Since the Democratic debates in June, the tide seems to have receded for the party and its presidential hopefuls.

In new polls, only Joe Biden leads President Donald Trump comfortably.

The other top-tier candidates — Sens. Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, and Mayor Pete Buttigieg — are running even with Trump, a measurable drop. A Washington Post-ABC poll just found Trump at 47% approval, a new high for his presidency.

Apparently, the more the nation sees of the alternatives to Trump the Democrats have on offer, the better The Donald looks. For Democrats, this is not good, not good at all.

For while Trump has run a daily gauntlet of dreadful media for two years, these Democrats have had only one debate and a few weeks of close coverage.

Between now and the New Hampshire primary, they will be going after one another and receiving a far more thorough vetting by a media in constant search of failings and flaws, especially of front-runners.

Traditionally, all candidates suffer attrition as the primaries come closer. For it is then that their lagging rivals become more desperate in their attacks and the media coverage becomes more intense.

Other problems have now arisen for the Democrats because of the issues that have come to the fore: race, radicalism and the border.

None looks like a winning Democratic issue in November 2020.

The race issue surfaced in the debate when Biden was called out by Harris for his professed friendships with segregationist senators such as Herman Talmadge and James O. Eastland, and for Joe’s impassioned public resistance to the court-ordered busing of black and white children for racial balance in the public schools of the 1970s.

Harris defended busing as a necessary remedy to segregation and added that, as a “little girl,” she had been a beneficiary.

If your friends like Eastland had their way, said Harris, I would not be here in the Senate. For days, the issue dogged Biden, who last weekend apologized for any “hurt” he caused.

Biden seems to have recovered most of the ground lost from Harris’ attack. But that this racially charged issue threw him on the defensive for weeks ensures it will be raised again by opponents to trip up the front-runner.

Another issue certain to come up in future debates, and in the South Carolina primary where 61% of the Democratic vote is African American, is reparations for slavery.

Several candidates have already endorsed a commission to study reparations, and Biden and every other candidate will have to take a stand.

Yet, recent polls show that Americans, 2-1, are opposed to paying reparations for a system of slavery that was abolished 150 years ago.

Bottom line: If the 2020 campaign becomes a conversation about reparations for slavery and the busing of white kids from the suburbs into inner-city schools to achieve greater integration, the Democrats will be in a world of hurt.

On border security, indispensable to Trump in 2016, Democrats in the debates came out for ending criminal detention of people invading our country and for providing free health care for migrants who break into the USA.

Detesting ICE as they do, and supporting sanctuary cities, left-wing Democrats routinely describe the Border Patrol as neo-fascists who run “concentration camps” where migrant children are forced to drink toilet water. The Democrats are becoming an open borders party.

What is their solution to the hundreds of thousands of migrants who annually arrive at our borders? Foreign aid. They want to create a Marshall Plan for Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador so refugees will stay home rather than come to the USA for the health care Democrats will provide at taxpayer expense.

Among other ideas advocated by leading Democratic candidates:

Free college for all, cancellation of all student loan debt, Medicare for All, an end to private health insurance and the companies that provide it, the abolition of the Electoral College, expansion of the Supreme Court to 15 justices, the abolition of ICE, a phase-out of all fossil fuels for a carbon-neutral country, and repeal of all Trump tax cuts.

What is causing the moderate Democrats to adopt what they used to regard as radical positions? The party base, which votes in primaries and is further left than it has ever been.

Also pulling the party leftward is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her sisters in Congress who receive extensive and indulgent media coverage and have a powerful following among millennials.

What the Democratic Party is risking today — and what many of its leaders recognize — is that it will be pulled so far outside the mainstream of American politics in the nomination battle, that its nominee will not be able to make it back close enough to the center to win.

