America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,910 comments
  • 1,802,100 views
Novalee
Looks like trump has flip flopped
Washington (CNN) - Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham says President Donald Trump now understands what is at stake in Syria and has agreed to slowing, for now, his plans to immediately withdraw all US troops from Syria.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand Syria. The war can't go on forever, and what happens when Turkish/Russian/Iranian/Syrian forces finally confront US-backed forces in Syrian Kurdistan?

Surely they won't allow a partitioned Syria?
 
samurai8juice
I don't really understand Syria. The war can't go on forever, and what happens when Turkish/Russian/Iranian/Syrian forces finally confront US-backed forces in Syrian Kurdistan?

Surely they won't allow a partitioned Syria?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the US, ever since the end of WWII, has adopted a "can-do" attitude towards foreign policy. Unfortunately, this has been combined with an ignorance of & lack of interest in the rest of the world. The combination has led the US into a series of foreign policy blunders, that are masked only by the simple fact that the US remains, notwithstanding those blunders, the dominant military, economic & political power in the world.

YOU don't really understand Syria ... but do you think anybody really does? George W. made a catastrophic error in aggressively blundering into Iraq, while Obama merely tinkered around the edges of Libya & Syria. Neither approach proved particularly successful. I don't see any policy in the Middle East being assured of success - it's unbelievably difficult & unbelievably convoluted.
 
Based on recent headlines, I think it's a good time for me to bring up something that I see representing a general misunderstanding.

Article:
In a letter to House and Senate leaders, Trump wrote that he’d decided “across-the-board” pay raises as well as locality pay raises for civilian federal workers in 2019 would be frozen.
“I have determined that for 2019, both across‑the‑board pay increases and locality pay increases will be set at zero,” he wrote. “These alternative pay plan decisions will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce,” Trump added. [emphasis mine]

For some reason, and this is not something I understood well when I was younger, people think government employees, whether it be at the federal, state, or local level, are special people who are born into a caste system in which they were tapped from birth to work as government employees forever. Slaves to their government jobs, unable to leave, with no otherwise marketable skills. Pay increases for government workers are seen as handouts. And bonuses, Christmas parties, etc. are government waste. This discussion is not too far from the public school teacher pay discussion.

What I'd like to explain to the folks here, and the background to my response to this statement from Trump, is that government employees, whether it's at the federal level, military, state, or local level, are just people. People with a set of skills that they can take to other non-government jobs. Currently they're sitting at a desk in the DMV, or deployed on an aircraft carrier, or processing tax filings, but they're human beings that are working, and can work elsewhere. They have resumes, they know what jobs they're qualified for outside of government, and they're willing to leave. I've seen them do it.

The government competes directly with private business for employees. Perhaps nowhere is this more visible than at NASA. Federally operated NASA centers like JSC (as opposed to contractor operated NASA centers such as JPL), have a whole host of engineers working on various portions of the space program that are federal employees. There are also a host of private NASA contractors which crop up around NASA centers and work closely with them. Contractors often taken on niche roles, sometimes consisting of former NASA employees who left to start the business. SpaceX is a good example of a private NASA contractor. SpaceX, for example (and there are so many examples here, such as Ball, Lockheed, Boeing, ULA, and many more), poached many federal civil servants from NASA, and NASA employees working at contractor operated NASA centers (who were not federal civil servants). In some of the smaller companies, I've seen people quit NASA, go to work for a NASA contractor, and work down the hall in the same building with the same people on the same software doing the same thing. Ultimately their pay comes from the same place too, just funneled through a contractor instead of NASA. That's probably an example of just about the most fluid federal employee situation, where contractors and government swap personnel back and forth regularly, poaching from one-another. But it applies to IRS employees and Airforce Colonels as well. I'm sure an IRS employee considers going to work for a tax firm, or even opening up a new tax preparation company on a regular basis.

This analysis applies all the way from the top of the military to the last secretary at human resources. A phone operator in the office of personnel management at the US government can also operate phones at a human resources department for Amazon. It's not an altogether dissimilar position.

