If Pochahontas or any other Democrat really wants to win, the answer is simple

[FultzNationRISE]

She needs to insist she will pay down the debt, and reduce the deficit primarily through spending/entitlement cuts, then tell the banks to **** off.

That's it. If she can get promises from Dem legislators during the campaign that they'll support her on that, she'll win. I would vote for her if she did that.

Then she and the Dems can push for whatever else they want during her term. Trans utopia safe spaces, sanctuary paradises for illegals, internet speech censors etc.

(Not saying they would achieve those things, but they could spend their time pursuing them).

All the Dem voters have to agree to, to WIN THE PRESIDENCY, is basically to let people mind their own finances instead of allowing politicians to shell out $ to buy votes and power. Pay off the debt and bring down the deficit. Take the country back from the banks and return it to the voters.

That's all it would take! And then they'll have the Presidency and can push for anything else.

And the astonishingly sad and frightening thing is... that will never even come up. It's completely out of the question, because the leaders won't propose it, and the average Dem voter isn't sure if he'll sound "too Republican" for suggesting it. Even a few of the Dem sheep, who might see the logic in it... they'll be terrified to step out of "lockstep" with the party. The average voter does not HAVE ideas, he ACCEPTS ideas. If it's not brought up by the leaders, it won't be brought up.

But it would be really easy to win this election with that promise. And it's a completely sensible, reasonable one. And it won't happen.



Let that sink in for a moment.

[FultzNationRISE]

LET IT SINK IN FOR A ****ING MOMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Norcaliblunt]

Naw.

Forcing the Fed to cough up the quad trillions it would take to build the border wall, cross country high speed rail, water pipelines, nuclear power plants, desalination plants, and repairing the interstate highway system would be a much better platform and program for the American people.

[FultzNationRISE]

Naw.

Forcing the Fed to cough up the quad trillions it would take to build the border wall, cross country high speed rail, water pipelines, nuclear power plants, desalination plants, and repairing the interstate highway system would be a much better platform and program for the American people.


If you don't have something coherent to say, then don't say anything at all :crazysam:

[MaxFly]

She needs to insist she will pay down the debt, and reduce the deficit primarily through spending/entitlement cuts, then tell the banks to **** off.

It's highly unlikely that Elizabeth Warren could win an election by proposing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cuts, cuts to Obamacare subsidies, food stamps, etc...

[FultzNationRISE]

It's highly unlikely that Elizabeth Warren could win an election by proposing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cuts, cuts to Obamacare subsidies, food stamps, etc...


Who are those people gonna vote for instead? Trump? Doubt it.

Think about the average people relying on those programs. Studies show they dont pay much attention to current events/politics in the first place. They just show up and auto-vote for Dems because they assume thats who’ll keep the entitlements coming.

If she campaigns saying, “Listen, we’re gonna reduce the deficit by reigning in federal spending and telling the banks we’re done borrowing exorbitant sums” etc she can get intelligent people who understand the message on her side, and let the rest show up and vote for her on auto pilot as theyd do anyway.

Why not?? Everyone says they want cooperation. But then nobody will agree to concede ANYTHING.

Is there a better compromise proposal coming from the left that Im unaware of?

:confusedshrug:

[MaxFly]

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE]If she campaigns saying,

[FultzNationRISE]

Yeah... that wouldn't work. Republicans would accuse her of looking to cut funds to those programs, and that would be the narrative from the moment she opens her mouth about cuts to election day.


The GOP establishment would, sure. They would definitely go full-fraud in order to keep banks protected from the threat of spending reductions.

But if she can get the conservative vote, the way Trump took it from the establishment? That's all that would really matter, no?

If conservatives were to vote for Warren in reasonable numbers... under what scenario do you see her losing? People who are already predetermined today to vote for the Democratic candidate, aren't going to vote for Trump because Warren is proposing spending cuts. Unless the GOP turns around and says "We SUPPORT spending! We won't cut ANYTHING!"

In which case the whole party is exposed publicly as a fraud.

Just hypothetically, let's say a fair number of conservatives decided to vote for Warren, based on a commitment for decreased spending. What do you think is the most realistic scenario in which she still manages to lose the election?

[MaxFly]

The GOP establishment would, sure. They would definitely go full-fraud in order to keep banks protected from the threat of spending reductions.

But if she can get the conservative vote, the way Trump took it from the establishment? That's all that would really matter, no?


Conservatives aren't going to vote for Elizabeth Warren, especially if she starts talking about cutting Social Security and Medicare. The average conservative voter loves those programs and does not want to see cuts that will affect them.


If conservatives were to vote for Warren in reasonable numbers... under what scenario do you see her losing? People who are already predetermined today to vote for the Democratic candidate, aren't going to vote for Trump because Warren is proposing spending cuts. Unless the GOP turns around and says "We SUPPORT spending! We won't cut ANYTHING!"

In which case the whole party is exposed publicly as a fraud.

Conservatives would campaign against cuts to programs and their voters would go right along with it. They don't care about being exposed as frauds. They're counting on the fact that their voters won't care and have short memories.


