Jump to content
270soft Forum

MysteryKnight

Members
  • Content Count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MysteryKnight

  • Rank
    Political Guru
  • Birthday 10/12/1998

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Jersey

Recent Profile Visitors

330 profile views
  1. I got a 4, so I control the US House but there is a tie in the US Senate. Cabinet-wise that should help me get all of my nominees approved but there could be a few that I have to compromise to get the moderate dems to agree to. Much of my first 100 days would be through executive power, trying to undo much of the things Trump did as fast as I can. Executive Action/Orders: -Immediately negotiate back into the Paris Climate Agreement -Re-instate many of the regulations that Trump rolled back -Direct EPA to come up with a plan similar but more ambitious to Obama's Clean Power Plan -Reverse the "zero tolerance policy" and other inhumane immigration actions by Trump -Restore and expand protection for Dreamers -Stop construction of any new barriers along the Southern Border -Moratorium on any new fossil fuel leases -Begin to normalize relations with Cuba and repeal Trump's travel restrictions Congress: -Push to pass infrastructure bill with significant spending : focus on ensuring the bill includes money for renewable energy projects, replacing water pipes/improving water systems/wastewater systems, and green infrastructure such as better insulated buildings and energy efficiency -Rally support in congress for Medicare For All -Push congress to pass the FAMILY Act, which would guarantee 12 weeks of paid leave -Push for a gun control bill that would strengthen background checks, close loopholes, ban high capacity magazines -Repeal the 2017 tax cuts I don't know whether I would be able to get congress to actually do those things in my first 100 days, with the house on my side I think they will definitely pass those things, a 50-50 senate should be able to pass the rest but there could be some extra time for negotiating needed to get the votes on gun control and infrastructure. A President shouldn't rely solely on executive actions/orders, but I think it is important when congress may not be able to get it done and it is a pressing issue. I think most of my executive actions will be popular with voters and they will see them as necessary and me just doing what is best for the country.
  2. 1. I think disliking the other candidate is a bigger motivation. I didn't vote for Hillary just because she was a dem, I voted for her because I thought Trump's policies would have been a huge disaster for the country. I considered 3rd party but I realized that Trump was such a terrible candidate I had to give my vote to his main opposer even thought I wasn't from a safe swing state. Biden - 45 (liked him as VP, but seeing how out of touch he is with the party and running for president when his time clearly passed has caused him to drop considerably) Sanders - 90 (my favorite politician) Warren - 70 (may have been higher if you asked me a few months ago but lately she has done some things that have disappointed me Buttigieg - 40 (he went from young rising progressive to a moderate "we can't do that" candidate real fast) Harris - 50 Yang - 60 Gabbard - 30 Trump - 10 Pence - 5 Cruz - 5 Kasich - 45 Weld - 50 B. Obama - 65 GW Bush - 20 H. Clinton - 45 Romney - 30 J. McCain - 30
  3. President: Sen. Bernie Sanders VP: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ------------------------------------------------- State: Former Sen. Russ Feingold (Wisconsin) Treasury: Fmr Labor Sec./Economist Robert Reich (Pennsylvania) Defense: Rep. Barbara Lee (California) Att Gen: Attorney General of NY Letitia James (New York) Interior: Environmentalist Bill McKibben (California) Agriculture: Rep. Kim Schrier (Washington) Commerce: Businessman Andrew Yang (New York) Labor: Former Director of the Office of Public Engagement Gabriela Lemus (Washington DC) HUD: Mayor Jesse ArreguĂ­n (California) Health, etc.: Chief Medical Officer Claudia Fegan (Illinois) Transportation: Former FTA Official Carolyn Flowers (California) Education: Gov. Tim Walz (Minnesota) Energy: Former. Energy Sec. Steven Chu (Missouri) Veteran's Affairs: Sen. Tammy Duckworth (Illinois) Homeland Security: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas) This was a challenge. It doesn't fit all the requirements, if I spent more time playing around I'm sure I could but this is the best I could do for now. I think for the most part it's pretty close. A good mix of elected and un-elected officials (with 15 positions it can't be perfectly balanced so this is the best I can do). Certainly some picks in there to energize Sanders' base but tried to balance some not to alienate moderate voters Women: 8 Men: 7 Elected: 8 Un-elected 7 White: 6 African-American: 4 Asian: 3 Hispanic: 3
  4. Gabbard has so many views that just aren't in line with dems. There's a reason she keeps going on Fox shows like Tucker and Hannity - they actually like her over there. Republicans won't vote for her over Trump obviously, but she is the only dem candidate that they can tolerate because of how she has portrayed herself and how she has in many ways stood up for people on the right. I worry about her not endorsing the dem nominee or trying to take her campaign all the way to the convention and making the party even more divided
  5. The procedure he had is pretty common, and doesn't take very long to recover. Bill Clinton had it in I think 2010 (and was obviously much younger than Bernie is now). I do worry that this is going to have many people questioning his health and having a negative effect on his campaign. His campaign says that the ads are just being postponed, perhaps because they coincided with events he was having that he now cancelled. Either way, Bernie is my favorite politician and I hope he is back on the trail soon.
