Rdskns2000

Presidential Election 2020 - Same Idiot Joker vs Batwoman or Batman

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Let's say hypothetically that Kasich runs as an independent.  That would probably split the GOP enough to cause a Dem win and send a message to them that they have gone too far Trumpy.

 

Would you support a 3rd party vote in that scenario?  (Asking if you would agree with people voting that way, not if you personally would. )

Of course not any vote not for his guy is a vote for the other guy.  I hear that from my Trumpster work colleague and posters on this board all the time (I guess in a sense that means I actually got three votes in the 2016 election - 1 for each major candidate and the guy I voted for).

Edited by nonniey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Let's say hypothetically that Kasich runs as an independent.  That would probably split the GOP enough to cause a Dem win and send a message to them that they have gone too far Trumpy.

 

Would you support a 3rd party vote in that scenario?  (Asking if you would agree with people voting that way, not if you personally would. )

 

Those will be wasted votes as well. All this will tell the GOP and Democrats is to further double down on their base instincts. 

 

Parties don’t evolve based on third party preference of 3-4% of the population (which is what most third party candidates are lucky enough to receive COMBINED). 

 

Parties evolve when they realize that hey look “X% of voters from previously conservative/liberal strongholds are now flipping and voting for us or our primary opposition”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Those will be wasted votes as well. All this will tell the GOP and Democrats is to further double down on their base instincts. 

 

Parties don’t evolve based on third party preference of 3-4% of the population (which is what most third party candidates are lucky enough to receive COMBINED). 

 

Parties evolve when they realize that hey look “X% of voters from previously conservative/liberal strongholds are now flipping and voting for us or our primary opposition”.

Okay.  I disagree but understand you opinion.  And good to know where you stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you if he runs he wont get 3-4% of the vote. He will eat up those "hate trump, hate dems" votes and depending on who the dem nom is he may get a good potion of those too. 

 

Thats what really worries me about this guy at this time. Im telling you if it doesnt come down to Trump v Dem V Him I really like hi running indi. But im 90% positive thats what its going to come down to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Those will be wasted votes as well. All this will tell the GOP and Democrats is to further double down on their base instincts. 

 

Parties don’t evolve based on third party preference of 3-4% of the population (which is what most third party candidates are lucky enough to receive COMBINED). 

 

Parties evolve when they realize that hey look “X% of voters from previously conservative/liberal strongholds are now flipping and voting for us or our primary opposition”.

So what changes have the Dems made after Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania flipped?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, nonniey said:

So what changes have the Dems made after Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania flipped?

Don't run unpopular candidates? Those states flipped right back in 2018. Let's not forget Trump was lying about his positions and running on some Democratic ideas. I'm gonna raise my own taxes, not going to touch Medicare/Medicaid, drain the swamp,betc.

Edited by Cooked Crack
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

 

Parties evolve when they realize that hey look “X% of voters from previously conservative/liberal strongholds are now flipping and voting for us or our primary opposition”.

 

So I (or anyone else) was correct not voting for Hillary because I/they didn't like what the Dems were doing and would do.

 

Oddly enough that doesn't seem what you are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nonniey said:

So what changes have the Dems made after Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania flipped?

 

Running candidates who are openly liberal on economic issues. See 2018. 

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

So I (or anyone else) was correct not voting for Hillary because I/they didn't like what the Dems were doing and would do.

 

Oddly enough that doesn't seem what you are saying.

 

This is a pretty disengenous way of framing your political views. You voted for Trump because you liked what he would do. Nor are you the type of voter who forces parties to change platform positions.

 

Spare us the “I’m an independent” BS.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nonniey said:

So what changes have the Dems made after Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania flipped?

 

Flipped in 2016?  Or flipped back in 2018?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Not really sure what to say, but if you looked at that poll and came away with "Only 46% are dissatisfied with current gun laws and want more strict gun laws. Not even half. " then you read the poll wrong.  

 

Edit:  Your discussion happened in 2015, so you may have been right at that time.  Since then, there have been over 1000 mass shootings and several infamous massacres. 

 

image.png.e3326515b5ffd970d348cf44ddef9d13.png

 

 

Get past the generic “are you for more strict rules” and read the polls on the specifics and it’s obvious not much has changed. 

 

Significantly more ore people are against banning semi-automatic rifles known as “assault rifles”

 

a significant majority are against banning gandguns. 

 

The problem is still ill the same 4 years later - get into specifics and the support you claim makes this a winner vanishes. 

 

Maybe someone can win with generic “I supports stricter rules” rhetoric but if the NRA is smart they get the opponent to press hard for details and watch support vanish quickly. 

5 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Okay.  I disagree but understand you opinion.  And good to know where you stand.

 

I’ve never liked the “the other guy sucks so you have to support my ideas” mindset. 

 

Because ultimately, I don’t. And, if you’re not careful about that bull**** mindset, you’re not going to win. 

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

 

This is a pretty disengenous way of framing your political views. You voted for Trump because you liked what he would do. Nor are you the type of voter who forces parties to change platform positions.

 

Spare us the “I’m an independent” BS.

 

:ols: , yeah, sure,whatever.

 

What about the millions of other voters you castigate for voting not Hillary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Get past the generic “are you for more strict rules” and read the polls on the specifics and it’s obvious not much has changed. 

 

Significantly more ore people are against banning semi-automatic rifles known as “assault rifles”

 

a significant majority are against banning gandguns. 

 

The problem is still ill the same 4 years later - get into specifics and the support you claim makes this a winner vanishes. 

 

Maybe someone can win with generic “I supports stricter rules” rhetoric but if the NRA is smart they get the opponent to press hard for details and watch support vanish quickly. 