If the Democratic Party, as its alternative to Trump, decides to run on this radical new agenda, America will punish that hubris with a second term for Trump.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” To find out more about Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

(86) comments

jagman

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/made-america-product-showcase/ Such a refreshing change to have a president who promotes America and Americans rather than the rest of the world. Something we did not have with the last four presidents. I don't expect any of you liberals to change your minds...you'll continue to hate no matter what. But, at least you can start to understand why Trump has so much ironclad support. There are many of us who love America and we love having a president who clearly does as well. It won't show up in media driven polls. Most Trump supporters don't participate in polls for a variety of reasons. We will, however, show up at the ballot box.

shiftless88

Really? You must have been asleep or ignorant before November 2016. Do you remember ARRA and the American Made push?

Comment deleted.
public-redux

About 40% of the Obama stimulus package was tax cuts. Are you actually arguing that tax cuts don’t help the “real” economy?

Comment deleted.
jagman

the tax cut aspect was acceptable as far as it went. Keep in mind is was only a two year deal and only applied to certain types of income. Surprise!!! Not everyone that earned income during that period got the tax rebate. Therefore, it had limited affect. That said, the entire inclusion of discussion on the stimulus has little or nothing to do with my original comment about the Made in America expo going on this week or the fact that President Trump is the first president since the last four who is actually promoting America, Americans and how great a nation we have. Rather than deflect to something irrelevant, tell me why promoting America and American products is bad.

Comment deleted.
public-redux

jag, I'm just using your math. "$1 trillion down the tubes." 40% of that, $400 billion spread over 2 years so about $200 billion per year. And you say it had "limited effect" because ??? well, because the wrong people got the $400 billion? Your argument here seems to be that $400 billion of tax cuts had no effect on the "real economy". About 70% of the economy is consumer spending. The $400 billion went to consumers. So is the "real" economy the other 30%?

"tell me why promoting America and American products is wrong?" Who said that? Certainly not me. Besides, you directed your original comments to liberals. Why try to deflect it off to me now?

Here's an interesting fact about the growth of manufacturing jobs: Craft beer brewers are now numerous enough to help move the needle on manufacturing jobs. Craft beer drinkers are job creators!

Comment deleted.
jagman

P-R. "Limited effect" is not the same as "no effect. The stimulus tax rebate (correct terminology as it was not a tax "cut") did have a limited effect. That's not the same as a permanent tax "cut" in whatever form it takes. That rebate scheme , as I said, did not include all taxpayers as some forms of income were exempt. Contrast that to the Bush tax rebate on 2008 that included EVERYONE, even those who paid no tax (something I disagreed with at the time). It was also a larger amount. The Bush rebate, as well, had a limited effect. I don't know what's to argue here as it is based on simple logic. And, of course, none of it has anything to do with the original comment about the Made in America expo. And note, it was shiftless who introduced the subject of the stimulus as if it was somehow equal to the Made in America expo. He has yet to respond as we can all see. As for Craft Beer business I'm all in on those. They reflect perfectly the power of a free market (limited as it is), free consumer choice and the spirit of competition. All classic libertarian ideas I might add. Let's at least agree that that a president who promotes America is a very good thing, the free market is a good thing and government intervention to pick and choose winners and losers is a bad thing.

Comment deleted.
public-redux

"down the tubes" sounds a whole lot more like no effect than limited effect, FWIW. Your mileage may vary.

With respect to cut v. rebate, that is semantics. Paying less taxes on your income is a tax cut in my world. FICA taxes were cut, for example. People had more money in their paychecks because taxes were lower. That's not a tax cut? Permanent v. temporary has nothing to do with whether or not something is a tax cut or not. If the tax rate on your income is 20% one year and 10% the next year, all other things being equal, that's a tax cut even if the lower rate is temporary.

That a reduction in taxes does not apply to every form of income does not mean that a reduction in taxes on some forms of income won't have fiscal economic effects. Look at the Trump tax cuts: no change in LTCG or QD rates at all. And yet some people are suggesting that the Trump cuts are driving a booming economy (not so booming that the Fed isn't thinking of cutting interest rates to prop up growth, but otherwise booming.)

There might not be anything to argue. I was merely surprised that you thought reductions in taxes don't have much effect on the economy. Now I'm surprised that you think a reduction in taxes is not a tax cut.

