Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 58

Thread: I Am Seriously Considering Supporting Donald J. Trump For President in 2020.

  1. #16
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    The Flow
    Oratio
    30,213

    Ignore User
    I can delete you, one click and you're overwritten.

 

  • #17
    Quote Originally Posted by nail bunny View Post
    This guy came up in one on my Facebook page right after a picture of dogs with human faces scrolled by. I swear, the dog on the left looks just like this guy.

    dogface.jpg

  • #18
    toxic Xyxox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Province
    Aurora, IL
    Oratio
    8,633

    Ignore User
    In Scathing Editorial, Vermont Newspaper Begs Sanders Not To Run

    Don't run

    Bernie Sanders should not run for president. In fact, we beg him not to.

    That is an unfavorable opinion, especially among most Vermonters and progressives who support the platform that has come to define him. But at this point, there are more things about another Sanders run at the White House that concern us than excite us.

    In this space, we have repeatedly hit the senator on where his loyalties lay: Vermont or a bigger calling? We have asked him to make a choice, which he would argue was his recent re-election to Congress. But in his previous run for the presidency, Sanders, an independent who ran for the White House as a Democrat, missed dozens of votes that likely would have helped Vermonters. And, while he handily defeated his challenger, can Vermonters point to Sanders’ record and say definitively, “This is what he’s done for us?”


    While he makes regular visits “home,” you are more likely to catch Sanders on Colbert, CNN or MSNBC than you are to see him talking to reporters here in Vermont. Evidently, microphones here don’t extend far enough.

    But that’s not our greatest concern. We fear a Sanders run risks dividing the well-fractured Democratic Party, and could lead to another split in the 2020 presidential vote. There is too much at stake to take that gamble. If we are going to maintain a two-party system, the mandate needs to be a clear one. There is strength in numbers, and if anything has been shown in recent years, it is that unless tallies are overwhelming, there can always be questions or challenges raised over what “vote totals” really mean: popular vote vs. Electoral College results.

    For us, this comes down to principle over ego. It is one thing to start a revolution, but at a certain point you need to know when to step out of the way and let others carry the water for you.

    Sanders is a self-described socialist and a New Deal-era American progressive, who is pro-labor and emphasizes reversing economic inequality. He has developed a noteworthy following.

    And, there have been progressive candidates, many of whom have been running under Sanders’ “revolution” banner (and with his endorsement) who are spreading the tenets of Sanders’ decades-old agenda: Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure; reversing climate change; creating worker co-ops; growing the trade-union movement; raising the minimum wage; pay equity for women workers; trade policies that benefit American workers; making college affordable for all; taking on Wall Street; health care as a human right; protecting the most vulnerable Americans; and tax reform.

    As a platform, it is massive. As a candidate, Sanders is exhausting.

    All signs point to another run, even with accusations this week that Sanders’ campaign staff, during the 2016 run, engaged in sexist remarks, as well as claims of poor treatment and lower pay for women.

    According to the New York Times this week, “Now, as the Vermont senator tries to build support for a second run at the White House, his perceived failure to address this issue has damaged his progressive bona fides, delegates and nearly a dozen former state and national staff members said in interviews over the last month.

    “And it has raised questions among them about whether he can adequately fight for the interests of women, who have increasingly defined the Democratic Party in the Trump era, if he runs again for the presidential nomination in 2020,” a Times article notes.


    In an interview Wednesday night on CNN, Sanders said he was proud of his 2016 campaign. “I’m not going to sit here and tell you that we did everything right, in terms of human resources,” he said. “I certainly apologize to any woman who felt she was not treated appropriately, and of course, if I run we will do better the next time.”

    Asked by Anderson Cooper if he knew about the staff complaints, he said, “I was a little bit busy running around the country trying to make the case.” That response alone is inexcusable and insulting.

    In recent weeks, a Facebook group for Sanders campaign alumni has become a sounding board for complaints about harassment, lewd comments and gender discrimination. Politico first reported on the claims.

    And while none of the staff accusations have been levied against Sanders himself, his personality is abrasive. He is known to be difficult to work with. The 77-year-old can be bombastic and prickly. He can be dismissive and rude in his arrogance. You are either with Bernie Sanders or you are not.

    That no-nonsense approach and his politics are endearing to many. But it is as extreme, on the other end of the spectrum in its policy elbow-throwing and idealism, as what we face today from the right in their standard bearer, Donald Trump.

    Taken together — ego, electoral math, a tired message and a prickly media darling — Sanders is convincing himself that he’s the person who can win the White House in 2020. We are not convinced he should.
    Link to editorial
    Trump is just Putin's little bitch.

  • #19
    Sadly, this article, like many voters, fixates on the 2-party system. It complains about the electoral math, and the potential long-term fracturing of the Democratic party. This stresses that if the left don't unite under the banner of the Democratic Party establishment, the Republican Party establishment will win. Any vote not for a Democrat is a vote for evil to endure. Should the Democratic Party win all 2020 races by an even greater proportion than the 2016 House races, will it get rid of the electoral college and employ a different voting system? Will it sincerely work to relax the rules of the presidential debates regarding the inclusion of other political parties? I doubt it. Entities in power (including individuals, consortiums, major political parties, and corporations) rarely cede it freely and often work to increase their power and influence at the expense of others.