 

 

Not really. (And I don't think anyone is advocating banning handguns at this point).  

 

image.png.5c8db196c4acbd3dd0d2bf39917f5e06.png

 

image.png.cf1769ff01758663ec643063466f960f.png

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck Todd on TK’s show said the dems are going to have problems because in 2018 they attracted upper class moderate Republicans, and now they’re going to throw Warren and sanders out there where they’ll rail against capitalism and it might scare off their new supporters. 

 

TK, self identified liberal, was quite angry at her comments about capitalism without rules being theft. 

Edited by tshile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, looks to me like the media on all sides is running hard with the "dems taking major shift to the left (or worded more sensationally)" and continuously amplifying it, and whatever the balance between that narrative and reality is, until some more moderate dems join in i expect it to snowball

 

i know the common comparison is it will be like 2016 for the gopers, so it will be wild all the way through the convention and then settle down towards the end....i really think there's too many competing/disparate but equally plausible outcomes for 2020 to really call the nature of the "winning message" or personality yet, and we don't even know what kind of shaping events are coming first...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to vote 3rd party, go for it, you can. It's wasted and you probably ought to have saved the gas driving to the polls for all the good it does but hey, that's on you. The only real problem I have is the hypocritical lying about it, you are playing out exactly the same role as that skinny jean hipster riding an old bike with a Jill Stein sticker on it.

 

And as far as I'm concerned, anyone that even wonders if Jill Stein is a good idea deserves electroshock treatments til they smoke

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no faith in Booker being president at all. Not thinking about any policies he might be for or against, but I think hes too strong of a personality in a black male body and that will scare people. I mean they couldnt handle Obama and he was about as non threatening as it could be.  

 

Honestly if it came down to him or Trump the republican party would be as unified against him as they were against Hilldog and thats exactly what the Dems would be afraid of. 

 

I am excited about him entering the conversation though. Him and Harris on the same stage debating would advance any conversation in a direction im comfortable in. The two of them running, against each other, is exactly what I have been looking forward to. I feel like one or both of them will lead most conversations just off of personality, and they are direct enough not to take any bull****. I like that about both of them and its a characteristic I think a president needs to have going forward. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LD0506 said:

If you want to vote 3rd party, go for it, you can. It's wasted and you probably ought to have saved the gas driving to the polls for all the good it does but hey, that's on you. The only real problem I have is the hypocritical lying about it, you are playing out exactly the same role as that skinny jean hipster riding an old bike with a Jill Stein sticker on it.

 

And as far as I'm concerned, anyone that even wonders if Jill Stein is a good idea deserves electroshock treatments til they smoke

 

The problem for me is that I feel it's my obligation to vote. So how do I square that with not being willing to vote for the representatives with the two parties? Staying at home and not voting is not an option.

 

So i'm pretty much left with voting third party and saying "Neither of you are good enough, if you want my vote then you need to do better." and the only way to do that is to vote third party.

 

Telling me I have to support your policies simply because the other guy is worse is unacceptable. Which is exactly what each party does. They run a campaign saying "vote for me because the other person is terrible", and when they win they say "now you have to implement my policies because people voted for the policies I ran on."

 

I refuse to play that game. If you're going to turn around and use my vote as evidence that your policies need to be put in place, then you better run on policies that I want put in place.

 

If someone wants to run for the Dems on a campaign of "Hey I'm not really going to change much and I'm not running on any particular policy ideas, I'm simply running to keep that guy from being in charge, so I won't take your vote to mean anything other than it's important that the other guy not be in charge anymore. I'll just keep things steady and going for 4 years then you can hopefully vote on policies again next time between two good candidates" then I'd do that. But we all know they won't do that. They're going to turn around and use my vote as support for policies I don't support.

 

So, you guys can keep on with your railing on 3rd party voters. But we're not obligated to support you so your policies, that we don't like, get put in place just because the other guy is terrible.

 

Not that any of you will agree with me because we've all butted heads on this for essentially 3 years now, but the fact that we're this far removed from the 2016 election and the left's go-to move is to still ridicule people that chose 3rd party (and usually don't choose 3rd party) still bothers me and I honestly don't think it speaks well to anyone's ability to have learned anything from the 2016 election.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Llevron said:

I bet you if he runs he wont get 3-4% of the vote. He will eat up those "hate trump, hate dems" votes and depending on who the dem nom is he may get a good potion of those too. 

 

Thats what really worries me about this guy at this time. Im telling you if it doesn't come down to Trump v Dem V Him I really like hi running indi. But im 90% positive thats what its going to come down to. 

Well that is the problem when you have two crap shows running for the major parties.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly if a candidate ran for president on this platform I would enthusiastically support them (assuming they have a good record as a person):

 

im running to be the leader of our country. My personal policy ideas are irrelevant, your congressmen/women and senators are responsible for that. I will simple be here to lead them to doing work on your behalf. 

 

 

Ive felt for some time what this country needs is not a good democrat or republican for president, but a good leader. 

 

Im sure that would be laughed out of the room and go no where but I’d vote for anyone, hard left or right, if I thought they’d leave their personal policy ideas at the door and be a genuine leader for the country. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

If someone wants to run for the Dems on a campaign of "Hey I'm not really going to change much and I'm not running on any particular policy ideas, I'm simply running to keep that guy from being in charge, so I won't take your vote to mean anything other than it's important that the other guy not be in charge anymore. I'll just keep things steady and going for 4 years then you can hopefully vote on policies again next time between two good candidates" then I'd do that. 

 

 

If? I think ya just summed up Hillarys 2016 campaign. 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.