Comment deleted.
jagman

A rebate is not the same as a permanent tax rate reduction. The first is a one time action, the second last a lot longer. There is a big difference. As far as the rest of the "stimulus", it was a complete waste of money. A laundry list of every crazy leftist idea they could come up with. Again, I am a bit surprise you seem to want to defend the stimulus. Other than the rebates (which I am generally OK with) it was a total waste. And there is little evidence other than academic argument those rebates had much affect on the economy. I'd say the same about the Bush rebate program in 2008. Nice if you get one but not really a success.

Comment deleted.
public-redux

“A rebate is not the same as a permanent tax rate reduction.” Agreed. Never suggested it was. I said a reduction in taxes is a tax cut.

“Again, I am a bit surprise you seem to want to defend the stimulus.” Huh? Where did I do that?

stjohn42

Since when does Patrick Buchanan know anything about "the center"?

shiftless88

It's like easterners calling Ohio the "midwest" when it is 2000 miles from the Pacific. Ol' Pat is so far right that his concept of "center" is skewed.

gabrielshorn2013

Funny observation shiftless, especially when Ohioans refer to themselves as midwesterners.

DickD

Luke 10:25   The Parable of the Good Samaritan Who is your neighbor?We got a sermon on this today.  Yes, Trump's name was mentioned, along with locking up children in cages.   When ministers and priest come out and openly challenge what is happening politically, you better listen.

public-redux

“When ministers and priest come out and openly challenge what is happening politically, you better listen.”

Why? Do they have better than average insight into political issues?

DickD

They know when the word of Christ is being violated, Gladys. If that is political, so be it.

public-redux

You know that there is a goodly number of clergy supporting what is happening politically, right? And they have no trouble finding jesuswords to support their positions. So aren't you just cherrypicking the jesuswords that happen to match your politics?

jagman

When churches use the pulpit to spout politics they risk violation of tax law. Thus the reason I support ALL churches losing their tax exempt status. For more on this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2015/09/20/tax-rules-forbid-churches-endorsing-candidates/#3ae3f88d64e7

public-redux

jag, technically you are correct. However, the IRS hasn't enforced that law since forever. Churches have virtually no risk of losing their tax exemption if they endorse candidates. Indeed, in recent years some churches have announced in advance that they would violate the law and then did so. They do it in concert. I think usually in September.

As for churches losing their tax exempt status, the law should be applied equally. Churches are tax exempt not because they religious but because they are non-profit. If we are going to revoke tax-exempt status, it should be for all non-profits. To single out religious outfits would be to discriminate on the basis of religion. Unconstitutional.

DickD

I listened to a sermon on it yesterday, Gladys If it's cherry picking, I have plenty of company. And ministers of some of those here posting otherwise are not practicing their religion. ..You know what they are called, right

jagman

P-R, I'd rather see the IRS enforce the law. Bust up a few political churches and the rest will fall in line. It's pathetic that these institutions are not held accountable. As for "non-profit", maybe as a matter of legal definition but I think it's a stretch based on many that are clearly raking in big bucks. Joel Osteen comes to mind ( and he's just an example).

public-redux

Dick, that something is commonplace does not make it true. Besides, the story of the “good” Samaritan is fundamentally bigotry toward Samaritans. To suggest that it is noteworthy that a Samaritan is good is to suggest that most are not. You may as well talk about the “Good Negro”.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU

public-redux

Jag, If you want the IRS to enforce the law, then you don’t want all churches to lose their tax-exempt status OR you want all non-profits to lose their tax-exempt status.

