|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 13, 2018 12:58:20 GMT
Amy Klobuchar!!! We need someone that is peaceful, smart, truthful, humble, respected. Everything our current POTUS isn't. I really like her too.
|
|
|
Post by katelynr439 on Nov 13, 2018 13:05:00 GMT
I really want the Democrats to win. And for that reason, I regretfully say... They are stupid if they don't have a centrist white man run. I hate that, but it's true. Don't give any reason for someone not to vote.
Women voters have proven they don't give enough of a shit about electing a woman. Voter turnout among minority groups isn't reliably where it needs to be to elect a minority candidate. We need to sway pissed off Republicans and independents, of which there are a lot, to vote for the democratic candidate. The best plan of action here isn't to try to increase voter turnout in minority groups, it is to try to bring already voting groups over to this candidate. It needs to be made socially acceptable in certain circles to vote for a Democrat in this situation, that hangs up a lot of people from voting for a Democrat even where they like and agree with the person on many platforms.
And I don't think Bernie or Joe are the right pick. Bernie is too polarizing. Joe has too much of a persona as a dumb Labrador retriever. I would definitely put Joe in the VP slot again though.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 13, 2018 13:56:03 GMT
I think picking an older white moderate is a bad idea. Moderates faired more poorly last week than progressives did nationwide. We are simply not going to convert Trump supporters to our side with any candidate, no matter how centrist, so I think we have to go progressive to turn out the Bernie folks and others who sat out the last election. This is going to be an issue of turnout. There are many voters who voted against Clinton, not for Trump. That is where I and many others came from. It is my hope that Clinton is not on the ticket so that I feel like I have an alternative. I would hope after seeing Trump in action that most people who voted “against Clinton” would be willing to consider that he is the one who needed to be voted against. I suspect, though, that this is not the case. I don’t think there were nearly as many reluctant Trump voters as we’re sometimes led to believe. I think a lot of people don’t want to admit that they voted for him because they like him, so they use many of the fictions made up about Clinton as an excuse for why they “had” to vote against her. We always have a choice. Roughly half of voters in 2016 made the choice that an ignorant, non-experienced, petulant, misogynist reality TV show star was better than a woman with decades of public service behind her because they didn’t like her personality. Or they bought the “but her emails” smear or any of the others. I’m never going to get on board with the idea that anyone “had” to vote for Trump. You made that choice, you get to own it, and I fully expect you’ll find some reason why you can’t possibly vote for the Democratic candidate next time, either, so you can vote for him again. That’s why I’m not worried about the DNC trying to court Trump voters. We need to be focused on the folks who sat out the last election. Trumpers gonna Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 13, 2018 13:58:33 GMT
I really want the Democrats to win. And for that reason, I regretfully say... They are stupid if they don't have a centrist white man run. I hate that, but it's true. Don't give any reason for someone not to vote. Women voters have proven they don't give enough of a shit about electing a woman. Voter turnout among minority groups isn't reliably where it needs to be to elect a minority candidate. We need to sway pissed off Republicans and independents, of which there are a lot, to vote for the democratic candidate. The best plan of action here isn't to try to increase voter turnout in minority groups, it is to try to bring already voting groups over to this candidate. It needs to be made socially acceptable in certain circles to vote for a Democrat in this situation, that hangs up a lot of people from voting for a Democrat even where they like and agree with the person on many platforms. And I don't think Bernie or Joe are the right pick. Bernie is too polarizing. Joe has too much of a persona as a dumb Labrador retriever. I would definitely put Joe in the VP slot again though. I disagree. Many voters of color sat out the last election because we ran a centrist white woman. We need a movement candidate to fire up the base, not a “safe” choice.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 16, 2024 17:41:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 14:40:33 GMT
So if I’m understanding this correctly, two peas ,who posted on this thread, are pretty much blaming the Democrats for trump because they chose to put up the most qualified person to run for President. Because of that, they just had no other choice, they just had not to vote for either or they just had to vote for trump and it’s all the Democrats fault.
If you ask these peas and others who are not a fans of Hillary why they specifically don’t like Hillary most of the time you get nothing. Or if someone does provide an answer if leaves you thinking “huh” because it makes no sense.
