2024 Election

[JerryBaumchen 1,432]

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

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

No, because he's not actually in office.

I'd like to think that he'll be in prison by then.
Maybe not, but it's a nice thing to hope for.

[winsor 236]

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).

[Westerly 61]

it will be interesting to see mike pense square off with trump in the debates. haha.

[brenthutch 444]

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”

[Phil1111 1,149]

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.

[gowlerk 2,249]

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.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

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.

 

[gowlerk 2,249]

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. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

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.

[JerryBaumchen 1,432]

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

[wmw999 2,532]

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. 

[brenthutch 444]

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?  
 

[billvon 3,067]

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.

[brenthutch 444]

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 October 24, 2021 by brenthutch

[BIGUN 1,402]

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

[brenthutch 444]

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 October 25, 2021 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,465]

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.

[JerryBaumchen 1,432]

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

[brenthutch 444]

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 October 25, 2021 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 444]

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.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

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. 

[brenthutch 444]

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.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

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.

 

[brenthutch 444]

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.