“Legal definitions”are what matters in legal matters. For example, I support a non-profit organization that was not a church until just a few months ago. The IRS has determined that it is a church, for legal purposes, I presume now that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will apply to me in any conflict I might have with various governments.

jagman

P-R, I thought I was quite clear in my comment. Churches who are violating the law need to have their tax-exempt status revoked. Churches who are NOT in violation should not. Similarly, any non-profit that violates the law as it regards tax-exempt status should also lose it's status... not all of them. No broad brush application needed here. Targeted enforcement will work. That, of course, is a libertarian position. Leave everyone along except those in violation of existing law. That would also include eliminating all laws that are in violation of responsible free will in a free society.

public-redux

" Thus the reason I support ALL churches losing their tax exempt status." That seemed pretty clear to me. You want ALL churches to lose their tax exempt status because SOME violate the law. I got it the first time.

jagman

No. My position on all churches losing tax exempt status is more a personal philosophy that churches simply should not be tax exempt, period. The fact that some of them abuse the privilege is just fuel on the fire. I'm not necessarily against genuine charity organizations having exempt status although I'd narrow the definition to make sure it's a real charity. As we all know, some are skating the edge, especially in the amount they ultimately use for charity.

public-redux

I'm for revoking tax-exempt status for all non-profits. I don't need government making my charitable giving decisions for me.

jagman

Well, I'm fine with that idea. Especially regarding getting government out of our lifestyle choices. In fact, an argument can be made that the entire income tax code is nothing more than government driving behavior through financial incentive. As such, it's full of corruption. Thus the reason I've long supported scrapping the whole thing and replacing it with something else. Perhaps the Fair Tax as proposed by Americans for Tax reform. That's only one idea, another would be a simple flat tax.

public-redux

The broadest possible tax base and the lowest possible tax rates.

rikkitikkitavvi

4 Give the people these orders: ‘You are about to pass through the territory of your relatives the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. They will be afraid of you, but be very careful. 5 Do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put your foot on. I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own. 6 You are to pay them in silver for the food you eat and the water you drink.’ … 9 Then the Lord said to me, “Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any part of their land. I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.” … 16 Now when the last of these fighting men among the people had died, 17 the Lord said to me, 18 “Today you are to pass by the region of Moab at Ar. 19 When you come to the Ammonites, do not harass them or provoke them to war, for I will not give you possession of any land belonging to the Ammonites. I have given it as a possession to the descendants of Lot.” … 24 “Set out now and cross the Arnon Gorge. See, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his country. Begin to take possession of it and engage him in battle. 25 This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you.” 26 From the Desert of Kedemoth I sent messengers to Sihon king of Heshbon offering peace and saying, 27 “Let us pass through your country. We will stay on the main road; we will not turn aside to the right or to the left. 28 Sell us food to eat and water to drink for their price in silver. Only let us pass through on foot— 29 as the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir, and the Moabites, who live in Ar, did for us—until we cross the Jordan into the land the Lord our God is giving us.” 30 But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the Lord your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.

DickD

With the new tax law, you no longer have to itemize charity, unless the amount is very large.

jagman

And how many in your congregation have taken in some illegal aliens to shelter and feed them? Walk the walk if you want others to listen to you talk the talk.

shiftless88

How many of the poor and homeless have you taken in? I note that Republicans are quick to cut those public funds saying they can be dealt with by private citizens (and this is the excuse the Christians use for cutting those programs, too).

jagman

None. But then, I'm not whining about how "we" need to do all these things for them. Your side is always doing it. And yet, very few of you actually do anything at all other than talk. Thus the reason for my post to one invoking "the church". Why don't you walk the walk? As a private citizen you can do just that. I"m a classic libertarian. As such I believe in the old "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps' way of living. We live in a country with ample opportunity, a generally free society and a somewhat free market system. People can make of that system what they want. Or do nothing. Your choice.

shiftless88

"We" support taxing the people with money (like myself) to better leverage help for those without. It makes more sense than individually.

jagman

That, of course, is the problem with the "tax and spend" left. Spend other peoples money to fund their pet projects. You would be better off starting the ball rolling. Bring a few illegal alien families into your home, take care of them, feed them, buy them a car. Maybe then you'd get a few others to do the same. Otherwise it's just talk. Which, of course, was the basis of my original comment.

rikkitikkitavvi

2 Tim 3:1-5

public-redux

1 Tim 3:11-12

shiftless88

When someone from the far right who hates Democrats gives advice I generally ignore it. There is nothing that Pat would ever do to facilitate the rise of the Democratic party so one can assume that anything he says is about trying to doom that party.