In 2016 there were 2 choices, a small minded paranoid vindictive stupid bully, and a smart extremely qualified middle of the road woman. Those were the choices. One of these two people would be president. And those who voted third party, didn’t vote for either, or voted for trump because “he was the lesser of two evils” it’s all on you and not the Democrats that trump is president along with all the destruction he is doing to this country
Since those who don’t like Hillary are silent on why, below is my take on why I think people don’t like Hillary. I posted this on the “will Hillary run again” thread.
“I was talking to a friend yesterday on why we thought people didn’t like Hillary.
I have always felt some of the reason, actually a lot of the reason, is because she was not your “traditional” First Lady. She was not like Jackie Kennedy, or Nancy Reagan, or Barbara Bush. She wanted to get involved in legislative issues like health care. In fact someone on this board said we didn’t elect 2 presidents when Bill was elected.
And I think the other reason is she didn’t leave Bill.
Since then , whether she deserved it or not, people have criticized the hell out everything she has done and how she presents herself. Nothing she does is right. Nothing she says is right. People go out of their way to find fault with what she does. And in the process they have ignored the work that she has done on social issues over the years.
I don’t think she will run, but if she does, I will vote for her, for the same reason I voted for her the first time. She is the most qualified person to be president of those who may decide to run. Joe Biden is also qualified but I would vote for Hillary over Biden because you just never know when he’s going to turn into that weird uncle fluffy. “
|
|
|
Post by withapea on Nov 13, 2018 16:15:25 GMT
No Biden, Bernie or Hillary.
Personally, I don't want a milquetoast, moderate Dem running. I think one of the reasons that Democrats don't get a lot of liberal voter participation is because they don't run big, proud, progressives. I don't want a D that's going to be another one in the pocket of big money, corporations etc. We need big ideas and things to work for that will benefit the 98%. I firmly believe you can do that and still be open to compromise and working with the other side. If you want to keep and encourage Millennial and Gen Z voters you aren't going to do that by running someone that's in the same vein of what we've had for the last decades.
Trump's base, aka The Debasers, are never going to change, we shouldn't even bother to try with them. We need the young, minority and Independents. I think you can convince the non affiliated to vote for a Democrat that has policy plans, some fire and a lot of decency. The truth is that liberal policies are more popular with everyone, even with conservatives, once you remove the party. I want Beto to stay in Texas and hopefully take a run at Cornyn but he's a good example of a what we need against Trump. He never wavered in what he stood for, was open to listening to the people he wanted to represent, willing to compromise and work with the other side, took no PAC money, and did it with integrity and decency.
I would be sick if we neglected to run a minority or woman just because they were a minority or woman. I want to win but I don't think the way to fight racism and misogyny is to coddle the racists and misogynists. We need a legislative body that better reflects the people it represents and we are diverse.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 13, 2018 16:37:12 GMT
Roughly half of voters in 2016 made the choice that an ignorant, non-experienced, petulant, misogynist reality TV show star was better than a woman with decades of public service behind her because they didn’t like her personality. Or they bought the “but her emails” smear or any of the others. I don't think all voters who voted for him did so because of Hillary; a portion of them voted for him precisely because he WAS all of the things I bolded- remember, some of his voters WANTED to 'bring change to Washington' or 'drain the swamp' or 'elect a "regular" guy who speaks his mind.' And a number of them (his loyal base) STILL think he's doing a good job. Which is why I think the Democrats can't totally discount the reasons those people voted for him; an older, white male politician is NONE of the things that type of voter got excited about. (Or got "played by" when it comes to Trump-- but still; there are reasons people liked him enough to vote for him BESIDES the fact that he wasn't Hillary, and his charisma and 'outsider' status was a big part of it, in my opinion.)
|
|
AmandaA
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,502
Aug 28, 2015 22:31:17 GMT
|
Post by AmandaA on Nov 13, 2018 16:43:19 GMT
I can fully support a minority or a woman if they are the best candidate, no brainer for me. But I am not sure if that is a majority opinion in this country unfortunately.