Being a Federal employee comes with some perqs. They're usually more insulated against market downturns, demand for their job doesn't ebb and flow so much based on consumer demand. Because, for example, people have to file tax documents regardless of whether they bought a car this year. So job stability is one. Also the government is very careful about employment standards, enforcing lack of discrimination, preventing abusive management, etc. Allegations of misconduct, whistle-blowing, etc. are taken seriously, anonymously, and are executed with precision. Another perq is that the (federal) government does a good job with health insurance options and subsidies. Vacation is decent, leave policies are decent, and you there are retirement annuity programs. Good job stability, good benefits, a non-hostile work environment. This is what government jobs have going for them.

What government jobs don't have going for them is pay. They pay less, no question. Also often you have financial restrictions, to make sure you're not being bribed. You may have to, for example, disclose your financial holdings on a regular basis. You're limited from holding more than a certain amount of stock (this is for certain positions, not all). Also there is generally very little job flexibility as far as how to carry out your job duties. There is often a single way to do it, and if you don't do it that way, you're not doing your job. Your mail carrier has little choice when it comes to how to deliver your mail. Bonuses are tightly controlled, and weird perqs that you would think would not be a problem, like hosting a holiday party, getting a Christmas gift from your boss, or having paid-for paper towels in the break room, are really carefully controlled. Because it looks bad to tax payers if the government is wasting money on paper towels. Also there's the current shutdown situation, which does not help attract employees.

So there are pros and cons to government employment. And people weigh these pros and cons every day when deciding whether to apply for a job opening within the government, or apply for a job opening outside of the government. The workforce shifts, and it's the most qualified, highly motivated people who shift first. So when our president says that a 2.x% pay raise for federal employees disappearing while employees are not going to their jobs and not sure whether congress will fund back pay for those missed days will not affect that government's ability to attract quality employees, he can't possibly be right. It's effectively a tautology, a lack of a pay increase makes it... which one... easier? or harder? to recruit. Harder. There's no question about it.

If you want to be sure that you have only the least qualified government workers, just make it impossible for the government to compete, which it has to do, against private industry for talent.
 
Danoff
If you want to be sure that you have only the least qualified government workers, just make it impossible for the government to compete, which it has to do, against private industry for talent.
Click to expand...

Or put another way...

If-you-pay-peanuts-you-get-monkeys.jpg
 
Danoff
Based on recent headlines, I think it's a good time for me to bring up something that I see representing a general misunderstanding.

Article:
In a letter to House and Senate leaders, Trump wrote that he’d decided “across-the-board” pay raises as well as locality pay raises for civilian federal workers in 2019 would be frozen.
“I have determined that for 2019, both across‑the‑board pay increases and locality pay increases will be set at zero,” he wrote. “These alternative pay plan decisions will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce,” Trump added. [emphasis mine]

For some reason, and this is not something I understood well when I was younger, people think government employees, whether it be at the federal, state, or local level, are special people who are born into a caste system in which they were tapped from birth to work as government employees forever. Slaves to their government jobs, unable to leave, with no otherwise marketable skills. Pay increases for government workers are seen as handouts. And bonuses, Christmas parties, etc. are government waste. This discussion is not too far from the public school teacher pay discussion.

What I'd like to explain to the folks here, and the background to my response to this statement from Trump, is that government employees, whether it's at the federal level, military, state, or local level, are just people. People with a set of skills that they can take to other non-government jobs. Currently they're sitting at a desk in the DMV, or deployed on an aircraft carrier, or processing tax filings, but they're human beings that are working, and can work elsewhere. They have resumes, they know what jobs they're qualified for outside of government, and they're willing to leave. I've seen them do it.

The government competes directly with private business for employees. Perhaps nowhere is this more visible than at NASA. Federally operated NASA centers like JSC (as opposed to contractor operated NASA centers such as JPL), have a whole host of engineers working on various portions of the space program that are federal employees. There are also a host of private NASA contractors which crop up around NASA centers and work closely with them. Contractors often taken on niche roles, sometimes consisting of former NASA employees who left to start the business. SpaceX is a good example of a private NASA contractor. SpaceX, for example (and there are so many examples here, such as Ball, Lockheed, Boeing, ULA, and many more), poached many federal civil servants from NASA, and NASA employees working at contractor operated NASA centers (who were not federal civil servants). In some of the smaller companies, I've seen people quit NASA, go to work for a NASA contractor, and work down the hall in the same building with the same people on the same software doing the same thing. Ultimately their pay comes from the same place too, just funneled through a contractor instead of NASA. That's probably an example of just about the most fluid federal employee situation, where contractors and government swap personnel back and forth regularly, poaching from one-another. But it applies to IRS employees and Airforce Colonels as well. I'm sure an IRS employee considers going to work for a tax firm, or even opening up a new tax preparation company on a regular basis.

