Is Pete Buttigieg emerging as the most likely challenger to Trump?

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Call me naive but does American politics come down to who has the most money?

If so that's a sad indictment of your political system.

Rob, that is not entirely accurate, in my opinion. It simply takes a whack of loot to field a campaign. The more money you have the more you can ‘advertise’ yourself. Whether this actually makes any difference, at some point, is debatable. 

[Rob Plant + 2,623]

5 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I think that in many voter’s minds, Warren is still tainted by her claim to be a native American. At the end of the day she lied to benefit herself.

As the old adage goes, ‘you have one chance to make a first impression’.

I think Warren has dug a hole for herself (pun intended)

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

You dissing my name, homey!😂

[Rob Plant + 2,623]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Rob, that is not entirely accurate, in my opinion. It simply takes a whack of loot to field a campaign. The more money you have the more you can ‘advertise’ yourself. Whether this actually makes any difference, at some point, is debatable. 

Agreed Douglas, but that is my point.

If you are the sharpest guy/gal in town  and have the best ideas/intentions on how to run the country but don't have the finances you cant run for election. 

By definition this makes a massive difference to the candidates who are even able to be considered.

It precludes talented individuals at the expense of the extremely wealthy.

As you have stated before (i think it was on another thread I read this morning) there is nothing wrong in being wealthy whether that is through hard work, luck, or inheritance, however this doesnt mean they have the best intentions for their country when in power.

In the UK its more a case of if you've been educated at Eton or some other elitist school then you have far more chance of success in leading your party and therefore one day becoming prime minister. It isnt really money driven though so does give opportunity to the ordinary working man to one day rule the country. Its the party that generate the campaign funds not the individual leader. I like that system far more.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

It is what it is mate!

You may be the smartest, most astute businessman on the planet but unless you’ve got the cash to showcase yourself or start your own company - you can’t get off the bench and onto the field!

In my opinion, most politicians are NOT the ‘sharpest knives in the drawer’, they simply had the money and connections to get on the ballot. This is a global phenomena.

Just take a look at EVERY Democratic candidate vying for their parties nomination (just as an example), if they spouted their nonsense in any bar, blue collar or white, they’d get ‘bitch slapped’ into next week. These people are no more in tune with your average citizen than a Martian. We are constantly in a situation where we pick the lesser of the evils.

I agree that if we could ever get money out of politics we would end up with better representation. I also like the idea of term limits. An IQ test would be good as well. Why not, when you apply for a gig at Maersk (again, for example) you have to take a timed IQ/logic test?

[Rob Plant + 2,623]

52 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

In my opinion, most politicians are NOT the ‘sharpest knives in the drawer’,

Haha i defy anyone on this site to argue against this!

[Rob Plant + 2,623]

56 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

It is what it is mate!

Ironic though that "in the land of the free" and the "land of opportunity" there is no opportunity to ever be president unless you are a billionaire.

Sort of narrows the playing field somewhat don't you think?

Agree with the IQ test, what harm can that do?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

29 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Ironic though that "in the land of the free" and the "land of opportunity" there is no opportunity to ever be president unless you are a billionaire.

Sort of narrows the playing field somewhat don't you think?

Agree with the IQ test, what harm can that do?

Aren't you guys forgetting that in many cases it is not the candidate's money that gets them there?  Candidates routinely have backers, PACs, etc. that believe in their message and back them in campaigns.  Each campaign can also be eligible for Federal funds.  I know any candidate would be at a disadvantage if those were their only campaign $$ streams, but if the message, and hopefully track record, is good enough, they have a chance.  The money from the FEC is substantial, but not on par with some of the big spenders (see link).

This from The Federal Election Commission:

Public funding of presidential elections

https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understanding-ways-support-federal-candidates/presidential-elections/public-funding-presidential-elections/

Remember too that candidate Trump did not even do fundraisers, which is in large contrast to his opponents.  Up until the last 3 months of his campaign his largest contributors were individuals and big money folks tended to stay away (or he didn't want their money to create controversy, so he asked them not to contribute [my conjecture]).  In the last 3 months when it looked like he could make it, he "loaned" his campaign money to get him over the hump and into the White House.  These details, and a number of other interesting ones, are outlined in this PolitiFact article:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/feb/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-self-funding-his-campaign-sort/

And of course, Trump said it himself:  The MSM inadvertently gave him millions of $$ worth of free advertising and on-air time.  Played them like a fiddle, or in Trump's case: a stradivarius! 😁

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Haha i defy anyone on this site to argue against this!

