Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The Democrat's roster for a Trump - beater in 2020


swordfish

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

No, I will not be voting for Mr. Trump in 2020.  Nor will I be voting for the Democratic candidate.

I may not vote for the position of POTUS at all, it depends on what other candidates I believe best mesh with my personal beliefs, morals, and worldview.

 

Awesome. Thank you for sharing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

Oh, I'm relaxed. I'm used to dealing with The Three Stooges in this club anyway, now they've been joined by Shemp.

 

There are no non-partisan views when it comes to politics. 

 

Thanks for posting.

I was  right. It's a deflection by Trump.

Right on cue. The name calling. Have a great day Ron. 

1 hour ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

Gonz

Coach E is the baton twirler in a parade of idiots. Howe and Trojandad are in the parade too. 

Right on cue w Hookster too. Name calling. Have a great day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

Oh, I'm relaxed. I'm used to dealing with The Three Stooges in this club anyway, now they've been joined by Shemp.

 

There are no non-partisan views when it comes to politics. 

 

Thanks for posting.

I was  right. It's a deflection by Trump.

Ron

Did you get around to reading my link that I posted?  I will take that as your apology. Be well. 

There is plenty more to come. I won’t be a stranger. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DannEllenwood said:

Awesome. Thank you for sharing. 

You are welcome.

Is there a current presidential candidate who currently has your vote?  If so then may I ask who that person is?
 

  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came across this today. I did not remember this coming out. I did notice that Time did a story on it last year when I googled it. I have never been a Biden fan, and there are points in this that are pretty comical. But all this video shows is that the two major party candidates are bot pathological liars; along with a few other flaws. I still say that Joe does not make it out of the convention, and the DNC knows it. They HAVE to have a plan B in place. Plan B; who comes out of the convention as the candidate? Plan A; if Joe does survive the convention (literally and figuratively), his VP candidate has to be someone who can be seen as President for most of the term; or at least appear presidential to the voters. Regardless of which scenario plays out, the choice of VP (plan A) or the Presidential candidate (Plan B) has got to be a home run; and that CANNOT be Hillary.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

You are welcome.

Is there a current presidential candidate who currently has your vote?  If so then may I ask who that person is?
 

Sure. President Trump. I have supported him from the escalator. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

You are welcome.

Is there a current presidential candidate who currently has your vote?  If so then may I ask who that person is?
 

I must add emphatically....

As a public school teacher, I do not endorse 1 person or another (show favoritism) in my class. 

You asked and I answered. 

I provide the facts on the topics and promote all students to think for themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Irishman said:

I came across this today. I did not remember this coming out. I did notice that Time did a story on it last year when I googled it. I have never been a Biden fan, and there are points in this that are pretty comical. But all this video shows is that the two major party candidates are bot pathological liars; along with a few other flaws. I still say that Joe does not make it out of the convention, and the DNC knows it. They HAVE to have a plan B in place. Plan B; who comes out of the convention as the candidate? Plan A; if Joe does survive the convention (literally and figuratively), his VP candidate has to be someone who can be seen as President for most of the term; or at least appear presidential to the voters. Regardless of which scenario plays out, the choice of VP (plan A) or the Presidential candidate (Plan B) has got to be a home run; and that CANNOT be Hillary.

 

The Democrats have no plan except the coronavirus. Their plan for the past three years has been the Russia hoax, Mueller Dossier and Impeachment hoax. Plan B is to use the pandemic to destroy the economy and utilize their propaganda machine in an attempt to convince voters Trump is to blame. I would not be surprised to see Hillary as the democrat candidate again. It doesn't really matter, Trump will win by a larger margin than he won in 2016.

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DannEllenwood said:

Sure. President Trump. I have supported him from the escalator. 

Thank you.  I personally no longer understand how an individual can still vote for a member of the uni-party,  but it is your vote.

 

  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Do you think he will get a majority of the votes  this time?

Sudden liberal opposition to Electoral College not about democracy, but about power

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/306350-sudden-liberal-opposition-to-electoral-college-not

Quote

....

The Electoral College is not democratic, if by democratic they mean rule by simple majority. It allocates votes to each state by the combined number of Senators and Representatives, which means that states, as states, receive 100 of the 538 (almost 20 percent) of the electors.

This means that small states have a greater voice in the presidential choice than justified by their populations — Trump and Clinton campaigned in Nevada and New Hampshire, for example.

The Electoral College further encourages candidates to campaign state by state, particularly in the large “battleground” states that Clinton ultimately lost, such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. If Democrats had their way, candidates would ignore the states and campaign solely in the population centers that Clinton easily won, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

But the Electoral College’s exaggeration of the power of the states is not some bizarre mistake or a constitutional version of the appendix.

The Framers specifically designed the Electoral College to dilute democracy and favor the states. Democrats who disagree are at war with the federalism that the Framers hardwired throughout the Constitution itself.

They forget that fundamental features of the Constitution are even more anti-democratic than the Electoral College.

The very existence of the Senate, where the Constitution allocates two Senators to each state, runs directly counter to the idea of popular representation. Delaware, with a tiny population, has the same number of Senators as giant California. 

And yet the Constitution requires the agreement of the Senate, where the majority of the people have no voice, to most of our most important decisions.

Our nation can pass no law without the approval of the Senate.

The nation can make no treaties, our most significant instrument of foreign policy, unless two-thirds of the Senate consents.

The president cannot appoint his own cabinet, other executive branch officers, or Supreme Court Justices and federal judges, without the Senate.

