I'm not saying people shouldn't be outraged over this. That's not what I meant, I was more speaking to the way they go about winning the election. It seems as though we're always trying to accent things that divide us instead of talking about things that unite us. I don't mean this as a campaign slogan or anything like that, I'm just pointing out the way that Democrats have gone about winning the election.
Just as an example reading Cortez Green New deal is a bunch of generalities that are behind a good principle. I don't think anybody is going to argue that if the climate changed dramatically, that we would be in for something nasty. What we're debating about is the timetable, and I am all for taking the conservative estimate here. As somebody who owns an electrical contracting business, I would love to see a huge push in green energy from a money standpoint. I would also love to see it from an environmental standpoint, so if we want to make radical changes to the way we power our nation I'm all for it.
That said, there are two different strategies in the political sphere for how we deal with this. if you're a Democrat they talk about getting away from fossil fuels, lowering our carbon footprint, and moving towards renewable energy sources. All of that's a good thing. And then we have to taint it by getting drawn into a fight with Republicans because we like to point out the fact that oil money is a primary motivator as to why we have not gotten away from non-renewable energy sources. it is true that many Republicans benefit from the oil industry, but it's not like they're alone. There are a lot of Democrats who make oil money to. it is at this juncture that the conversation starts to devolve, and as a consequence diverges from what we really need.
So in the green New deal, it hardly lays out anything in specificity about achieving green energy about , instead it's about the traditionally impoverished and people of color. this really has little to do with the environment, but it's a way to rally a base behind what you're saying. This is when we start to diverge from things that are actually important.
we would rather talk about the pronouns that we used to address less than 5% of 1% of this country. We are so constantly worried about checking each other's privileges, that we very rarely see what we have in common.
Your pole was a great example of this. You and I have been going round and round about banning assault rifles. outside of people who know me, even in an internet setting, people would assume that I'm a far-right whack job. That being said the problem is when we say terms like common sense. That means that if I don't agree with you that I am lacking in common sense, instead of just a minor disagreement over an issue. I am all for background checks, I am all for different laws that will keep guns out of the hands of people we know to be dangerous. Are we going to stop them all? No, of course we're not. Do I think that we should be able to keep all of the rights that are in the Constitution? Absolutely, and I don't think they should be bent using the logic that while most of us agree we should ban them. That's why they're there. That being said we pick one issue and divide ourselves into camps.
The entire Democratic strategy for winning the election for the last 10 years or so has been catering to our differences, instead of establishing what we have in common, and then taking one issue at a time. Everybody on this site was able to find middle ground on the gun issue. But when you don't approach the topic from a holistic standpoint, it quickly devolves into your in your camp, and I'm in my camp and we're going to fight to the death for it.
Foreign policy is another one. people like Sean absolutely hate Israel, and there's going to be no middle ground on it. We are all for an isolationist viewpoint when it comes to war in another country, until we see things like Syria, or even the Russian interference in the election, some people are wanting to go to war behind that.
maybe it's because I have a personality that doesn't really see a lot of gray area, at least from a moral standpoint. But that is the biggest draw to Tulsi gabbard for me. She leaves no room for interpretation on what she thinks of these regime-change wars. We're going to stay out of them, this really isn't a debate for her. whether she's arguing with her party or the Republican party, she sticks to her guns on that, and that's something I can absolutely appreciate.
as to Trump being impeached, if I'm being 100% honest, I could not care less either way. That is what I was referring to when I was talking about the Democratic party being maddening. At this point in time in our country, the Democrats have some things that they need to work out, and they say a lot of stupid things. That being said on most issues they find their selves in the enviable position of having facts supporting your argument. And yet there's all these appeals to emotion. I think they would be much better served to get out of the mud slinging competition with a pig. Trump is absolutely counting on this in the next election, he wants the next Democratic candidate to sling mud with him, because he likes it, and because he's good at it. That is his only path to victory. What is maddening to me, is that Democrats won't use things to their advantage. Right now all of the climate change data supports their hypothesis, and yet they want to use it to sling mud. Rise above it, stay calm, and present your case. It works.
sure you're not going to have those reaction videos about you dunking on someone, but it is far more effective. Yet again, looking at Tulsi gabbard, what she did to Harris was a thing of beauty. Harris was running a campaign to strictly appeal to the black and impoverished people, and she was using that issue to champion them. She had no real facts to back up her argument, but it didn't seem to matter. Until somebody stayed calm, used fact as ammunition, an open fired in a way that left absolutely no room for retreat, only surrender. Every since Tulsi dropped that bomb on her she went from a top-three candidate to now she's actually pulling lower then the top five candidates. This is how it campaign should be run. Tulsi attacked her in a way that was calm, articulate, in laden with facts. After that debate people are scouring Google to check the veracity of her claims, they found out she was correct, and Harris no longer has a path to victory. I just don't understand why Democrats are going to refuse to use this, they would rather deliver fiery speeches about taking down the man, or wiping out racism, and using a set of unrealistic ideals and goals to pander to a base that is more prone to use emotion as a decision maker instead of logic.
I actually don't want Trump to get impeached. I would rather see him beaten at The ballot box. If we were able to get somebody like gavotte in, with a whole nation behind her I think that set her up for success. Or any candidate for that matter. If you impeach Trump you're going to do two things immediately. You're going to make him a martyr to a very very powerful ease who has a lot of money, and you're going to make him a martyr to a base that votes. The second thing you're going to do is cheapeb a Democrat win. people are going to say that you could not have won an election straight up, and they very well could be right. So it's going to immediately undermine The credibility of the democratic nominee.
Should he absolutely. if it turns out that the whistleblower is an impeccable source, and they are not lying, and it can be corroborated, then absolutely impeach him. It's going to be a tough road to hoe though, mainly because of the Mueller investigation. People are going to conflate the two as the same thing. they're going to use the logic that how come it's okay that Democrats do it, but when a republican does it it's a problem. The answer is obvious, but as we've already established the truth doesn't really matter does it?
Something else this does is take Joe Biden completely out of the race because if Trump was searching for something, then he probably had a lead. Out of all the countries in the world you picked the Ukraine? Biden did something dirty, so he's no longer in the race in my opinion. if he is it would be a colossal strategic error. that leaves us with Warren to fight the Republican candidate, and if it's Trump she's going to get absolutely lambasted. So then who's next? That leaves Bernie Sanders, but he is already been kept out by his own party once. this leaves a path to the presidency for people like Yang and gabbard, although it's a small one. The Democrats have ran themselves out of options by backing terrible people that's far, now the elections next year and they have plenty of time to put money and resources behind it decent candidate, or at this point I would even settle for a decent human being. They have time to turn it around, but as of right now if Trump can escape this inquiry oh, it's going to be very hard times for the Democrats.
that is all I was saying, I was trying to keep it brief, because as you can see when I explain my full point oh, it gets windy.