Adam and Jerry are both as sharp as ball-peen hammers, although apparently rather less effective!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Ironic though that "in the land of the free" and the "land of opportunity" there is no opportunity to ever be president unless you are a billionaire.

Sort of narrows the playing field somewhat don't you think?

Agree with the IQ test, what harm can that do?

It’s not just here buddy!

[Rob Plant + 2,623]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

It’s not just here buddy!

Agreed!

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Ironic though that "in the land of the free" and the "land of opportunity" there is no opportunity to ever be president unless you are a billionaire.

Sort of narrows the playing field somewhat don't you think?

Agree with the IQ test, what harm can that do?

Actually, that isn't really true. 

You need to be able to raise good money, but you don't need to use your own. Clinton definitely didn't come from big money, though Hilary did, though again, not her own. Reagan definitely didn't come from money. It is similar to the Eton and Oxbridge crowd from which the political leadership comes out in the UK. The privilege of connections and a convincing education. I absolutely oppose the idea that the party financing of candidates has any vestige of a benefit for the people. I entirely oppose the creation of the executive out of the legislature. They need to be distinctly separate powers.

Trump actually ran a lower cost campaign. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Call me naive but does American politics come down to who has the most money?

If so that's a sad indictment of your political system.

A lot of money is needed to run any campaign but Bloomberg's amount of money is unusual. Big money doesn't work well for presidential candidates but small money works well for small offices. Soros has been very successful in helping left wing state attorney generals get elected. Targeted money works well in congressional races, legislative etc. 

[Bob D + 562]

On 2/16/2020 at 11:00 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

 

Rodent is she, not he.

How dare you!  All of you!! You have no idea how that squirrel gender identifies.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

13 minutes ago, Bob D said:

How dare you!  All of you!! You have no idea how that squirrel gender identifies.

Clearly, you don't know who Rodent actually is.

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/2043-trump-to-sit-down-with-major-automakers-on-fuel-rules/#comment-10917

 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

  10 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

In my opinion, most politicians are NOT the ‘sharpest knives in the drawer’,

Haha i defy anyone on this site to argue against this!

Define "sharpest."

Perhaps it's sharp to wheedle someone out of an apartment building for twice what it's worth. Or to be sharp enough to do just well enough in Harvard Business School after socializing through Yale. Or, well, you could go all the way back to the Civil War, and it would be sharp enough to lead a total mess of derelicts and come out on top, then become president because you had saved the Union. 

Fast forward: it took a real "sharpie" to be born half-black but act all-black, be half-muslim but act as though it didn't matter. At the same time, lots of sharpies got the country in bad trouble by slicing and dicing mortgage-backed securities and not-such-sharpies bought them because who could get into trouble with mortgages, right?

Through the eons of time, there have been sharpies and there have been "sharpies." It seems like the sharpies do okay but the "sharpies" get to sleep with all the women, lead people, get money thrown at them.

My point: In taking the challenge I merely make the argument that it's getting harder and harder to tell who's the sharpest knife in the drawer. Or to determine if you even want the sharpest knife in the drawer. I'd have to say that Nancy Pelosi is a pretty sharp knife to have climbed out of the drawer. But is she as sharp a knife as Mitch McConnell? And then there's Mike Pence, is he sharp? I don't know many previously-unknown state governors who became VP so I'd have to say yes.

And Buttigieg? Man, is he a sharpie! Or just a "sharpie?" He may well be the sharpest knife in the drawer, because I don't know many gay, small-town mayors who have their own police force disavow loyalty and then get to kiss their husbands on a world stage. Man, he is a sharpie!

Then there's Amy Klobuchar. She announced her presidency quite a while back, standing beside the headwaters of the Mississippi river in twenty-degree weather, talking about the horrors of global warming. Not many people could do that and still be in the running. Especially since she doesn't seem to know who the president of Mexico is. Hell, even I know who he is! But she's a "sharpie," not a sharpie.

The sharpest knife in the drawer would know who the president of Mexico is. Well, scratch that, he'd have someone to tell him or, more likely, he'd just scowl and say, "Who gives a damn about the president of Mexico. He's only sending us his rapists."  

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Clearly, you don't know who Rodent actually is.

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/2043-trump-to-sit-down-with-major-automakers-on-fuel-rules/#comment-10917

 

Hey-heh.  That was a good one, Tom.  One thing is for sure: Don't even try to lay any of that PC shxt on @Rodent!  She doesn't need any of that to put someone in their place!  She reportedly drives a truck with a gun rack.  So "you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?"