jagman

My own take on this is that democrats (the left) haven't so much swung to the far left as simply revealed who they have always been. My experience with SDS scum at my high school in the 1960's taught me exactly who and what they are. What we are seeing today is more or less the same thing. What's different is the left thinks the country wants what they are selling. I suspect that with a very strong economy, historically low unemployment and rising wages creating an improved mood, voters will not want to make that change. As I have predicted before, barring some serious unknown factor, Trump will be re-elected in 2020 and probably carry 40 states. The liberals who dominate these comment sections know it and it's eating them alive.

marinick1

[thumbup][thumbup]

awteam2000

Marinick1, Can you express yourself other than in sign language?

DickD

You are absolutely right and that is why all the polls show the lying gangster in the White House is losing. [lol]

jagman

And it's comments like this that prove my point.

DickD

If you think it is eating me alive, because you are delusional, you are wrong.

MRS M

Sounds like jag "just can't handle the truth"....

rikkitikkitavvi

You and your polls again.[lol][lol][lol][lol][lol][lol][lol][lol][lol][lol][lol][lol][lol][lol]

hayduke2

So you agree that Trump's 47% in recent polls is way to high. Good for you.

hayduke2

Wait, aren't you the one who complained about name calling in posts. To funny. As an aside, you are now a fan of polls huh.

Comment deleted.
DickD

Wrong, old untruthful, the Republicans did a good character assassination on Hillary and the Benghazi incident, mostly wrong, It will not happen again.

Comment deleted.
phydeaux994

The Polls said that the majority of voters would cast their votes for Hillary Clinton. They were correct. No Poll in the World can predict the winner of the Electoral College. The winner of the EC of most States, by a, you guessed it, MAJORITY of the voters in that State, gets all the votes for the opposing Candidate. “The Electoral College is a DISASTER for a Democracy”.....Donald J. Trump, November 2012.

phydeaux994

The majority of voters cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton, a Democrat. The majority of Americans, 60% or so, do not want what Trump is selling, as hundreds of protests across the Country validate. That Trump was elected by a landslide by the Electoral College on the turn of a few hundred thousand Democratic votes given to him shows how out of whack an Election System, the EC+the 3/5 Compromise, put in the Constitution by James Madison as a concession to the Southern Slave States to keep slavery the Law of the Land forever, defies the Will of the People. Otherwise he wouldn’t have gotten the 13 States needed to ratify the Constitution. The EC has elected only two Presidents who did not win the “popular” vote in modern times, the first the worst President in History, the second destined to gain that distinction.

phydeaux994

.....9 of the 13 States needed.....

gabrielshorn2013

Sigh, no phy, the 3/5 compromise was a concession to the Northern states ( btw, who were still slave-owning at that time) during the Constitutional Convention. The southern states wanted to count slaves as a person. The northern states, fearing a huge (and in their opinion unfair) advantage in representatives in the United States House of Representatives wanted slaves to not count at all. The compromise was that slaves would count as 3/5 of a person.

"The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

awteam2000

Yes, The result of the debate was the Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution in (1787) as a compromise. The Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) superseded Article 1, Section 2. ‘Persons’ wasn’t removed. So here we are.

gabrielshorn2013

Agreed aw. As I stated the other day, Democrats insisting on counting all residents instead of only citizens are on the same side of the argument as the slaveholding states in the Constitutional Convention back then. A bit of a conundrum for them.

awteam2000

I don’t see the ‘conundrum’. There weren’t any democrats at the constitutional convention, debating the 3/5th conflict... Today Democrats are not saying count slaves but persons in full. And I might be wrong, but I don’t think the Federalist Party who won the convention was the forefather of the Democratic Party. I thought the Old Democratic Party was a spin-off of the Jacksonian movement 40 years later. Again, I might be wrong. But today’s Democratic Party doesn’t look like anything resembling those days. They would have never thought the Democratic Party would be the party of racial diversity. And the father of the party, Andrew Jackson be replaced on the $20 bill by Harriet Tubman, a black, female, abolitionist and Jackson getting demoted, moved to the back of the bill. That’s the ‘conundrum’... that’s the difficult question to answer. Times are changing. Yesteryear Democrats are spinning in their graves.

