Heshouldnotrun.org

Furthermore, If you're right leaning you shouldnt be trying to hijack the Democratic party. You should be trying to improve the actual right leaning party

 

Or concentrate with likeminded right leaning people on a third party. Because:

sounds depressing as the only option if I was a right leaning American

 

The relevant constitutional doctrine and case law would seem to be that relating to inverse condemnation or regulatory takings under the Fifth Amendment due process clause. It is well-established that "mere diminution" in value does not constitute a taking of property. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.e...oo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2236&context=plr https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/physical-and-regulatory-takings/ "No person has a vested right in any general rule of law or policy of legislation entitling him to insist that it shall remain unchanged for his benefit." Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Tranbarger, 238 U.S. 67, 76 (1915). See also, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 532 (1884).7. "Acts done in proper exercise of governmental powers and not directly encroaching upon private property, though their consequences may impair its use, are universally held not to be a taking within the meaning of the constitutional provision. " Pope v. United States, 173 F. Supp. 36, 39 (1959). See also, Northern Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 641 (1878); Richards v. Washington Terminal Co., 233 U.S. 546, 554 (1914). The Supreme Court uses a three-part balancing test to determine when regulation has reached such a degree that it constitutes a "taking": the economic impact of the regulation, the degree to which the regulation interferes with investor-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. The Fifth Amendment and Takings of Private Property But those cases have all involved physical property being rendered virtually worthless by government regulation. Even there, it is well-established under the common law of nuisance that private property rights are subject to a paramount right of government to protect the public interest. While it is true that the federal government has no general "police power" to legislate in the interest of health, safety, welfare and morals, its expansive powers under the spending clause and the commerce clause are sufficient to give it ample authority to enact universal health insurance.

 

The unfortunate reality is that it's impossible for a third party to gain traction in the US with the electoral college

BUT there are at least a couple of progressive candidates out there who want to abolish the electoral college just throwin that out there

 

I'm admittedly not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm certain a government action that makes an healthcare industry insolvent by the competitive advantage of requiring payment for and providing the service of healthcare would absolutely be challenged to the supreme court, and then we would have to deal with the republican stooges packed in there now.

A constitutional amendment would resolve issues of future administrations screwing with funding, or having to deal with Gorsuch's interpretation of what's constitutional.

A Better rate than a rate you're already paying for and are covered by extending Medicare to all? I suppose there would still be a place for supplemental insurance.

The Republicans are idiots.

That's almost Obamacare though. Everything you said before was correct. We need universal coverage, and any democratic candidate against universal coverage isn't worth supporting.

 

Hijack? I wonder if there's much of that actually happening. To hear the press tell it, neither party can stand to be around the other for more than a matter of seconds. So any right-ist who wants to try to play leftist probably can't carry it off for very long. You have to have unwavering confidence, to the point of never being wrong, to be a leftist. I don't see much of that from the right. They mostly toss in the towel the moment they get called some disparaging name.

 

A demographic that stayed home in 2016.

 

There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that The DNC will nominate a straight white man ever again.

Hate to break it to y’all, but if you’re feeling the Bern a second time, then you really need to see your gynecologist.

 

I think there's an excellent chance that the Dems will nominate Biden or Bernie, who as of April 2 were polling at one-third and one quarter of the Democrat voters, compared with 8% each for Harris and Beto, and less than that for each of the others. If the Dems don't nominate either biden or Sanders, they might lose, since both poll better than Trump. Harris and Warren do to, but not by as great a margin. If the Dems lose and continue to be stubborn, they'll lose again and either fade into the sunset or shape up. Not that I think a woman and/or a person of color wouldn't make a fine President, especially given demographic trends, but I don't think we're quite there yet and shouldn't take chances repeating the 2016 debacle. Defeating Trump has to be the primary objective. I foresee a woman of color as Biden's or Bernie's running mate, and a promise on his part to be a one-term President. That would position his running mate for the presidential candidacy in 2024. Of course, a lot could change that would alter that scenario--such as performance in the debates. If one of the women and/or minority candidates could demonstrate solid popular support beyond the Democrat base, especially in the battleground states, I might change my mind. I'm not impressed by Beto or Elizabeth Warren, but would vote for them if I thought they could win, which I don't.

 

This sort of effort will fail. It failed last time. Running a campaign with being against the other guy as the only platform basically ignores their primary charges, the Americans. And the Americans have made it obvious that politics based on hating their opponent goes nowhere.

The most important thing for democrats to do now is concentrate on what they plan to do for the Americans. Beyond that it's just beltway bickering and is quickly turned into a nauseating din. What are the democrats going to actually DO for the country? If "defeat Trump" is their only plan, I doubt they will do well. The bulk of the electorate aren't mired in knowing whom to hate.