Congress cannot recommend amendments to the Constitution or call for a new constitutional convention without two-thirds of the Senate.

The Framers underscored the importance of the states in our constitutional system by making each state’s right to two Senators the only provision in the Constitution which can never be amended. 

If Democrats oppose the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College, they should seek to uproot other restraints on democracy.

They should start with judicial review, which gives nine federal judges, appointed for life, the power to strike down legislation. They could continue with the Bill of Rights, which exists solely to prevent the majority from infringing on the rights of individuals, no matter how great the benefit to society. They could finish with the administrative state, where unelected bureaucrats exercise most nation regulatory power.

Liberals, of course, would never oppose these undemocratic aspects of our government, because they more often than not advance their agenda.

The Electoral College has other positive features, despite its complicated process.

To the Framers, its main purpose actually was to increase, not decrease, the role of the people in the selection of the president, while dampening the chances of a demagogue seizing power. In the Constitutional Convention, the main alternative to the Electoral College was selection of the chief executive by the legislature — the approach eventually adopted by most western democracies.

But the Framers rejected parliamentary democracy because they wanted to give the president independence, all the better to check the legislature and ensure decisiveness and vigor in the executive.

At the same time, they wanted to dilute democracy and insert a chance for deliberation between a popular election and the choice of the President.

Gouverneur Morris declared in the Convention that an:

“election by the people at large throughout so great an extent of country could not be influenced by those little combinations and momentary lies which often decide popular elections within a narrow sphere.”

Or, as Alexander Hamilton explained:

“Talents for low intrigue, and the little acts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state.”

But a nationwide election would prevent the worst from rising high. Morris predicted that the people “will never fail to prefer some man of distinguished character or services,” or of “continental reputation.” Only if the electors could not agree on a single candidate would the election go to the House, where states would vote by delegation (again enhancing the voice of the states).

If Democrats oppose the Electoral College, it only is in keeping with their broad hostility to the Constitution’s founding of a republican government, not a democratic one.

They are also only arguing to benefit themselves now, not to defend principle. For if they were serious, they should argue that the United States adopt a parliamentary democracy — indeed, the very goal of Woodrow Wilson, the intellectual father of progressivism.

In most of our democratic allies, such as Great Britain, Germany, and Japan, the majority party in the legislature selects a prime minister, who becomes head of the executive branch as well. But even under that system, Hillary Clinton would still have lost, as Republicans have built a huge majority in the House of Representatives over the last three elections.

Nothing better shows how liberal attacks on the Electoral College amount to nothing more than sour grapes and constitutional cherry-picking.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Sudden liberal opposition to Electoral College not about democracy, but about power

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/306350-sudden-liberal-opposition-to-electoral-college-not

 

We can also agree, can’t we, that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would be screaming just as loudly? These days I find myself inching ever closer to your “uni-party” stance. Disturbing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bobref said:

We can also agree, can’t we, that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would be screaming just as loudly?

Of course we can Bob.

The only real difference between the Democrat and Republican sides of the uni-party coin is whose money they want to steal in order to fund their big government schemes.

But lately that difference has been minimal,  it's "just borrow $ until  we can't borrow anymore."  Nice way to run a country.

 

 

 

Edited by Muda69
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bobref said:

We can also agree, can’t we, that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Republicans would be screaming just as loudly?

It hasn't been on the other foot, at least not since 1876. The last 2 Republican Presidents elected did not win the popular vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

It hasn't been on the other foot, at least not since 1876. The last 2 Republican Presidents elected did not win the popular vote.

You must be a fan of allowing the residents of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago metropolitan areas deciding all future presidential elections.  

I'm not.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

It hasn't been on the other foot, at least not since 1876. The last 2 Republican Presidents elected did not win the popular vote.

In other words, the Electoral College is functioning exactly as intended.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bobref said:

In other words, the Electoral College is functioning exactly as intended.

The best visual I saw for this was a map of counties across the country. It showed a handful of counties in New York, LA and Chicago in blue while most of the country was in red. It explained that the population in those few counties was greater than all the red. I am fine with the EC remaining. I do think some states have neutralized themselves though. I believe Maine is one state that splits its EC votes based on the popular vote percentages. I am not sure how many states do something similar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

In other words, the Electoral College is functioning exactly as intended.

That's hard to say. It's open to interpretation what the Constitutional Convention intended since none of them are around anymore to comment. It's the process in place and not likely to be changed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Muda69 said:

You must be a fan of allowing the residents of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago metropolitan areas deciding all future presidential elections.  

I'm not.

 

One of the things you're best at is fabricating opinions of others. You don't have a clue what I'm a fan of. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sit and spin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

image.thumb.png.e78e61b5f54abaa94962a9de91312c40.png

https://www.the-sun.com/news/833743/gaffe-machine-joe-biden-millions-died-85000-jobs-coronavirus/

Watching this video...holy cow....wow.....that poor man is really, really struggling.......

Yep; that was bad...like I said in the post I made; the two major parties under the current process have left us two super duper buffoons. lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

One of the things you're best at is fabricating opinions of others. You don't have a clue what I'm a fan of. 

Don't get your extra-large sized panties in a wad, Shirley.

It's no fabrication, Shirley.  Your previous criticism of the electoral college system tells us all we need to know.

But then again you are a GID liar,  so it's a real possibility you are lying about your criticism as well.

 

 

Edited by Muda69
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Your previous criticism of the electoral college system tells us all we need to know.

A fabrication.

 

13 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

But then again you are a GID liar,  so it's a real possibility you are lying about your criticism as well.

An outright lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...