    True, Sanders does threaten the Democratic party establishment (which is why they employ super delegation of party insiders to weigh the primary in their favor), just as Trump has and is a threat to Republican party purists. Sure, Clinton still would have likely won the nomination without the super delegates, but the degree of the appearance of solidarity among the left would have been diminished. In the end optics places a major--if not the ultimate--influence in elections.

    Why is the 2-party system considered so important? For starters, it is because election results can not carry the weight of 'mandate' without a majority (not plurality). It is more difficult to contest an election when a candidate wins at least half of all votes cast. Additionally, it increases the likelihood that a voter voted for the winning candidate (identity politics). This employs the mentality: 'My winning candidate is a winner because I chose them. Therefore, I am also a winner by association and consequently feel better about myself. Consequently, if my candidate does not does win (loser), I feel diminished because I am not as represented (by positive association).'

  • #20
    toxic Xyxox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Province
    Aurora, IL
    Oratio
    8,633

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Devoid View Post
    Sadly, this article, like many voters, fixates on the 2-party system. It complains about the electoral math, and the potential long-term fracturing of the Democratic party. This stresses that if the left don't unite under the banner of the Democratic Party establishment, the Republican Party establishment will win. Any vote not for a Democrat is a vote for evil to endure. Should the Democratic Party win all 2020 races by an even greater proportion than the 2016 House races, will it get rid of the electoral college and employ a different voting system? Will it sincerely work to relax the rules of the presidential debates regarding the inclusion of other political parties? I doubt it. Entities in power (including individuals, consortiums, major political parties, and corporations) rarely cede it freely and often work to increase their power and influence at the expense of others.

    True, Sanders does threaten the Democratic party establishment (which is why they employ super delegation of party insiders to weigh the primary in their favor), just as Trump has and is a threat to Republican party purists. Sure, Clinton still would have likely won the nomination without the super delegates, but the degree of the appearance of solidarity among the left would have been diminished. In the end optics places a major--if not the ultimate--influence in elections.

    Why is the 2-party system considered so important? For starters, it is because election results can not carry the weight of 'mandate' without a majority (not plurality). It is more difficult to contest an election when a candidate wins at least half of all votes cast. Additionally, it increases the likelihood that a voter voted for the winning candidate (identity politics). This employs the mentality: 'My winning candidate is a winner because I chose them. Therefore, I am also a winner by association and consequently feel better about myself. Consequently, if my candidate does not does win (loser), I feel diminished because I am not as represented (by positive association).'
    Since you obviously have no clue how the American political system works, I'll give you break.

    THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHOICES IN ANY AMERICAN ELECTION, THE REPUBLICAN OR THE DEMOCRAT. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES.

    That is the single inescapable fact of our political system.

    The only way to alter this equation is to abolish the electoral college. Until then, the two party system is built into the political system.
    Trump is just Putin's little bitch.

  • #21
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    The Flow
    Oratio
    30,213

    Ignore User
    That's totally false, but you do you Xxx.
    I can delete you, one click and you're overwritten.

  • #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    As the title states, I am seriously considering supporting Donald J. Trump for president in 2020.

    My conundrum is simple. It is a distinct possibility that the Democratic Party could be so STUPID as to nominate Sanders for the presidency.

    Faced with such idiocy, I'd be forced into voting for Trump, or any Republican really, as the lesser evil.
    Weren't you the poster that stipulated that you vote across party lines and not candidates no matter what...

    EDIT: This is too hilarious considering all the posts you wrote against Trump voters and abstainers.
    Last edited by Sadras; January 8th, 2019 at 08:01 AM.

  • #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    Since you obviously have no clue how the American political system works, I'll give you break.

    THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHOICES IN ANY AMERICAN ELECTION, THE REPUBLICAN OR THE DEMOCRAT. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES.

    That is the single inescapable fact of our political system.

    The only way to alter this equation is to abolish the electoral college. Until then, the two party system is built into the political system.
    Weird, because my ballot clearly has more than two choices on it. You might want to check yours in 2020, because it's broken.

  • #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    Since you obviously have no clue how the American political system works, I'll give you break.

    THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHOICES IN ANY AMERICAN ELECTION, THE REPUBLICAN OR THE DEMOCRAT. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES.

    That is the single inescapable fact of our political system.

    The only way to alter this equation is to abolish the electoral college. Until then, the two party system is built into the political system.
    You have stated a belief, not a fact. The two major political establishments stir the fear that the other team will win if they do not (false dilemma). They work diligently to make sure the other political parties (without overcoming a huge handicap) cannot become true competitors. If there was a way to legally force the U.S. into an exclusive 2-party system (declaring the Democratic and Republican parties as the only legal political parties), the two establishments would embrace it eagerly. People are a means to an end, the establishments only truly care about themselves.