gabrielshorn2013

aw, the genealogy of the Democrats is not the issue, and not relevant to the discussion. The issue is counting only citizens or counting all that reside in a given locale. Undocumented aliens, if counted in the census, have influence on the number of representatives per state. California has 7 additional seats because of it (https://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-by-state/)(https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/population-estimates/unauthorized-resident). Is it fair that non-citizens have a say in our government, or governmental expenditures? I'll leave that question for all to ponder. With that said, please refer to my previous posts regarding overpopulation and environmental effects, and employment for unskilled laborers.

phydeaux994

The concession gab, was allowing slaves to count for ANYTHING toward election of the President of the United States. They couldn’t be used as direct votes, only as population of the State. So Madison contrived a voting system, the Electoral College, so that the population of the State could be used to determine votes for President and Veep, the number of Representatives in the House, and Federal Funding for the State. Virginia had almost 300,000 slaves!! Virginians were elected President four of the first five Presidents! Virginians were President for 32 of the first 36 years of the Country! Without the EC and 3/5 Compromise, Virginia or any other Southern State would never have elected a President. Without the EC and the 3/5 Compromise the Constitution wouldn’t have been ratified at all.

phydeaux994

Some interesting reading gab, if you have a moment of course. https://columbiaandslavery.columbia.edu/content/ambition-bondage-inquiry-alexander-hamilton-and-slavery https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madison-wanted-to-change-the-way-we-vote-for-president https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar

awteam2000

Like slaves non-citizens can’t vote for representatives. They have a similar voice in government as the good old slaves did.

gabrielshorn2013

Not sure what your point is here aw, but you are correct. Currently, undocumented aliens count for representation in government, similar to how slaves were represented at the turn of tha 19th century. Counts as population, but not citizens, and can't vote. While slaves were considered 3/5 of a person, undocumented immigrants are considered 1/1, therefore having a higher representation. This strangely puts Democrats pushing for counting all residents of a state, regardless of citizenship, on the same side of the argument as slaveholding states back then.

phy, it makes sense that the first presidents were from Virginia, since they were by far the most populous state at the time, with about 20% of the population.

awteam2000

“ SDS scum” protesting against the war in Vietnam? You hold a, paid for by dad, 5 deferment draft dodger in higher regards? 🤦‍♂️

jagman

Yep, SDS was absolutely 100% scum. I saw them up close and personal. That a lot more accurate than reading about them.

rikkitikkitavvi

I say 45 states.

awteam2000

Why not go for 50? And loss the popular vote? ... Again.

rikkitikkitavvi

50 is a little high. I'll go with 47. The EC is there for a reason. Everybody but the Trump haters know that.

awteam2000

Today’s electoral college polls aren’t looking good for Trump . He can’t lose any of the historically blue states he won in 2016 Mi, Pa and Wi all trending blue. Not to mention TX, Fl, Oh, NC, SC, Az, and Ga, traditionally red to purple states which he won are now trending blue or at least up for grabs. There are no blue states he lost trending red. His work is cut out for him. It could be a landslide but in the other direction. Just sayin’🤷‍♂️. I think that’s what Pat B. is alluding to. Hoping that democrats self-destruct and many voters stay home. But who knows? He fooled us once. Right? Shame on you. Second time is on me.

shiftless88

jagman; just for the record are you aware that Hillary received more votes than Donald, and that overall more Dem votes are cast for congress in most years? So despite your view that liberals are the minority, you are factually incorrect.