This analysis applies all the way from the top of the military to the last secretary at human resources. A phone operator in the office of personnel management at the US government can also operate phones at a human resources department for Amazon. It's not an altogether dissimilar position.

Being a Federal employee comes with some perqs. They're usually more insulated against market downturns, demand for their job doesn't ebb and flow so much based on consumer demand. Because, for example, people have to file tax documents regardless of whether they bought a car this year. So job stability is one. Also the government is very careful about employment standards, enforcing lack of discrimination, preventing abusive management, etc. Allegations of misconduct, whistle-blowing, etc. are taken seriously, anonymously, and are executed with precision. Another perq is that the (federal) government does a good job with health insurance options and subsidies. Vacation is decent, leave policies are decent, and you there are retirement annuity programs. Good job stability, good benefits, a non-hostile work environment. This is what government jobs have going for them.

What government jobs don't have going for them is pay. They pay less, no question. Also often you have financial restrictions, to make sure you're not being bribed. You may have to, for example, disclose your financial holdings on a regular basis. You're limited from holding more than a certain amount of stock (this is for certain positions, not all). Also there is generally very little job flexibility as far as how to carry out your job duties. There is often a single way to do it, and if you don't do it that way, you're not doing your job. Your mail carrier has little choice when it comes to how to deliver your mail. Bonuses are tightly controlled, and weird perqs that you would think would not be a problem, like hosting a holiday party, getting a Christmas gift from your boss, or having paid-for paper towels in the break room, are really carefully controlled. Because it looks bad to tax payers if the government is wasting money on paper towels. Also there's the current shutdown situation, which does not help attract employees.

So there are pros and cons to government employment. And people weigh these pros and cons every day when deciding whether to apply for a job opening within the government, or apply for a job opening outside of the government. The workforce shifts, and it's the most qualified, highly motivated people who shift first. So when our president says that a 2.x% pay raise for federal employees disappearing while employees are not going to their jobs and not sure whether congress will fund back pay for those missed days will not affect that government's ability to attract quality employees, he can't possibly be right. It's effectively a tautology, a lack of a pay increase makes it... which one... easier? or harder? to recruit. Harder. There's no question about it.

If you want to be sure that you have only the least qualified government workers, just make it impossible for the government to compete, which it has to do, against private industry for talent.
Click to expand...
The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with the assertion that government employees make less:
42921-land-fedpay.png
 
Danoff
Based on recent headlines, I think it's a good time for me to bring up something that I see representing a general misunderstanding.

Article:
In a letter to House and Senate leaders, Trump wrote that he’d decided “across-the-board” pay raises as well as locality pay raises for civilian federal workers in 2019 would be frozen.
“I have determined that for 2019, both across‑the‑board pay increases and locality pay increases will be set at zero,” he wrote. “These alternative pay plan decisions will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce,” Trump added. [emphasis mine]

For some reason, and this is not something I understood well when I was younger, people think government employees, whether it be at the federal, state, or local level, are special people who are born into a caste system in which they were tapped from birth to work as government employees forever. Slaves to their government jobs, unable to leave, with no otherwise marketable skills. Pay increases for government workers are seen as handouts. And bonuses, Christmas parties, etc. are government waste. This discussion is not too far from the public school teacher pay discussion.

What I'd like to explain to the folks here, and the background to my response to this statement from Trump, is that government employees, whether it's at the federal level, military, state, or local level, are just people. People with a set of skills that they can take to other non-government jobs. Currently they're sitting at a desk in the DMV, or deployed on an aircraft carrier, or processing tax filings, but they're human beings that are working, and can work elsewhere. They have resumes, they know what jobs they're qualified for outside of government, and they're willing to leave. I've seen them do it.