I will admit that I have distanced myself from politics quite a bit this year, but for everyone arguing for a progressive democrat do you really think the numbers are there to support a victory (in the right places as we discovered last election) without also being able to draw in moderates who identify as either democrat or republican. I really feel like the majority of the country lies somewhere in the middle. Trump has his base on the right and the democrats have their version too. My primary hope is to see him gone for sure, but I also pray that we can find a candidate that can do both things- beat him and unify voters instead of just swinging the partisan pendulum left this time around.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 16, 2024 17:41:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 19:40:30 GMT
Paul Waldman wrote this column in the Washington Post today.
Perfect timing for this thread.
“The worst way for Democrats to judge their 2020 presidential contenders”
It has been said that every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. This year, it seems like every Democrat looks in the mirror and sees a president. But there’s an endemic misunderstanding among Democrats about how they should go about picking the standard-bearer to take on President Trump in two years. There’s a great deal of focus on what type of person they should nominate, when that might be the single least helpful question you could ask.
Before I explain why, here are some recent developments:
*Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who just won a comfortable reelection in a state that Democrats have increasing problems winning, said publicly that he’s thinking about running for president.
*Richard Ojeda, a West Virginia state senator who just lost a bid for Congress (though by only 12 points in a district Donald Trump won by 49), has announced he is running for president.
*Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, asked on “The View” on Monday whether she’s running, replied, “I’m thinking about it.”
*Steve Bullock, who is in his second and final term as governor of Montana, traveled to New York after the election to meet with potential donors for a presidential run.
That’s not to mention the work that continues to be done by other likely candidates such as Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders; or the potential candidacies of Deval Patrick, Eric Holder, Joe Biden, Mitch Landrieu, John Hickenlooper and Terry McAuliffe; or the people who are getting encouraged to run but haven’t said much about it such as Beto O’Rourke and Amy Klobuchar; or the other announced candidate, John Delaney. It’s a big field.
But as we begin to examine these potential candidates, we inevitably slip into a discussion not about the particular person we’re talking about but about the broader type they’re supposed to represent. Brown should run, some say, because Democrats need to put up a Rust Belt populist who connects with working-class voters. Or someone like Warren is compelling because women just propelled Democrats to a historic win and because a woman can effectively contrast with Trump. Or they shouldn’t nominate a woman at all because rampant misogyny will hamper her.
The problem with all those arguments is that we don’t elect types of people; we elect particular people. Imagine that in 2006 you had said, “What Democrats need to do is nominate an African American from a big city with brief national experience, and oh yeah, it would help if he had an Arabic middle name.” That would have been ridiculous. But the person they nominated, and who won two elections with a majority of the vote (something only one other president in the last half-century accomplished), wasn’t just a candidate matching that description. He was Barack Obama, someone of unusual talent and charisma.
Don’t forget, at this stage of the 2008 process there was a lot of skepticism within the Democratic Party about Obama. Sure, he gave a great speech and he seemed to have a bright future, but most Democrats thought him running for president was premature. Even most African Americans in Congress were reluctant to back him until he won the Iowa caucuses and it became apparent he had a real shot to beat Hillary Clinton. But Democrats flocked to him because of how he made them feel, not because they thought other people would vote for him in the general election. You could say something similar about what happened with Trump and the Republicans in 2016.
The idea that other people will support this candidate and therefore I’ll support him is at the heart of “electability,” which is what a lot of these discussions come down to. Primary voters (and pundits) who care about it are putting aside their own feelings and judgments about a candidate to make a guess about how others will feel about her and judge her. But while successful candidates always look electable in hindsight, it’s usually a mistake to concern yourself too much with it during the primaries (or the pre-pre-primaries, where we are now).
That’s because the earlier we are in the process, the less we know both about how the general electorate will respond to a particular candidate and how good a candidate that person is. It can’t be said often enough: Until they’re tested in the unique arena of the presidential campaign, we don’t know what all these people are made of. Primaries are littered with failed candidates who looked strong before the campaign actually began but then turned out to be duds.
