"Intel officials warned House lawmakers Russia interfering to get Trump reelected"

The Senate didn't cause lose of confidence for Democrats?

Same with the House for Republicans?

Why has all the polling for years shown steady downward approval rating for congress the media etc?

 

I wouldn't see how that would be relevant to what's happening right now at this very moment anyhow

 

Unfounded? Didn’t an IG recently release a report highlighting the abuse f the Obama DOJ in FISA warrants against citizens?

the Obama admin did massive harm to trust

 

I really don't understand this logic, the guy who's winning the most so far has the lowest chance of beating Trump?

We can discuss if his policies are good that's fine but to say Klobuchar or Buttigige would fair better than him given the results of the primary so far is just not logic based.

 

Correct, the IG report basically validated what Nunes had been saying, and exposed Schiff's lies.

 

Wisconsin was where she didn't go.

She went to Michigan 6 Times.

But, yeah. Trump outdid her in the Swing States.

 

I don't consider the DNC (or the RNC) an American "institution."

 

"Logic-based" or not.

Bernie would Lose the GE and cost the Dems the House.

Same with Bloomberg b/c the Bernie People will sit it out.

If Biden can't get the Nom., the only alternative would be another candidate at an Open convention.

Bernie and Bloomberg are sure losers in the GE.

 

No...I think you are confusing "bad people" with institutions.

 

That's good that you don't but you aren't the only American so unless you've talked to each and everyone of them about whether they view those committees (the ones that supply our institutions with politicians) as American institutions your argument isn't great in my opinion

 

Biden has already failed, its not about money, its about a legitimate question of corruption and more importantly, poor responses to any inquiry.

Bloomberg is unprepared and being used to bank roll the DNC

Buttigieg is indeed interesting, but he hasn't really faced anything like he'd see debating Trump. His record as mayor doesn't really help his campaign, and the lack of any larger role is a big notch against him. He's basically a cog in the machine....but a tiny one. He does have a better presence than his opponents, but being a good debater alone isn't likely to win the presidency.

I firmly believe that Gabbard was the only one that the Dems had any chance with, but her disputes with the DNC killed her chances of their support and her nomination. Her anti-aggression stance and her ability and willingness to communicate could have flipped many that will end up voting conservative. At the very least, it would have done them a huge service to keep her alive through the end, even if she wasn't the nominee.

As, it stands, none of the contenders, save the bank roll, has the ability to appeal or even have a civil conversation with anyone on the right or center right.

 

What makes up institutions?

I think your transposing your own thought process and views of institutions onto millions of Americans. The polling for the last roughly two decades says so

 

Any system that depends on human beings will be imperfect. The IG simply "audited" the system and found mistakes. Correct them and move on. To quote an old saying: You don't throw the baby out with the wash.

 

Correction noted. I still think she felt she had Michigan locked up, hence only 6 visit.

 

Apologies! I had't realized that you have talked with each and every American.

 

Politically, our institutions are defined in the Constitution. I find neither the DNC or the RNC therein. But, granted, polling does show Americans have lost faith in Congress. But is that due to the institution itself? Or, is it due to individuals within it?

 

The Russians know that Bernie v Trump is better for Trump than Biden or most of the other Dem candidates.
The Russians want Trump.

 

Oh yeah.

She made a horrible mistake in Michigan.

She should have visited it twice as many times.

Trump had a great strategy in Michigan.

Hillary was sending surrogates (Like Obama) in the closing days, while Trump was having big arena rallies with crowd pleasers like Ted Nugent.

Trump had a masterful strategy in Michigan.

He knew where to campaign and pushed all of the right buttons.

His last rally was in Grand Rapids on Election Eve:

Musician and Michigan Native Ted Nugent took the stage around 11 p.m., talking to the crowd and playing electric guitar. He started by playing a rock version of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” He also played “Fred Bear,” one of his biggest songs.

https://www.woodtv.com/news/elections/trump-holds-final-rally-in-grand-rapids-the-election-is-now/

Masterful strategy. While Clinton was ignoring Michigan.

 

Its simple. He has a large base of very fervent socialist people. Enough to push him to the nomination apparently. However, the democratic base that is old enough to remember the cold war will not vote for him. Whether they abstain or vote against their own party doesn't matter, they've lost the election in this scenario, and likely the House as well. Look at it this way, most of the candidates are very much socialists, their policies follow along the lines of Nordic policies (high taxes, heavy social investments.) Bernie isn't a socialist that wishes to follow this route, he is anti-capitalism and the Nordic countries are still very much capitalist economies. This is the communist apologist that praised the USSR, Cuba and Venezuela. He thinks that he can do it better here.

 

Couldn't be further from the truth, of course the Russians are aiding Bernie in the primaries, all according to plan, they are doing their best to make sure Trump gets the rival he wants

And the big difference is that Bernie confronted and condemned Russia's actions, Trump on the other hand is doing his best to deny it and burying the evidence

 

As a side note, China doesn't "steal the technological and intellectual property patents," those companies doing business in China surrender those patents as part of the agreement to reach the Chinese markets.

It is not a fair requirement and should be eliminated, but American companies do it due to greed, they could chose to stay out of China and keep their patents, TPP dealt with the issue by providing other Asian markets to replace China, but we all know what happened there

 

There is that, yes; but it also displays a massive double standard. It's as if none of them ever think about how the rest of the nation are going to be thinking about their political shenanigans.

 

"However, the democratic base that is old enough to remember the cold war will not vote for him"

Isn't the primaries that Sanders won made up of the democrat base?


What your saying is Sanders won't appeal to the independents or more conservative wing of the democrat party?

If so by nominating Sanders roughly what percentage of the vote will Democrats lose? Now weigh that number against what percentage they will lose by nominating someone else with a lower vote total, because if that scenario happens you'd think some percentage would stay home or vote 3rd party .


Which percentage of lost vote is likely bigger?

As far as your views on the candidates themselves, I don't see much difference in ideas between them myself. What I mean is they've mostly all molded themselves after '16 Bernie and his policies. The only real difference is do they wanna take a long trip or a shorter one to get to the same destination?

 

The political Left and their captured MSM simply ignore every time that Trump has chastised the Russians for attempting to meddle in U.S. elections. Just like they ignored when Obama himself shut down an investigation into Russian interference in the midst of the 2016 campaign because he THOUGHT that Hillary had the election in the bag and how afterwards he exclaimed that it was preposterous that anyone thought the Russians could alter the outcome of the 2016 election. Fortunately, people noticed.

 

I'm gonna need some elaboration on that