The government competes directly with private business for employees. Perhaps nowhere is this more visible than at NASA. Federally operated NASA centers like JSC (as opposed to contractor operated NASA centers such as JPL), have a whole host of engineers working on various portions of the space program that are federal employees. There are also a host of private NASA contractors which crop up around NASA centers and work closely with them. Contractors often taken on niche roles, sometimes consisting of former NASA employees who left to start the business. SpaceX is a good example of a private NASA contractor. SpaceX, for example (and there are so many examples here, such as Ball, Lockheed, Boeing, ULA, and many more), poached many federal civil servants from NASA, and NASA employees working at contractor operated NASA centers (who were not federal civil servants). In some of the smaller companies, I've seen people quit NASA, go to work for a NASA contractor, and work down the hall in the same building with the same people on the same software doing the same thing. Ultimately their pay comes from the same place too, just funneled through a contractor instead of NASA. That's probably an example of just about the most fluid federal employee situation, where contractors and government swap personnel back and forth regularly, poaching from one-another. But it applies to IRS employees and Airforce Colonels as well. I'm sure an IRS employee considers going to work for a tax firm, or even opening up a new tax preparation company on a regular basis.

This analysis applies all the way from the top of the military to the last secretary at human resources. A phone operator in the office of personnel management at the US government can also operate phones at a human resources department for Amazon. It's not an altogether dissimilar position.

Being a Federal employee comes with some perqs. They're usually more insulated against market downturns, demand for their job doesn't ebb and flow so much based on consumer demand. Because, for example, people have to file tax documents regardless of whether they bought a car this year. So job stability is one. Also the government is very careful about employment standards, enforcing lack of discrimination, preventing abusive management, etc. Allegations of misconduct, whistle-blowing, etc. are taken seriously, anonymously, and are executed with precision. Another perq is that the (federal) government does a good job with health insurance options and subsidies. Vacation is decent, leave policies are decent, and you there are retirement annuity programs. Good job stability, good benefits, a non-hostile work environment. This is what government jobs have going for them.

What government jobs don't have going for them is pay. They pay less, no question. Also often you have financial restrictions, to make sure you're not being bribed. You may have to, for example, disclose your financial holdings on a regular basis. You're limited from holding more than a certain amount of stock (this is for certain positions, not all). Also there is generally very little job flexibility as far as how to carry out your job duties. There is often a single way to do it, and if you don't do it that way, you're not doing your job. Your mail carrier has little choice when it comes to how to deliver your mail. Bonuses are tightly controlled, and weird perqs that you would think would not be a problem, like hosting a holiday party, getting a Christmas gift from your boss, or having paid-for paper towels in the break room, are really carefully controlled. Because it looks bad to tax payers if the government is wasting money on paper towels. Also there's the current shutdown situation, which does not help attract employees.

So there are pros and cons to government employment. And people weigh these pros and cons every day when deciding whether to apply for a job opening within the government, or apply for a job opening outside of the government. The workforce shifts, and it's the most qualified, highly motivated people who shift first. So when our president says that a 2.x% pay raise for federal employees disappearing while employees are not going to their jobs and not sure whether congress will fund back pay for those missed days will not affect that government's ability to attract quality employees, he can't possibly be right. It's effectively a tautology, a lack of a pay increase makes it... which one... easier? or harder? to recruit. Harder. There's no question about it.

If you want to be sure that you have only the least qualified government workers, just make it impossible for the government to compete, which it has to do, against private industry for talent.
Click to expand...
I work IT for my state gov and can attest to this. We regularly have state employees go work for one of the companies we have contracts with, then come back, do basically the same job, making far more an hour, and costing the state sometimes 3 times as much annually as a contractor.
Im not going to lie. There is a good chance I may do the same once i get a couple more certs under my belt.
One thing might position had that keeps me there is its flexibility. I also get to travel all over the state.
But sadly, UKMikeys meme is all too real. There are some stupid monkeys at the state, and that's because, when it comes down to it, the talent goes to where their skills are best reciprocated.

Edit:
Johnnypenso
The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with the assertion that government employees make less:
42921-land-fedpay.png
Click to expand...
Id need to dig into the data, but I bet that graph changes a lot depending on the occupation.
 
Johnnypenso
The Congressional Budget Office disagrees with the assertion that government employees make less:
42921-land-fedpay.png
Click to expand...

I made it a point to separate out benefits vs. pay.