Just hypothetically, let's say a fair number of conservatives decided to vote for Warren, based on a commitment for decreased spending. What do you think is the most realistic scenario in which she still manages to lose the election?

She loses enthusiasm on the left, there's a civil war in the democratic party, and a lot people don't show up to vote... leading to a Trump victory.

[FultzNationRISE]

Conservatives aren't going to vote for Elizabeth Warren, especially if she starts talking about cutting Social Security and Medicare. The average conservative voter loves those programs and does not want to see cuts that will affect them.


Nobody is proposing to cut Social Security for current seniors or impending seniors. It

[FultzNationRISE]

Conservatives would campaign against cuts to programs and their voters would go right along with it. They don't care about being exposed as frauds. They're counting on the fact that their voters won't care and have short memories.




You think conservative voters, in this election, would denounce propposed spending cuts, and stump for politicians supporting them? What if Trump doesnt support them? What if Trump says “Yeah, I agree, Ill cut spending too”?

You counting on Trump to go along with the GOP?

After conservative voters loudly bucked the GOP establishment during the Republican primaries and voted for an outsider, the way lefitists failed to do in their primaries?

[MaxFly]

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE]Nobody is proposing to cut Social Security for current seniors or impending seniors. It

[MaxFly]

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE]You think conservative voters, in this election, would denounce propposed spending cuts, and stump for politicians supporting them? What if Trump doesnt support them? What if Trump says

[FultzNationRISE]

The average conservative voter doesn't genuinely care about the debt or the deficit. If they did, we'd see a larger outcry from them right now. The deficit has skyrocketed under Trump and there has been hardly a peep. :confusedshrug:


What options do conservatives have? If they cry out

[tpols]

We need a one child rule like China.

Only get aid for one kid, have more tough shit.

These women have literally made a lucrative profession out of raising off spring.

[Norcaliblunt]

Does this douchebag op really think that cutting spending is gonna save the world and that’s it? What an idiot.

[FultzNationRISE]

We need a one child rule like China.

Only get aid for one kid, have more tough shit.

These women have literally made a lucrative profession out of raising off spring.


I mean if we simply cut off immigration the birth rate probably drops to 1 or 1.5.

Another thing the Dem establishment wont accept.


Where is the compromise? Is there ONE issue they can drop their cringey, pretend moralist superiority complexes on and just compromise for the good of the country??

Is there even ONE???

[FultzNationRISE]

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]Does this douchebag op really think that cutting spending is gonna save the world and that

[Norcaliblunt]

If you dont have something coherent to say, dont say anything at all :crazysam:


Your moms a bitch. Suck my dick *****.

[FultzNationRISE]

Your moms a bitch. Suck my dick *****.


Pssst.

Your meltdown is showing.

[Norcaliblunt]

Pssst.

Your meltdown is showing.


Your whole life is a meltdown bitch.

[FultzNationRISE]

Your whole life is a meltdown bitch.


If you dont have something coherent to say, dont say anything at all. :crazysam:

[CelticBaller]

We need a one child rule like China.

Only get aid for one kid, have more tough shit.

These women have literally made a lucrative profession out of raising off spring.
Nah, let’s open our borders and give them and all who’s following more federal aid

[highwhey]

If you dont have something coherent to say, dont say anything at all. :crazysam:
he's not wrong tho, you're a meltdown hipster, you were doing it at a high level before the leftists. https://i.postimg.cc/wjvNkxWD/francis.png

[FultzNationRISE]

he's not wrong tho, you're a meltdown hipster, you were doing it at a high level before the leftists. https://i.postimg.cc/wjvNkxWD/francis.png


Uhhh....

If you dont have something coherent to say, dont say anything at all :crazysam:

[Norcaliblunt]

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Nah, let

[highwhey]

Uhhh....

If you dont have something coherent to say, dont say anything at all :crazysam:
https://i.gifer.com/FNBc.gif

[CelticBaller]

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]You can

[FultzNationRISE]

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt][B]You can

[CelticBaller]

Here

[Norcaliblunt]

:biggums:


Holy shit STOP TALKING.

Youre too dumb. Come on man. Take the stupidity elsewhere. Tryin to have a coherent convo in this thread.


So the state regulating who can enter the labor pool is freedom?

[Norcaliblunt]

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Here

[CelticBaller]

The world is not black and white

Borders have the purposes, specially in a welfare state

We are not libertarian for a reason. If this was a libertarian state we wouldn't have taxes to begin with

[Norcaliblunt]

The world is not black and white

Borders have the purposes, specially in a welfare state

We are not libertarian for a reason. If this was a libertarian state we wouldn't have taxes to begin with


Oh so you pick and choose whatever

[FultzNationRISE]

So the state regulating who can enter the labor pool is freedom?


First, theyre two separate issues.

The state could theoretically say: Business, hire whomever you want, legal or illegal. If the state happens to shut off its borders, business isnt gonna be able to hire illegals, even if theyre completely allowed by law to do so. Closing the borders is not in and of itself labor regulation.

