Who?
Who would you want to be elected president in 2020? I'm not sure, but definitely NOT Humpty Trumpty! I'll wait until there are more debates.
shareAnyone but T-rump. Anyone at all.
share
MovieChat Forums > Politics > Who?
Trump 2020,Nikki Haley 2024
shareShe'd be a lock for the Republican nomination if Trump were out of the picture. As for the presidency, I'm not so sure. I'm ideologically opposed to just about everything she stands for, but unlike Trump she is highly competent.
Still waiting for Trump to dump Pence and add her to his 2020 ticket. I think he's waiting to see if a female wraps the Dem nomination. If so, I think he'll kick Pence to the curb and add her so she can be his attack dog against any female contender against charges of sexism.
I thought that mystery callback of Pence to DC last week might have been it for the theocrat. It's pretty conspicuous that Trump 2020 rally signs omit his name.
Nikki Haley is Condoleeza Rice 2. Would she be a lock for the Republican nomination? I don't think so. She's a non-white female war hawk, not exactly popular things with the base. She's the media's idea of what a good "conservative" should be. Or as you put it, "competent". I would never give ideology the backseat to that. Again, I suspect she's a lot more popular with liberals than with conservatives, just like Tulsi Gabbard in your party is a lot more popular with conservatives than with liberals on account of her opposite anti-war stance.
shareTulsi Gabbard isn't more popular because she's been a member of a bizarro alt-right Hari-Krishna-like religious cult since childhood devoted to its abusive and manipulative guru Chris Butler who she worships as the living embodiment of God on earth. She's on video as recently as 2015 reaffirming Butler as her spiritual guru and the cult leader's right hand man is a paid member of her campaign team entourage. The guru is reportedly eager for his followers to climb in politics in order to spread his own influence and he sees Gabbard as his personal ticket to power.
Of course you'd never know that watching Tucker Carlson, who goes out of his way to promote the shit out of her without telling you. That's because Fox is fake news.
As for Haley, the fact that she's highly competent means she poses a potentially bigger danger than Trump if she enters office because she actually has a clue how to wield the levers of bureaucratic power; plus she's a neocon warhawk. Whereas Trump's first couple years are marked by general incompetence because he really had no idea what he was doing, now he's got the human wrecking ball Barr playing catch up and destroying government for him so it might be a wash.
I'm leaning toward Andrew Yang still.
He got so little debate time on round two that it wasn't a fair evaluation of him; waiting to see more.
I've been interested in him/his ideologies for some time though.
He seems like a smart, even tempered fellow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlwG-XVBQJ4&t=3541s
Exactly the reason he stands out to me from the other candidates. Not that any others in the race are necessarily bad choices, but Yang seems to give a unique touch in my view. He is definitely more clear and oriented when it comes to debating and explaining things compared to many. His focus on subjects in discussions is also pretty sharp. Until him I had never really considered any candidates as any different much from one another.
In politics there is so much talking but so little difference. Yang really makes me think that he could make changes fairly quickly with his UBI and healthcare propositions specifically. At least he seems centered more strongly on bigger things and clearly details them/how they'd work, whereas others just use the "feel good promises" tactic more and don't go much deeper than surface level claims usually.
September debate can only have 20 people. I think Beto will leave Monday deadline with not having the donation quota met. I think 3 or 4 more will pull out also.
shareThere should have been a timer in front of each cabinet so they were given an equal amount of time to speak.
Yang's only idea appears to be a basic income which isn't practical nor affordable.
He has other plans, but UBI is just his main selling point.
At least he is more direct with it as other candidates provide vaguer selling points that span different areas of interest/politics. UBI and Yang are at least clearer on what their aims and goals are together, but UBI isn't only what Yang is proposing -- check his site for more.
And the affordability/practicality of UBI doesn't seem to be a big issue, given how he plans on doing it.
But I agree -- they didn't do the debate fairly at all. Giving tons of questions to only one candidate and then nearly none to another is just wrong. They seemed to have rigged it to mostly cater to fewer candidates ahead of time.
I just read how he plans to fund UBI. Basically taxing the middle-class and up by creating a VAT tax 10%, wrecking capital gains profits, toying with social programs is a disaster in the making, and increasing social security taxes and using federal dollars.
He seems like a nice guy, but his social program ideas would bankrupt the U.S.
I don't recall any taxing of the "middle-class and up" in general by implementing the VAT in a certain industry. How so?
It isn't to "toy with social programs" but use a tax system only in a very particular type of market(s) to kickstart the backing of UBI funding. Everyone or specific people aren't just randomly going to have to pay more taxes in general to fund this (outside specific industries/business structures themselves).
I don't really understand how you see it that specific way. The middle class will be getting the UBI as well anyways -- same with upper-class, lower-class, poor, elite, and etc. No one group of people ("class" or money-wise) in general will really lose from this (in any way I can picture). The idea for having a VAT in certain sectors/industries anyways can be justified: they take away jobs so less people can work. It only seems fair to do something about the rise of machines/automation/AI and the lack of humans that will be able to work for a living due to the ways things will go.
UBI would be funded from several sources. Raising capital gains taxes effects the middle-class and up. Many rely on the stock market for retirement.
Recipients can choose UBI or their social program(s). A new TV instead of food stamps isn't a good idea.
VAT on consumer goods is still a tax and makes them more expensive. Raising social security withdrawal amounts to more taxes.
Everybody getting UBI makes no sense because eventually the poor end up in the same exact place after prices rise. Ditto raising the minimum wage which is only a temporary fix.
Yang also assumes everyone will spend this money on consumer goods. Not really. When presidents try to jump start the economy by giving people a few extra tax dollars, I just bank it. Other people I know just pay bills. I've never known it to work.
"the World Economic Forum predicts that robots will displace 75 million jobs globally by 2022 but create 133 million new ones—a net positive...in the United States there are currently more job openings, 6.9 million, than unemployed people, 6.5 million."
https://fee.org/articles/the-real-cost-of-universal-basic-income/
Of the current people running, I'd have to go with Trump. Didn't support him last time, but he's the best of the current choices. Even the founder of BET says the current crop of dems are too crazy.
Of those not running, I'd support Nikki Haley.
Co-founder Robert Louis Johnson is worth $600 million and received a huge Trump tax cut for the rich. That explains why he supports Trump especially when the Democrats said the tax cut that helped the rich and hurts the middle-class will be rectified.
The Republican politicians want another for tax cut for rich people which will increase the taxes further for middle income people. Republican voters in my area are fuming.
You're grasping at straws. Saying "even the founder of BET says" is disingenuous. As if the founder of BET is speaking from a racial standpoint. The founder of BET is speaking as a wealthy person who doesn't want their tax cuts to go away. The tax code proposed by Warren, Bernie, etc would have more benefit to the middle class because of the healthcare they would receive. The wealthy have no interest in providing healthcare to the worker bees.
The wealthy are just as out of touch with the middle class as the establishment are. None of them have any idea how easily Bernie Sanders destroys Trump in an election. Just like he would've done in 2016.
Ryan Seacrest
shareIn reality, the lack of direction you just described is probably EXACTLY why Trump will win a second term. The Dems are destroying each other and have no real focus, and its not goung to appeal to any accept the far left. Fringe groups don't win elections.
shareThe Republicans are fragmented, too. There are Trumpists, traditional Republicans, Tea Partiers, moderates, liberals, Libertarians, extreme right/alt-right/neo-Nazis, etc..
Trump is part of a fringe group which is why there are Never-Trumpers in the Republican Party. It was a fluke which won't be repeated. People stayed home instead of voting because they assumed Trump wouldn't win which was stupid on their part. If you look at the reaction during the 2017 Women's March and the blue wave in November 2018, it should be a precursor to the 2020 elections unless the Republican Party plans to cheat by voter suppression or Russian help again.