Edit:

Also, that kinda chart is made by just about every employer, and it almost always shows that they offer more than the other guy. It's easily cooked, partly by just knowing what you're doing internally, and knowing less (and therefore including less) about what folks are doing externally.
 
samurai8juice
I don't understand why that's something that she made public. It makes you wonder if she's really that clueless.
Click to expand...

My guess is she was so worked up with proving Trump wrong she didn't even think about what she was saying. Which is actually a tad worse considering if something that petty is enough to get her to stumble I question whether she would really be any better than the IiC we have now.
 
Danoff
Based on recent headlines, I think it's a good time for me to bring up something that I see representing a general misunderstanding.

Article:
In a letter to House and Senate leaders, Trump wrote that he’d decided “across-the-board” pay raises as well as locality pay raises for civilian federal workers in 2019 would be frozen.
“I have determined that for 2019, both across‑the‑board pay increases and locality pay increases will be set at zero,” he wrote. “These alternative pay plan decisions will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well‑qualified Federal workforce,” Trump added. [emphasis mine]

.........

So there are pros and cons to government employment. And people weigh these pros and cons every day when deciding whether to apply for a job opening within the government, or apply for a job opening outside of the government. The workforce shifts, and it's the most qualified, highly motivated people who shift first. So when our president says that a 2.x% pay raise for federal employees disappearing while employees are not going to their jobs and not sure whether congress will fund back pay for those missed days will not affect that government's ability to attract quality employees, he can't possibly be right. It's effectively a tautology, a lack of a pay increase makes it... which one... easier? or harder? to recruit. Harder. There's no question about it.

If you want to be sure that you have only the least qualified government workers, just make it impossible for the government to compete, which it has to do, against private industry for talent.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I think the keyword in there is "materially." It's not a question of whether it is harder, but how much harder and whether that is considered material.
 
Biggles
On the one hand - Elizabeth Warren, on the other - Michael Bloomberg. Which direction will the Democrats turn?
Click to expand...
I doubt Democrats will turn as one vast herd. More likely they will scatter in several directions until after a bruising series of primaries. They must balance a desire to win riding a crest of popular realism, or risk defeat by going too far into ideological idealism.
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
I agree, but I think the keyword in there is "materially." It's not a question of whether it is harder, but how much harder and whether that is considered material.
Click to expand...

It's enough of a change to be considered material to budgetary constraints or it wouldn't be happening. So the amount of money we're talking about is "material", by Trump's acknowledgement.
 
McLaren
If she wants to run, go for it. I just don’t want to hear, “Vote for her bc she’s a woman” like many harped for Clinton.

More than ever, we need a Presidential nominee with actual qualifications, not who appeals the most on the outside.
Click to expand...

To her credit, she does seem to be more "let's take on corruption, graft, crony capitalism" than "hey, I'm a woman!". In fact, outside of Bernie, I'm not sure anyone on the 2020 Horizon has more of an ethos than Warren. Compare that to Clinton who's only real defining political feature was a lack of features. I really doubt Warren could win unless she was paired with a super-hero level VP. Warren-Beto could be a pretty powerful weapon. Ultimately, I think Biden-Beto would probably be the strongest pairing...that is IF the various democratic party factions could stomach two white guys running for office....which I'm not sure about.

I do hope Trump faces a primary challenge, he could be pretty vulnerable in open-primary states.

I wonder if there is going to be a 3rd party spoiler like Ross Perot in '92. I could honestly see Bloomberg do it. I think it would more than likely hurt the democratic party more than the Republicans. Trump is very likely to have his ~35% base no matter what, and he wouldn't need much more than that if one or more spoiler candidates gets on the ticket. The US really needs runoff and/or ranked choice voting universally.
 
Biggles
On the one hand - Elizabeth Warren, on the other - Michael Bloomberg. Which direction will the Democrats turn?
Click to expand...

Hopefully neither direction. Bloomberg's as sketchy as the rest of them. Hillary in a man's body.

Eunos_Cosmo
Compare that to Clinton who's only real defining political feature was a lack of features. I really doubt Warren could win unless she was paired with a super-hero level VP. Warren-Beto could be a pretty powerful weapon. Ultimately, I think Biden-Beto would probably be the strongest pairing...that is IF the various democratic party factions could stomach two white guys running for office....which I'm not sure about.
Click to expand...

Beto couldn't even beat Ted Cruz...