In fact, a LOT of Americans are weary of all the hate. I know I'd rather see progress. What about the integrity of our food supply? What about our infrastructure (and all those antique bridges). What about pharmaceutical companies who created drugs specifically to cause an addiction crisis (to make a buck)?

I already know what the hate score is. And it's not likely to change. I'd rather hear about problems closer to the street. What's Warren going to do about educational debt slavery? What's Bernie going to do about the southern border? Will Biden pull our troops out of all these global zones where we are not wanted? When will they talk about that kind of thing WITHOUT the "don't forget to hate Trump" bullshit?

 

Don't you think we sort of know better this time around? I feel like Trump's chances are actually bad despite what the polling indicates. And when it comes to the economy let's be really honest... Are they jobs with benefits? Do they put roofs over heads? Or do you need two of them to put food on the table? I suspect that all of this magical job creation is a total farce and that people are being forced to work several jobs. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'll admit it if I am.

Trump's agenda is built on hype. The people around him tell him he's wrong all the time; like Mitch McConnell disagreeing with the whole national emergency. That's just one example. There are hundreds and even his so-called supporters (i.e. those who simply desire to bully democrats) know it. He doesn't have genuine support for anything he is doing, except by closet racists who want a closed border to stick it Mexican-Americans. It's pathetic and I don't think it's the stuff of winning elections.

 

Happily experience is the best teacher

 

I could not agree more

If Democrats would stick to focusing on policy and coming up with detailed plans to improve everything in this country that has been ignored for decades, they would win elections.

Most people dont just want someone who can beat Trump, they want someone who can transform Trump's America into something better. (And lets not forget, Trump's America doesnt really belong to Trump. It was created before Trump as a response to social and economic woes that we need a truly good leader to address)

 

It's like hearing "we know we're going to win, we hate Trump". Such raw arrogance makes it obvious they're setting themselves up for being blindsided. Again.

 

One choice is simply too less choice.

 

To do that, you have to have someone that can beat trump.

I disagree

 

Oh, I agree. We shouldn't run a campaign with being against the other guy (read Trump) as the only or main platform, and mustn't forget infrastructure , debt slavery, health care, etc.. We should just keep winning in mind, when tempted to pick a candidate who might be ideologically appealing but can't do that--and when equivocating between a candidate's misguided efforts to be warm and affable and a competitor who likes to grab pussies. And "it" didn't fail at all last time. Trump and the Republicans ran a thoroughly vicious campaign of personal attacks against Hillary, and they carried he day. Of course he also added policies and programs: the wall, isolationism, infrastructure, the best medical plan ever, etc. (How many of those came to fruition? But the RepubIicans aren't the least bit inhibited about using hate and appeals to our worst instincts to garner votes. Trump is the most divisive President in our history. Fueling hate is his stock in trade, and he's been using it effectively since his outrageous birther attack on Obama to stoke the blind loyalty of his base. I do agree that Democrats should be concerned with what they should do for Americans. They're certainly doing that, much more than Republicans, with more policies and programs than you could shake a stick at. Every additional giveaway program, genuflection to political correctness, or insistence on identity politics increases the risk of alienating Middle American voters in battleground states. I, for one, am also "weary of the hate", but the best way to put an end to it is to vote the monster who's responsible out of the White House. To win, we need both an appealing program and a candidate who can win. Make America Normal Again!

 

It's odd you mention this. The man was talking about women who were getting paid for this. Seems like one of many things one might be doing with a professional. Lately a lot of progressive/leftist talk is directly related to this with their reverence for legalized prostitution. Not that I'm against it, rental sex has all kinds of advantages.

But otherwise, pointing this out doesn't keep me engaged.

I knew a prostitute in Alameda who was a mechanic. That was her "act" or whatever. She'd arrive in tight coveralls and spots of grease. Worth every dime!

 

Indeed. Kerry’s campaign was based around “Anyone but Bush,” while offering hardly anything else. It was their only plan; didn’t work then and it won’t work now.

So far one solution they offered the country was the green new deal. But we all know how that went down. Senate Democrats like Booker and his ilk pretended to go along with it. But they all voted “present” which counts as a neutral vote of zero. This is because they knew it was a garbage bill that would’ve killed the country and harmed the environment, but their constituents would’ve been angry had they voted no.

It’s not just the Dems who have this problem though. Romney also couldn’t offer anything to counter Obama. Well, ok, he did say he’d end Obamacare but we all knew he was full of shit since he was one of the pioneers of Obamacare as a MA governor.