    There is hope when enough voters disregard the 2-party fixation. The American political system has changed in the past, it is likely to continue to change.

    For over 100 years, Senators were not elected by popular vote. The 17th Amendment broke Senate election precedence and forced the election of Senators by popular vote.

    Over the past 100 years, the political system has changed. Women and peoples of color can vote. Granted, there are some that have laid roadblocks to impede or end such movements, both in the past and in the present. These roadblocks include(d) grandfather laws, poll taxes, (highly subjective) literacy tests, voter id laws, felony voting laws, the reduction of the number of voting precincts in strategic locations and their hours of operation, restrictions on early voting and mailing ballots, and gerrymandering. Fear is the instrument of choice used by those striving to implement such voting impediments in a desperate protectionist attempt to maintain their power and influence.

    I'm interested to see how new Gerrymandering legislation will change the system. The National Popular Vote movement that works to end winner takes all also has promise. Legislation passed to open (or at least partially open) primaries and caucuses to non-party members also has potential to break up establishment thinking. Maine's ranked choice voting could also provide beneficial results if adopted by other states. All of these can help break the 2-party establishment hold on U.S. politics. These represent a real possibility that U.S. voters are not hopelessly chained to your bolded assertion. Real progress is happening. It is only hampered by those who feel 'safe' with the current process or are too intimidated with the prospect of improving something that is frequently considered insufficient.
    Last edited by Devoid; January 8th, 2019 at 04:23 PM.

  • #25
    toxic Xyxox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Province
    Aurora, IL
    Oratio
    8,633

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Devoid View Post
    You have stated a belief, not a fact. The two major political establishments stir the fear that the other team will win if they do not (false dilemma). They work diligently to make sure the other political parties (without overcoming a huge handicap) cannot become true competitors. If there was a way to legally force the U.S. into an exclusive 2-party system (declaring the Democratic and Republican parties as the only legal political parties), the two establishments would embrace it eagerly. People are a means to an end, the establishments only truly care about themselves.

    There is hope when enough voters disregard the 2-party fixation. The American political system has changed in the past, it is likely to continue to change.

    For over 100 years, Senators were not elected by popular vote. The 17th Amendment broke Senate election precedence and forced the election of Senators by popular vote.

    Over the past 100 years, the political system has changed. Women and peoples of color can vote. Granted, there are some that have laid roadblocks to impede or end such movements, both in the past and in the present. These roadblocks include(d) grandfather laws, poll taxes, (highly subjective) literacy tests, voter id laws, felony voting laws, the reduction of the number of voting precincts in strategic locations and their hours of operation, restrictions on early voting and mailing ballots, and gerrymandering. Fear is the instrument of choice used by those striving to implement such voting impediments in a desperate protectionist attempt to maintain their power and influence.

    I'm interested to see how new Gerrymandering legislation will change the system. The National Popular Vote movement that works to end winner takes all also has promise. Legislation passed to open (or at least partially open) primaries and caucuses to non-party members also has potential to break up establishment thinking. Maine's ranked choice voting could also provide beneficial results if adopted by other states. All of these can help break the 2-party establishment hold on U.S. politics. These represent a real possibility that U.S. voters are not hopelessly chained to your bolded assertion. Real progress is happening. It is only hampered by those who feel 'safe' with the current process or are too intimidated with the prospect of improving something that is frequently considered insufficient.
    The last time the American system changed was when the Whig party died, and it was immediately replaced by the Republican party. TWO PARTIES. This is a design feature in the Electoral College.
    Trump is just Putin's little bitch.

  • #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    The last time the American system changed was when the Whig party died, and it was immediately replaced by the Republican party. TWO PARTIES. This is a design feature in the Electoral College.
    That's starting to change, at least on a non-Presidential level. In Maine, they are using IRV.

    In a couple of states, the Electoral College votes get distributed by popular vote, and that's being considered in other states. Sure, even if all states do that, it's still a weighted system that takes power away from some larger states and gives it to smaller states, but change is happening.

  • #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    The last time the American system changed was when the Whig party died, and it was immediately replaced by the Republican party. TWO PARTIES. This is a design feature in the Electoral College.
    A flaw, not feature.

  • #28
    toxic Xyxox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Province
    Aurora, IL
    Oratio
    8,633

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMaxperson View Post
    A flaw, not feature.
    No, this was by DESIGN. It was intended by the founding fathers.

    Which goes to show, the founding fathers weren't anything at all like the revered caricatures of humans most idiots try to make them out to be.

    After all, the majority of them were rich white slave owners who didn't want to pay their taxes.
    Trump is just Putin's little bitch.

  • #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    After all, the majority of them were rich white slave owners who didn't want to pay their taxes.
    Whoa there. If that was the case, then the current elites would be a reflection of the elites of the past.
    Signature too big and pornographic. Next offense will be a ban.

  • #30
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,648

    Ignore User
    The current elites lack the intelligence and restraint of the past ones.
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

  • Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •