mikeman Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 She's likable/relatable to a degree, and some on her background is nice. Again, I think she's stuck in that far left catering that has dems all unhinged, but I do see a chance/angle for her to pivot. I'd have easily dismissed her if you asked me this yesterday at this time, but did some looking last night after seeing polls/odds and it all started to hit me. Biden no energy, Kamala too dominant, Booker too goofy, Mayor Pete too not being given a chance.....etc... Only leaves Liz Warren. And she has some things that she can spin to her favor. Like it or not, Americans are highly susceptible to not only emotional appeals, but those who are 'authentic' by nature. She can even spin her shrillness as 'caring too much,' etc and folks will at least give her and her message a chance. So....if Dems can help her pivot some to center and not just cater to far left, there's a chance she is President-elect. Cmon, a harvard professor that lied to advance her career, who harbors extreme left views on pretty much everything, is not relatable to middle america, she just isnt. It doesn't matter if people in CA and Mass like her, that means nothing,. Actually it mans the opposite of nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Cmon, a harvard professor that lied to advance her career, who harbors extreme left views on pretty much everything, is not relatable to middle america, she just isnt. It doesn't matter if people in CA and Mass like her, that means nothing,. Actually it mans the opposite of nothing. That's gonna be used against her, no doubt. But from the reading I did on the topic, it appears they've got that one covered up. I'm just saying that she's gonna come off as truly caring---for which Hillary did not. Truly caring v CEO Asshole archetype is a stark contrast. These other Dems are having a huge problem in drawing contrasts. Be careful, because she just may be more formidable than you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sol Aristatel Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Trump will absolutely bury Warren if that were the matchup. I don't care what poll anyone is referencing. Unfortunately I think Trump is going to win again. And things are going to get CRAZY here in the US. The left will riot like you have never seen. We might even see an attempted RUSH on the White House. They hate him that much. A complete meltdown of the Left might be in our future. Civil war-ish shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeman Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Trump will absolutely bury Warren if that were the matchup. I don't care what poll anyone is referencing. Unfortunately I think Trump is going to win again. And things are going to get CRAZY here in the US. The left will riot like you have never seen. We might even see an attempted RUSH on the White House. They hate him that much. A complete meltdown of the Left might be in our future. Civil war-ish shit. Sorry, but we already had the complete meltdown, we really did. Trump will put the hammer down after he wins again, it will be a joy to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVU Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 the war on the superweathly will be a key factor in election Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sol Aristatel Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Sorry, but we already had the complete meltdown Sorry, but you haven't seen anything yet. It will get much worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 the war on the superweathly will be a key factor in election Yep. Even if Trump is re-elected, Wealth Inequality is a big issue. Now, socialism/communism is NEVER the answer, but neither is giving these people Corporate Welfare so that way their personal wealth gets to grow exponentially. I do think that with Wealth Inequality being a big fight that The Left will wage, it'll at least force a reconsideration of how such is acquired/obtained by those at the very top. Another thing that helps Warren connect to regular people. She gets to use that to draw folks in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Sorry, but you haven't seen anything yet. It will get much worse. Scary thought! But....I do tend to agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeman Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Sorry, but you haven't seen anything yet. It will get much worse. What are they going to do, scream louder about impeachment, try to block his policies? Bring it on. Looks like quite a bit of that wall is getting built, what with this pentagon money they just announced, just a few months ago the dems were laughing at his wall, now AOC is calling it a tiny little wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 My other question about the Superwealthy, and maybe WVU can answer: Is the disparity nowadays greater, lesser than or about the same as a century ago or so? Obviously the amplification of the issue is greater these days, but does anyone know off-hand historically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeman Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 My other question about the Superwealthy, and maybe WVU can answer: Is the disparity nowadays greater, lesser than or about the same as a century ago or so? Obviously the amplification of the issue is greater these days, but does anyone know off-hand historically? I would say it's far, far less than a century ago. Far more than 30 years ago however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sol Aristatel Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 What are they going to do I already told you. Stop wasting my time. There's a reason why I rarely respond to your posts. I'll go back to that now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeman Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Now that congress is back, lets get those investigations going, let those subpoenas fly, i've missed the circus. Impeach that mother fucker! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 I would say it's far, far less than a century ago. Far more than 30 years ago however.Ah, okay. Then there's an angle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVU Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 My other question about the Superwealthy, and maybe WVU can answer: Is the disparity nowadays greater, lesser than or about the same as a century ago or so? Obviously the amplification of the issue is greater these days, but does anyone know off-hand historically? tons of CEOs are making 1000 x their employees. That wasn't happening 100 years ago Wages in 1920As is the case today, wage earners in the United States filed tax returns and paid federal tax on their wages. In 1920, the Internal Revenue Service reports, the average income was $3,269.40 per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeman Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 I already told you. Stop wasting my time. There's a reason why I rarely respond to your posts. I'll go back to that now. You said they will do "civil warish" stuff, that's not a serious answer or expectation. They will do nothing, because they can do nothing, the media cant hate him any more, the dems in congress cant oppose him any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeman Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 tons of CEOs are making 1000 x their employees. That wasn't hapening 100 years ago Wages in 1920As is the case today, wage earners in the United States filed tax returns and paid federal tax on their wages. In 1920, the Internal Revenue Service reports, the average income was $3,269.40 per year.A century ago, the wealthy railroad, mining , and oil men controlled far more than anyone does today, there weren't typical CEO's in todays sense since perhaps 1/2 the pop farmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVU Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 My other question about the Superwealthy, and maybe WVU can answer: Is the disparity nowadays greater, lesser than or about the same as a century ago or so? Obviously the amplification of the issue is greater these days, but does anyone know off-hand historically? Trends in CEO compensation last year:Average CEO compensation was $15.2 million in 2013, using a comprehensive measure of CEO pay that covers CEOs of the top 350 U.S. firms and includes the value of stock options exercised in a given year, up 2.8 percent since 2012 and 21.7 percent since 2010.Longer-term trends in CEO compensation:From 1978 to 2013, CEO compensation, inflation-adjusted, increased 937 percent, a rise more than double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.2 percent growth in a typical worker’s compensation over the same period.The CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 29.9-to-1 in 1978, grew to 122.6-to-1 in 1995, peaked at 383.4-to-1 in 2000, and was 295.9-to-1 in 2013, far higher than it was in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s.If Facebook, which we exclude from our data due to its outlier high compensation numbers, were included in the sample, average CEO pay was $24.8 million in 2013, and the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 510.7-to-1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sol Aristatel Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 You said they will do "civil warish" stuff, that's not a serious answer or expectation. Ok. My last response in awhile to you... You are a moron. A possible rush on the White House I said. Civil war-ish type stuff. I called that. You said said we have already seen the meltdown. I said, no. You haven't. Much different that anything that has gone down yet. Blood shed by the hundreds from government against our own people will be something that hasn't happened in years. I think that will happen soon. And here we are. Arguing about dumb shit because you can't read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 So Liz Warren has a strong angle if they allow her to propose something reasonable to address it without going full socialism/communism then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeman Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Ok. My last response in awhile to you... You are a moron. A possible rush on the White House I said. Civil war-ish type stuff. I called that. You said said we have already seen the meltdown. I said, no. You haven't. Much different that anything that has gone down yet. Blood shed by the hundreds from government against our own people will be something that hasn't happened in years. I think that will happen soon. And here we are. Arguing about dumb shit because you can't read. Ok, if you really believe that, I feel sorry for you. You do realize if Trump wins again, it'll be because he won, that means he got the most votes(electoral), no one can be truthfully upset about that. No one is going to storm the white house any more than people are going to storm area 51 in a week or so. it's just like the crazy talk about Rith bader ginsburg dying and another supreme court pick for trump.."oh my god, it'll be civil war", no it wont, just a repeat of the kavenaugh fiasco. What was shakeaspear's quote about sound and fury signifying nothing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVU Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 A century ago, the wealthy railroad, mining , and oil men controlled far more than anyone does today, there weren't typical CEO's in todays sense since perhaps 1/2 the pop farmed.There were about 100 super weathy people in 1920. Now there are about 10,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rito Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 So Liz Warren has a strong angle if they allow her to propose something reasonable to address it without going full socialism/communism then.Lol 1% on 50m a year, billionaires be gonw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeman Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Just think, it was about 10 months ago when the democrats TOOK BACK THE HOUSE? Remember all the big things that would mean, impeachment, liberal policies, etc, etc. What's happened...nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiavelli Posted September 7, 2019 Report Share Posted September 7, 2019 Ton of AOC rhetoric, though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.