay home.
I think you're inserting too much personal bias into your assessment of Bernie's electability. Until this point, he has inspired a level of voter turnout, grassroots enthusiasm, and mobilization that has not been seen in this country before. The sheer amount of funds he's been able to raise from a coalition of working people that is so incredibly diverse is nothing short of historic. In Nevada today he locked up almost every single demographic.
In the polls, he beats Trump head-to-head by a far wider margin than any of the other 2020 candidates. In a leaked video of Trump courtesy of Lev Parnas, who is indicted in connection with Trump's dealings in Ukraine, Trump celebrates that Hillary did not pick Bernie as her VP in 2016, because he knew that Bernie had a message that resonated with the disenchanted blue-collar voters who swung him the presidency.
Little to nothing would happen domestically. Domestic policy requires Congress and they would not get a majority for 99% of what Bernie proposes including MFA. Foreign policy though, he could influence. Given his coziness with Maduro, the Castros, and Daniel Ortega among other communists and leftists around the globe, it could be a major shift in US foreign relations.
Well, up until now the status quo is for the US to **** with those countries' economies and internal affairs in as many ways as possible so maybe that would actually be a welcome change.
The biggest threat socialism abroad poses to the US is when these countries attempt to "nationalize" their resources and industries (I.E. take them away from the control of US/EU corporations.)
He claims he is taking on China, but then every time I turn around he tweets he has made another trade deal with them, when truth is I think we need to cut them off altogether. They have used their cheap labor to siphon jobs out of the USA, which has weakened our economy. They are stealing our technology, spying on us and our military. They are buying up our land and food supplies all the while attacking our military ships and terrorizing smaller nations like Vietnam, Hong Kong as well as colonizing parts of the Caribbean and African continent. Not to mention they have been sending us products that are making Americans sick, either it be tainted toys, dog food, dry wall, etc. Everyone seems to be worried about Russia, and here I am thinking China is the bigger threat.And no one in Washington seems to have the balls to say anything to them. All talk and no action.
There are a few, like Senator Rubio, but their actions and proposals do not receive mass media attention.
Outside of arms/oil production and sales, the Russians are hardly involved in the global economy, they still have serious domestic growth problems and conflict at their doorstep. Any assertion that they interfere in anybody's elections is propaganda.
The Chinese can afford to pay people to shut up about it.
By the way, China even supplies artificial vitamins that are inserted to "enrich" certain food products in the US like pasta whose flour is impoverished through processing. Then we send our subsidized agricultural products, mainly soy and corn, to feed Chinese pigs, and we get crapped on in return.
Back on topic, the US is not Sweden or Denmark and it never will be. If economic incompetents come to power in the US, it is potentially more like Russia, China, and even more so like Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela, or the Roman empire facing foreign invasions, with lots of assets for them to sack and leave the tree trunk empty of sap.
Big difference is there would be no place else left on Earth to graft on to and start anew.
Good Luck!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He has TDS really bad. 