[Rob Plant + 2,623]

10 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Define "sharpest."

Perhaps it's sharp to wheedle someone out of an apartment building for twice what it's worth. Or to be sharp enough to do just well enough in Harvard Business School after socializing through Yale. Or, well, you could go all the way back to the Civil War, and it would be sharp enough to lead a total mess of derelicts and come out on top, then become president because you had saved the Union. 

Fast forward: it took a real "sharpie" to be born half-black but act all-black, be half-muslim but act as though it didn't matter. At the same time, lots of sharpies got the country in bad trouble by slicing and dicing mortgage-backed securities and not-such-sharpies bought them because who could get into trouble with mortgages, right?

Through the eons of time, there have been sharpies and there have been "sharpies." It seems like the sharpies do okay but the "sharpies" get to sleep with all the women, lead people, get money thrown at them.

My point: In taking the challenge I merely make the argument that it's getting harder and harder to tell who's the sharpest knife in the drawer. Or to determine if you even want the sharpest knife in the drawer. I'd have to say that Nancy Pelosi is a pretty sharp knife to have climbed out of the drawer. But is she as sharp a knife as Mitch McConnell? And then there's Mike Pence, is he sharp? I don't know many previously-unknown state governors who became VP so I'd have to say yes.

And Buttigieg? Man, is he a sharpie! Or just a "sharpie?" He may well be the sharpest knife in the drawer, because I don't know many gay, small-town mayors who have their own police force disavow loyalty and then get to kiss their husbands on a world stage. Man, he is a sharpie!

Then there's Amy Klobuchar. She announced her presidency quite a while back, standing beside the headwaters of the Mississippi river in twenty-degree weather, talking about the horrors of global warming. Not many people could do that and still be in the running. Especially since she doesn't seem to know who the president of Mexico is. Hell, even I know who he is! But she's a "sharpie," not a sharpie.

The sharpest knife in the drawer would know who the president of Mexico is. Well, scratch that, he'd have someone to tell him or, more likely, he'd just scowl and say, "Who gives a damn about the president of Mexico. He's only sending us his rapists."  

I think you have to read EXACTLY what Douglas said, he said MOST politicians aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

There will always be some that are super bright people.

IMO MOST politicians go into politics not because they want to make a difference to the welfare and prosperity of the people, they go into politics for selfish reasons such as power, financial gain, notoriety on a world stage etc

In the main these people are morally corrupt and reprehensible in the way they conduct themselves

Look at the Bidens as an example but you could pick dozens, if not the majority in most governments around the world.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Rob Plant

[Bob D + 562]

Buttigieg seems strong coming out of Iowa/New Hampshire.  Nationally ... not so much!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

Just a simple question: What does US presidential election have to do with geopolitics?  US president has very little power.  Now congress's actions on the other hand.......

[Jeff_Calgary + 68]

Mayor Pete is certainly the smartest of the field. He seems to be able to think on his feet, is smart and honest. Don't know if those traits count anymore in US politics.

[Bob D + 562]

How do you know Mayor Pete is smart?  How do you know Mayor Pete is honest?

 

[SERWIN + 749]

On 2/17/2020 at 5:17 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

I think that in many voter’s minds, Warren is still tainted by her claim to be a native American. At the end of the day she lied to benefit herself.

As the old adage goes, ‘you have one chance to make a first impression’.

That was not her only lie though, she has been busted on several lies she dreamed up to make herself seem like a "not rich" candidate

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

From Business Insider, February 11, 2020:

Elizabeth Warren is running for president in 2020. Here’s everything we know about the candidate and how she stacks up against the competition.

https://www.businessinsider.sg/who-is-elizabeth-warren-bio-age-family-key-positions-2019-3/?r=US&IR=T

(Here are some excerpts)

On immigration:

• Warren wants to replace the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) with “something that reflects our morality and that works.”
• She supports the Obama administration’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program, which protects young people who come to the US illegally as children.
• She co-sponsored the 2018 HELP Separated Children Act aimed at protecting immigrant children from enforcement actions.
• And she supports decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings.
• During the 2020 Democratic presidential debate in Detroit, Warren said, “The truth is, immigrants seeking refuge in our country aren’t a threat to national security. It’s time to end this draconian policy and return to treating immigration as a civil – not a criminal – issue.”

