Regardless of experience, there is no democrat that I could support based on issue positions. I'm really not inclined to vote for my enemy, even less inclined when I see issue stances that I believe would do significant harm not just to me but to the country as a whole. And they would be particularly harmful to the middle class and poor. "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you can keep 'em voting democrat." Their words may not say that, but their actions do.

Problem is, I don't agree with Trump on that many issues, or at least not on two of his big ones--the wall and tariffs. I don't agree with democrats on either one, just don't agree with Trump either. I still think whatever we do on the border has to be part of a larger comprehensive immigration plan. For example, a few will get through the wall inevitably. If we have to "catch and release" them when we apprehend them, then we still have a major problem. I'd punt the wall to get a more rational and comprehensive policy overall, because once we had that then I think some sort of barrier would become obviously necessary. I wonder if something like the SMART wall that Will Hurd proposed in 2017 could get any traction. On tariffs, I've said repeatedly that I'd go the consumption tax (VAT/GST/Smart Tax) route. That provides a mildly protective stance that should be sufficient to redirect a lot of manufacturing back here, while at the same time generating sufficient revenues to enable a balanced budget while allowing us to broaden, flatten, and lower income tax rates. We could also fund universal private health care using the Bismarck model, and a guaranteed basic income, using Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder predate/prefund. OK, I know, I've said that a lot, but I've run the numbers and that works (might even be able to get rid of individual income tax altogether) and so I'm going to keep putting it out there until we go there. Get that in place, see what happens to our competitiveness then, and adjust as necessary from there. Under that approach, US companies would still be much closer to a level playing field in the global economy (close enough IMO to command the markets, given our resources, geography, and demographics).

(01-14-2019 10:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 08:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Castro and O'Rourke definitely have atypical resumes for a Presidential candidate. But then Trump is president. I think his victory has destroyed the conventional wisdom that you need to be a Senator and/or Governor to run. Whether it should have or not, I don't know. There's also a lot of talk of Garcetti running - and while he's a mayor, he's mayor of a city with more people than around 20 states, and that's just the City of Los Angeles. The metro area would be the 5th largest state. So why wouldn't that be as good a qualification as Governor or Senator of Wyoming?

Not endorsing Garcetti specifically, just pointing out that I think the "conventional wisdom" has been blown up by Trump's election.

I actually think Castro has a better 'bare bones resume' (i.e. background shorn of ideological issues) than O'Rourke, or for that matter, Trump. And yes, Cabinet Secretary is also a form of executive experience, actually only one step less than the Chief Executive

Same for Garcetti. Mayor of LA is definitely a threshold that I could live with, much as I have in the past thought that Mayor of NYC passed that same threshold.

In fact both have better 'bare bones resumes' than any of the last two Presidents at the stage of their entering office.

Wow, something you and I agree completely on. Very good.

Which of us is the broken clock?

(01-15-2019 10:51 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 10:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 08:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Castro and O'Rourke definitely have atypical resumes for a Presidential candidate. But then Trump is president. I think his victory has destroyed the conventional wisdom that you need to be a Senator and/or Governor to run. Whether it should have or not, I don't know. There's also a lot of talk of Garcetti running - and while he's a mayor, he's mayor of a city with more people than around 20 states, and that's just the City of Los Angeles. The metro area would be the 5th largest state. So why wouldn't that be as good a qualification as Governor or Senator of Wyoming?

Not endorsing Garcetti specifically, just pointing out that I think the "conventional wisdom" has been blown up by Trump's election.

I actually think Castro has a better 'bare bones resume' (i.e. background shorn of ideological issues) than O'Rourke, or for that matter, Trump. And yes, Cabinet Secretary is also a form of executive experience, actually only one step less than the Chief Executive

Same for Garcetti. Mayor of LA is definitely a threshold that I could live with, much as I have in the past thought that Mayor of NYC passed that same threshold.

In fact both have better 'bare bones resumes' than any of the last two Presidents at the stage of their entering office.

Wow, something you and I agree completely on. Very good.

Which of us is the broken clock?

I'll step up to the plate... I'm very used to being referred to as 'broken' in some way or another....

Gillibrand is in, as she somewhat awkwardly announced on Colbert.

Edit: It was very awkward, not somewhat.

What do you think the over/under should be on announced Dem candidates?

Im going with 13.

(01-16-2019 11:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What do you think the over/under should be on announced Dem candidates?

Im going with 13.

I’d take the under.

Set it at 9.5.

Over. Way over.

Instead of just going over/under --- how about a 'closest prediction to actual' just for bragging rights. I am still at 13 for that.

Heck, I'll sponsor a prize: a case of decent beer, or equivalent for those whom do not wish an alcoholic prize.

This is at least one thing we can have fun with without long knives being drawn out.....

Rules for winning:
be the correct number --- first one with a number in this thread gets that number. An edit to your post makes the time of that edit the time of your pick.

If no one is correct, then the person who has the smallest absolute value of delta --- the winner is determined from that population by a random means tbd.

(01-16-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of just going over/under --- how about a 'closest prediction to actual' just for bragging rights. I am still at 13 for that.

I’m going with 10.

(01-16-2019 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of just going over/under --- how about a 'closest prediction to actual' just for bragging rights. I am still at 13 for that.

I’m going with 10.

You could count Beto as a .5, and maybe hit it on the button.

I'll go with 23.0.

(01-16-2019 01:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of just going over/under --- how about a 'closest prediction to actual' just for bragging rights. I am still at 13 for that.

I’m going with 10.

You could count Beto as a .5, and maybe hit it on the button.

I'll go with 23.0.

We have 5 so far.

Delaney
Warren
Gabbard
Gillibrand
Castro

And most of the front runners have yet to announce. My money is on Harris - black, female, and liberal.

I think we can discount Avenatti as a serious candidate.

(01-17-2019 11:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 01:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 01:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-16-2019 01:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Instead of just going over/under --- how about a 'closest prediction to actual' just for bragging rights. I am still at 13 for that.

I’m going with 10.

You could count Beto as a .5, and maybe hit it on the button.

I'll go with 23.0.

We have 5 so far.

Delaney
Warren
Gabbard
Gillibrand
Castro

And most of the front runners have yet to announce. My money is on Harris - black, female, and liberal.

I think we can discount Avenatti as a serious candidate.

Six, including Richard Ojeda, a state senator from West Va.

Perhaps a few more soon

I wonder how the MSM will handle the debates with so many candidates.

But who's got the super-delegates locked up?

I'm going to go with lucky 13.

(01-18-2019 09:27 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  But who's got the super-delegates locked up?

Pun intended? I laughed anyways

(01-18-2019 12:39 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 09:27 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  But who's got the super-delegates locked up?

Pun intended? I laughed anyways

Not intended at all!

(01-18-2019 10:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'm going to go with lucky 13.

For purposes of honor you can do that.... for purposes of the posted bounty for the winner 13 has been claimed....

(01-18-2019 04:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I'm going to go with lucky 13.

For purposes of honor you can do that.... for purposes of the posted bounty for the winner 13 has been claimed....

OK, I'll take 12.

You guys are way too low. Remember, there were 17 announced Republicans for the first debate, and that was for the right to oppose somebody thought to be a lock.