My problem's that everybody's old. Bernie, Biden, Warren are really old people. Can't we get somebody younger, that isn't named Beto, Sherrod, or Cory?

Kamala Harris could be somebody that I could get behind, but I don't know how far left she is politically (aka crazy), but being a Californian Democrat is definitely a massive red flag...

McLaren
More than ever, we need a Presidential nominee with actual qualifications, not who appeals the most on the outside.
Click to expand...

But outside appeal is the best qualification. Hillary didn't have outside appeal. I don't think Warren has outside appeal. Most of these potential Democratic candidates don't really have outside appeal.
 
samurai8juice
But outside appeal is the best qualification. Hillary didn't have outside appeal. I don't think Warren has outside appeal. Most of these potential Democratic candidates don't really have outside appeal.
Click to expand...
It's really not.

Hillary's appeal turned to that she was a woman, will likely happen for Warren as well. Barack had some, "First Black President" votes, but more or less was still a clean cut nominee voted in on his campaign promises. The point is we don't need to elect the next President based on identity politics, and neither side needs to resort to it. The Republicans need to avoid it, even in a time where "old white man bad" is drummed up & the Democrats should've learned that Hillary's supporters pushing for "First Female President" had no luck, either.

Just elect nominees that won't turn the election into another, "Whose the lesser of 2 evils"?
 
samurai8juice
Beto couldn't even beat Ted Cruz...
Click to expand...

Just curious here, honestly, are you familiar with Texas politics? Especially statewide races?

I think it's interesting that Steve Bannon once said something to the effect of "you try to run a political campaign based on identity politics and we'll win every time", directed at the democratic party. I think he was right at the time, but identity politics seems to define everything now. Kinda sad.
 
I agree that a younger Democratic candidate would be best going forward. As well as Warren, Sanders and Biden, Hillary Clinton is old. Trump is the oldest elected first term President in history; only Reagan in his second term was older.

The Democrats saw a big slide through the era of Humphrey, McGovern and Carter and it took a (relatively) young and fresh Bill Clinton to realign the party. Same with Obama after the Bush Jr administration. Both were 46 and 47 respectively when first elected. You can even go further back and look at Kennedy's record as the youngest elected President (43 years old) as realignig the post New Deal Democratic party in contrast to the tired, old ways of Adali Stevenson which failed to topple Eisenhowermania.
 
McLaren
If she wants to run, go for it. I just don’t want to hear, “Vote for her bc she’s a woman” like many harped for Clinton.

More than ever, we need a Presidential nominee with actual qualifications, not who appeals the most on the outside.
Click to expand...

HRC was as "qualified" a candidate as anyone in recent memory. I think she likely lost as many votes for being a woman as she might have gained for being a woman.

samurai8juice
Bloomberg's as sketchy as the rest of them.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can elaborate?

Dotini
I doubt Democrats will turn as one vast herd.
Click to expand...

In the end they are obliged to choose ONE candidate.

Bloomberg would not be the choice of left leaning Democrats, but as a centrist candidate he might offer the possibility of moderation & unity to a very divided country. Warren, or some other left leaning candidate would continue & possibly exacerbate the ideological war going on the in the US.
 
samurai8juice
Hopefully neither direction. Bloomberg's as sketchy as the rest of them. Hillary in a man's body.



Beto couldn't even beat Ted Cruz...

My problem's that everybody's old. Bernie, Biden, Warren are really old people. Can't we get somebody younger, that isn't named Beto, Sherrod, or Cory?

Kamala Harris could be somebody that I could get behind, but I don't know how far left she is politically (aka crazy), but being a Californian Democrat is definitely a massive red flag...



But outside appeal is the best qualification. Hillary didn't have outside appeal. I don't think Warren has outside appeal. Most of these potential Democratic candidates don't really have outside appeal.
Click to expand...

Bloomberg at least has political experience and somebody on both sides could vote on. What history is sketchy though?

Beto almost beat Cruz in Texas. That already was quite remarkable.

In my opinion either Biden and Bernie should run as the democratic nominee. These are candidates that are appealing to moderate republicans (older voters) and are more likely to beat Trump (if he isnt impeached, arrested etc).
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
618K
Clinton Ducks
Clinton Ducks
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
448 449 450
Replies
13K
Views
742K
Lischynski
L
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
791
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back