DickD

Sadly, I agree with Buchanan. Harris resecting busing may have helped her with blacks, but it just causes the kind of division that Trump thrives on. And Booker raising payment to blacks for slavery is more of the same. It definitely hurt Biden, even though he has spent a lifetime of helping blacks. If the Democrats can stick to a health care plan to help those without company paid health care, fine. But Medicare for all is too expensive; sorry, Bernie. The Democrats also need to focus on wages to help the working class. Many cannot afford their current expenses without working two or three jobs. And yes, the border is a problem. What we don't need is a wall. We do need many more judges to process those seeking asylum. We need to help Central American countries so they are content to stay home. We need to stop the separation of children from their parents. We need a law that gives DACCA immigrants a green card with a pathway to citizenship. Most of all we need to change the tax laws that the Republicans passed to benefit the large corporations and billionaires.

DickD

"resurrecting busing"

veritas

Prediction: Most of the left-leaning responders in this forum — which is most of the responders — will pillory the messenger and ignore the message. The Dems are closing their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears and fluttering their tongues in order to avoid the ugly reality that confronts them. This is a good thing for the country.

threecents

I am trying to picture that. Is it our thumbs or index fingers that are in our ears?

DickD

You are mostly right, but wrong about it being a good thing for the country.

marinick1

[thumbup][thumbup]

awteam2000

Is Pat implying that Trump shouldn’t be re-elected but the democrats might blow it?🤷‍♂️ And bragging about Trump approval rating at 47%, a new high in 2 1/2 years, is like bragging about finally bringing your grades up to a ‘C -‘ average, very low expectations .

MRS M

This old Nixon fawner and failed presidential candidate (that tells you a lot) should take his "sage" political analysis and direct it to his own sick and spineless Republican party. In the meantime, at least the FNP has tossed a bone to the great conservative thinkers of Frederick who post here, and who believe that the FNP does not give fair coverage to their Republican/conservative/Trumpian messages.

threecents

No, Nobody in the center is voting for Trump. However, many will not bother to vote.

gabrielshorn2013

Bingo.

DickD

When you say many will not bother to vote, what ones do you mean? It certainly will not be the fanatic Trump cult - or the ones that despise this gangster. Are you saying the ones in the middle? If so, how will that affect the vote?

threecents

The less interested, particularly young voters, are often the key to winning and losing. They are difficult to count in polls, so hard to predict their impact or who they will vote for.

DickD

I agree they are difficult to predict, but the young people I know are mostly liberal. Add in help with schooling and if any of them vote, most will vote Democrat.

jagman

Agreed that the younger people are not reliable voters. However, those who were able to obtain a job during the Trump administration along with those who were able to upgrade to a real job will more likely vote for Trump, if they vote at all. Additionally, so-called independent voters will more likely support the incumbent especially since they are all benefiting from the improved economy. Last time Trump was an unknown to them. Not this time. Trump is also polling (if you chose to believe polls) much better with blacks and hispanics. The first because of jobs, the second because legal hispanics are strong border supporters. The election will likely prove all that correct. The best you lefties can hope for is a massive recession or depression. Ask Bill Maher about that. he's been rooting for an economic collapse since mid-2018. Check it out here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/09/maher_im_hoping_for_a_crashing_economy_so_we_can_get_rid_of_trump_bring_on_the_recession.html Ignore that all you want.

jagman

For some reason my comment got the right side chopped off. Here is the full url on the Bill Maher story rooting for a recession. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/09/maher_im_hoping_for_a_crashing_economy_so_we_can_get_rid_of_trump_bring_on_the_recession.html

jagman

Again with the chop off. Try this: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/09/maher_im_hoping_for_a_crashing_economy _so_we_can_get_rid_of_trump_bring_on_the_recession.html

gary4books

Pat says the USA has a problem when the Democrats offer options for the voters. He says that will result in a new term for Mr. Trump. Is that too much to take. Do we spite our face. Wikipedia explains it very well: "Jump to search Look up cut off one's nose to spite one's face in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. A literal illustration of the phrase "Cutting off the nose to spite the face" is an expression to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one's anger."

gary4books

A few extra words "Jump to search Look up cut off one's nose to spite one's face in Wiktionary, the free dictionary." But the computer is not my friend.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.