On climate change and the environment:

• In February 2019, Warren signed on to the Green New Deal resolution, which aims to transition the US to 100% clean and renewable energy in 10 years, and stimulate the economy with millions of new jobs and an expanded social safety net.
• Warren introduced a bill last year that would require public companies to disclose information about how climate change might impact their business. She has a 99% lifetime score, based on her voting record, from the League of Conservation Voters.
• In April 2019, Warren announced she would sign an executive order fully banning drilling, including offshore, on public lands. She would also reinstate a rule limiting methane pollution, clean water regulations, and protections for national monuments.
• Warren has said she would hire 10,000 Americans to “to help rebuild our national forests and national parks as a way to express both their public service and their commitment to fighting back against climate change.”
• In September 2019, Warren laid out her climate proposal, which calls for 100% zero-carbon new buildings by 2028, all zero-carbon new vehicles by 2030, and entirely zero-carbon electricity by 2035. She would spend $3 trillion on climate efforts. She supports a tax on carbon as a way to cut emissions.
• Warren wants to spend $1 trillion over the next decade on the country’s most vulnerable communities, with a focus on climate and environmental impacts on those populations.

• On education:
  • In April 2019, Warren unveiled her plan to forgive $50,000 in student loan debt for every American whose family makes up to $100,000, and households that make between $100,000 and $250,000 would get a sliding portion of their debt cancelled. She would also make all public higher education, including community colleges, tuition- and fee-free.
  • Warren previously signed on to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ College For All Act, which would waive tuition for all students attending public colleges and universities whose families make $125,000 a year or less.
  • And she supported Sen. Brian Schatz’s proposal to make room and board and other expenses loan-free for students attending public colleges.
  • Warren has introduced several bills over the years to aid student loan borrowers.
• On guns:
  • Warren co-sponsored a ban on assault weapons and on the sale of high-capacity magazines. She’s called for gun manufacturers to do more to reduce gun violence, and pushed for the National Institutes of Health to do more research on gun violence.
  • Warren introduced a sweeping proposal in August to cut gun deaths by 80% through the use of the executive powers of the presidency. She endorsed the creation of a federal licensing system, raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21, putting a cap on the number of guns one person can buy, $100 million yearly investment in gun violence research, and laws to hold gun manufacturers liable.
• On criminal justice reform:
  • Warren introduced a 2018 marijuana reform bill which would exempt states that have legalized marijuana from the federal prohibition on the drug. And she co-sponsored the 2018 Marijuana Justice Act, which would end the federal prohibition on marijuana.
  • Warren is opposed to the death penalty, and says the criminal justice system is “racist … front to back,” and supported the Senate’s bipartisan criminal justice reform bill passed in December 2018.
• On trade:
  • Warren wants to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but is critical of Trump’s 2018 deal with Mexico and Canada.
  • She also opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which Trump withdrew the US from in 201, arguing that it would “undermine US sovereignty” and disproportionately benefit multinational corporations.
  • Warren wants the US to “rethink all of our trade policies” and says tariffs should be part of that.
• On jobs:
  • In June 2019, Warren proposed a set of economic interventions to help US workers, including a $2 trillion investment in environmentally sustainable industries, a new federal government department to promote economic development, and US dollar manipulation, under the umbrella of what she called “economic patriotism.”
• On foreign policy:
  • She called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in November 2018. She’s also called for the removal of US troops from Syria and Iraq. She voted against a Senate resolution condemning Trump’s withdrawal of US troops from Syria.
  • She opposed Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and she is opposed to US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
  • Warren has been critical of the Israeli government is recent years, particularly with regard to its treatment of Palestinians. She is a critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
• On taxes:
  • Warren has proposed implementing a wealth tax on the 75,000 richest American families, which would involve a 2% tax on assets above $50 million and a 6% tax on assets over $1 billion. She wants to roll back the GOP’s 2017 tax cuts.

[Uvuvwevwevwe Onyetenyevwe Ugwemuhwem Osas + 96]

On 2/17/2020 at 3:42 PM, Rob Plant said:

Ironic though that "in the land of the free" and the "land of opportunity" there is no opportunity to ever be president unless you are a billionaire.

Sort of narrows the playing field somewhat don't you think?

Agree with the IQ test, what harm can that do?

Obama was one of the poorest US presidents in all of US history.
He was president only 4 years ago.  Hillary's 2016 campaign spent twice as much as Trump.
You are spouting nonsense.  I don't know if you are a leftist but leftist think everything is about money.
Money is not the cause of everything.  Money is not the solution for everything.
Ross Perot lost in 1992 despite having the most money of all candidates.
Bloomberg will lose despite having the most money of all candidates.