Second: Every sane, intelligent person understands conservatives want a free market within the context of secure borders and limited immigration. Even if a turd like you wants to make some semantic argument that it’s not the literal definition of ‘free’, everyone still understands the point. People want a free market, WITHIN the context of it applying to American citizens, because thats the healthiest thing for the country.

You dont want to believe that, but you cant refute it intelligently, so you babble incoherently with pedantic arguments and non-sequiturs.

[CelticBaller]

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]Oh so you pick and choose whatever

[FultzNationRISE]

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Um, yes?

This is a democracy isn

[Norcaliblunt]

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE]First, theyre two separate issues.

The state could theoretically say: Business, hire whomever you want, legal or illegal. If the state happens to shut off its borders, business isnt gonna be able to hire illegals, even if theyre completely allowed by law to do so. Closing the borders is not in and of itself labor regulation.

Second: Every sane, intelligent person understands conservatives want a free market within the context of secure borders and limited immigration. Even if a turd like you wants to make some semantic argument that it

[Norcaliblunt]

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Um, yes?

This is a democracy isn

[CelticBaller]

Alright cool, as long as you are willing to call yourself a big government statist who uses democracy and the state to get what you want.
Oh so you mean a leftist?


Nah

[Hawker]

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]You can

[Norcaliblunt]

Oh so you mean a leftist?


Nah

Yup because that

[Norcaliblunt]

And full privatization of land. How convenient you left that out.


And how does all land become private?

[tpols]

And how does all land become private?


Ether.

To help hawker out, by government enforcement of border.

[Hawker]

And how does all land become private?

And how do all borders just disappear?

How can we have a free market without complete privatization of land?

Only big government statists like yourself would think otherwise.

I'm not asking for all land to become private - but your open-borders/ANCAP scenario only works in a country where all land is private and no taxes. And in that scenario, you would need to get permission to cross someone else's land to emigrate.

If you wanted a job in New York and you live in Mexico, well you'd have to negotiate travel across private land to get there. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard after figuring it out over many years but it would be hard initially.

So don't throw open-border platitudes around if you're not also calling for all privatization of land.

As it currently stands, if you're in a country being taxed by the federal government, your opinion/wishes should be more highly valued than from someone from another country since you're paying into it.

[Hawker]

Ether.

To help hawker out, by government enforcement of border.

How is that an ether? He's asking for open-border policies where immigrants can cross at any time. He's under the illusion that you don't need permission to cross private land and this buffer would keep many immigrants out.

He wants open borders but wants the state to enforce it. Can't have it both ways. He's railing against supposed "big government statists" like Starface. You can't suggest state enforcement of border as some kind of ether when you're doing that.

[Norcaliblunt]

And how do all borders just disappear?

How can we have a free market without complete privatization of land?

Only big government statists like yourself would think otherwise.

I'm not asking for all land to become private - but your open-borders/ANCAP scenario only works in a country where all land is private and no taxes. And in that scenario, you would need to get permission to cross someone else's land to emigrate.

If you wanted a job in New York and you live in Mexico, well you'd have to negotiate travel across private land to get there. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard after figuring it out over many years but it would be hard initially.

So don't throw open-border platitudes around if you're not also calling for all privatization of land.

As it currently stands, if you're in a country being taxed by the federal government, your opinion/wishes should be more highly valued than from someone from another country since you're paying into it.

Lol. You can keep doing the mental gymnastics all you want, doesn

[Norcaliblunt]

How is that an ether? He's asking for open-border policies where immigrants can cross at any time. He's under the illusion that you don't need permission to cross private land and this buffer would keep many immigrants out.

He wants open borders but wants the state to enforce it. Can't have it both ways. He's railing against supposed "big government statists" like Starface. You can't suggest state enforcement of border as some kind of ether when you're doing that.

Permission? That’s freedom? That’s voluntarism?

[tpols]

How is that an ether? He's asking for open-border policies where immigrants can cross at any time. He's under the illusion that you don't need permission to cross private land and this buffer would keep many immigrants out.

He wants open borders but wants the state to enforce it. Can't have it both ways. He's railing against supposed "big government statists" like Starface. You can't suggest state enforcement of border as some kind of ether when you're doing that.


No, he's pointing out your lack of perspective.

You value privatization, but discount the fact that government physical enforcement is necessary to protect your private assets.

[Norcaliblunt]

No, he's pointing out your lack of perspective.

You value privatization, but discount the fact that government physical enforcement is necessary to protect your private assets.


Unless landowners create some other

[Hawker]

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]Lol. You can keep doing the mental gymnastics all you want, doesn

[Hawker]

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]Permission? That

[Hawker]

[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]Unless landowners create some other

[warriorfan]

What an autistic thread

[FultzNationRISE]

Hey Lovie. Are my bullets still behind the cactus?

[warriorfan]

Hey Lovie. Are my bullets still behind the cactus?

Watch yourself or you might find one with your name on it

Hide your adderall

Hide your razors

Tread lightly

[FultzNationRISE]

Watch yourself or you might find one with your name on it

Hide your adderall

Hide your razors

Tread lightly


Reported.

[MaxFly]

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE]What options do conservatives have? If they cry out