  6. Before Trump win the presidency and he became a pro-Trump lunatic, I would have said he would have been a better president than Trump and maybe even rated him below-average instead of bad. But now he seems to been captured by the Trump GOP base and became the thing he once opposed. He's always been a pro-military neocon which is why I never liked him, but he did try to do some good work on immigration reform and climate change like 10 years ago, but he changed those views since then.
  7. Warren - Definitely the best of the night. She continues to show that she is the most intelligent candidate and the best at actually explaining her plans and a clear solution to the problem. Sometimes I feel like she sounds a little too smart for the average voter lol Beto - He actually had a really solid night. His answer on mandatory buyback for assault weapons was probably the biggest moment of the night, big applause from that. He also had other good answers as well. Castro - He was aggressive and I liked it. When he called out Biden for forgetting what he said two minutes ago, he was actually 100% correct if you look at the transcript. Nothing malicious about it, he was just calling out Biden for not actually knowing what his plan does. Bernie - He was clearly getting over an illness or just had a tired voice from so many speeches, and it hurt him a bit. Not his best performance by any means. He still got his typical points across, and they are good points, but he didn't do anything to convince people who aren't on his side. Booker - He had an okay night. He gave some good answers but was pretty unmemorable for the most part. Harris - She was trying too hard to have a big moment I think. Some of her answers, like the Wizar dof Oz comment, was just weird lol Yang - He's just up there doing his own thing. He had some good answers and also some bad answers (charter schools , foreign policy). Buttigieg - He was pretty unmemorable. He just answers with anecdotes and stories and doesn't give any policy substance. Biden - He was rambling a lot and slipping up as usual. It wasn't any worse than his other debate performances though Klobuchar - Bad. She tried so hard to get in some good one liners and they were all so cringe-worthy. She is out of touch with the party as well.
  8. Non of the republicans challenging Trump right now have any shot. They are too unknown and don't have a clear message for the GOP to jump ship and go to them. Weld is too moderate for them, Sanford has his own issues, and Walsh seems to agree with Trump's policies but just doesn't agree with his language. Kasich would have been the best chance at making some noise. He's an established member of the party, lasted pretty far in 2016, and while he's still conservative, disagrees with the extreme positions of Trump.
  9. 1. Absolutely not. It isn't a fair process at all and there is nothing more to say. 2. I'd say generally yes, because if the challenger actually makes an impact it is most likely going to push the incumbent to adopt more stances that will make them a better candidate. It is definitely a good thing if the incumbent is very unpopular with the party. There are exceptions where it isn't a good thing though. 3. Depends on how many cancel them. If it's just a handful of states, stay in, try and get the votes wherever you can. and make a case this is unfair. If it becomes that a majority of states do it, they should drop out, not endorse Trump, and try to organize something to try and expose how corrupt the party is with those tactics of shutting them out of the primary process.
  10. UBI helps working people just as much, if not more, than those who don't work. People who work such long hours now wouldn't have to. They also have economic security if they lose their job or have to take time off for some reason. Or, just extra cash for them to spend on top of what they already make. Sounds fair to me.
  11. It's a shame Gillibrand dropped out already and didn't catch on at all, I thought she was a great candidate with an important message and solid policies. I do think sexism played a role in her failure to catch on, like how she was asked everyday about Al Franken, blaming her for his demise. I would love to see her as VP to Bernie if he gets the nom, but I don't see that happening because it doesn't really help get any gains in the electoral college
  12. Buying Greenland just wouldn't make sense. There are way better things to spend money on. I also fear that Trump would buy it and use it to extract their natural resources, especially oil. Keep it in the ground. And cancelling the meeting was extremely childish. Did he really expect a different reaction from the PM?
  13. Obviously I don't speak for him, but I also find the game unplayable at the moment for the 2020 scenario. I have found that by the time Iowa rolls around the amount of undecided voters is usually way beyond 50% and screws up all the polling and results. And also, if only one candidate gets delegates because they were the only one to get 15%, it gives them huge momentum and no one else gets much even if they were only 1% less, so that carries to the next states to the point where it becomes impossible to beat them.
  14. Steyer buying his way into the debates as expected. I wouldn't be surprised if he rises in the polls a bit either. I see ads for him all over the place. His campaign has already spent millions of dollars.
×
×
  • Create New...