Democrats have to decide exactly what they believe, what they want to do and how to go about it — and most importantly, who they are. The person who wins their nomination will be one who embodies the party’s spirit at this moment in history, just as Obama did in 2008. One of these many candidates will prove to be that person; we just have no idea yet which one.“
|
|
|
Post by mlynn on Nov 13, 2018 23:27:33 GMT
There are many voters who voted against Clinton, not for Trump. That is where I and many others came from. It is my hope that Clinton is not on the ticket so that I feel like I have an alternative. I would hope after seeing Trump in action that most people who voted “against Clinton” would be willing to consider that he is the one who needed to be voted against. I suspect, though, that this is not the case. I don’t think there were nearly as many reluctant Trump voters as we’re sometimes led to believe. I think a lot of people don’t want to admit that they voted for him because they like him, so they use many of the fictions made up about Clinton as an excuse for why they “had” to vote against her. We always have a choice. Roughly half of voters in 2016 made the choice that an ignorant, non-experienced, petulant, misogynist reality TV show star was better than a woman with decades of public service behind her because they didn’t like her personality. Or they bought the “but her emails” smear or any of the others. I’m never going to get on board with the idea that anyone “had” to vote for Trump. You made that choice, you get to own it, and I fully expect you’ll find some reason why you can’t possibly vote for the Democratic candidate next time, either, so you can vote for him again. That’s why I’m not worried about the DNC trying to court Trump voters. We need to be focused on the folks who sat out the last election. Trumpers gonna Trump. Your inability to get on board does not change the facts. The reason I voted against Clinton is things that came out of her own mouth. She crossed a line for me when she was first lady. It pre-dates the Lewinsky scandal. It pre-dates the e-mail issue. It pre-dates Benghazi. It is why I voted for Obama (also a democrat) in the 2008 primary - specifically to keep Clinton out of office. Go ahead and pretend otherwise, but it will not help your cause. I am not a trumper. I am specifically anti-Clinton. The problem with all those arguments is that we don’t elect types of people; we elect particular people. Imagine that in 2006 you had said, “What Democrats need to do is nominate an African American from a big city with brief national experience, and oh yeah, it would help if he had an Arabic middle name.” That would have been ridiculous. But the person they nominated, and who won two elections with a majority of the vote (something only one other president in the last half-century accomplished), wasn’t just a candidate matching that description. He was Barack Obama, someone of unusual talent and charisma.This. I cannot vote for this particular person. I personally do not like Trump either. I actually prefer The Apprentice when he is not on it. He is awful. She is worse.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 13, 2018 23:32:47 GMT
I would hope after seeing Trump in action that most people who voted “against Clinton” would be willing to consider that he is the one who needed to be voted against. I suspect, though, that this is not the case. I don’t think there were nearly as many reluctant Trump voters as we’re sometimes led to believe. I think a lot of people don’t want to admit that they voted for him because they like him, so they use many of the fictions made up about Clinton as an excuse for why they “had” to vote against her. We always have a choice. Roughly half of voters in 2016 made the choice that an ignorant, non-experienced, petulant, misogynist reality TV show star was better than a woman with decades of public service behind her because they didn’t like her personality. Or they bought the “but her emails” smear or any of the others. I’m never going to get on board with the idea that anyone “had” to vote for Trump. You made that choice, you get to own it, and I fully expect you’ll find some reason why you can’t possibly vote for the Democratic candidate next time, either, so you can vote for him again. That’s why I’m not worried about the DNC trying to court Trump voters. We need to be focused on the folks who sat out the last election. Trumpers gonna Trump. Your inability to get on board does not change the facts. The reason I voted against Clinton is things that came out of her own mouth. She crossed a line for me when she was first lady. It pre-dates the Lewinsky scandal. It pre-dates the e-mail issue. It pre-dates Benghazi. It is why I voted for Obama (also a democrat) in the 2008 primary - specifically to keep Clinton out of office. Go ahead and pretend otherwise, but it will not help your cause. I am not a trumper. I am specifically anti-Clinton. So how do you feel about the things that came out of Trump’s mouth before you voted for him? And how about since then? You were totally able to set aside the pussy grabbing comment, the racist remarks, the lies, because Hillary said ... what, exactly? Because she made unkind comments about a woman who slept with her husband? I’m actually not interested in rehashing the 2016 election with you. But please don’t presume me to be a fool. There is literally nothing that Hillary said at any time that came anywhere close to the offensive and hateful and untrue things Trump said on a daily basis before the election and ever since. You had a choice, you made it, and this is the result.
|
|
|
Post by mlynn on Nov 13, 2018 23:40:05 GMT
Your inability to get on board does not change the facts. The reason I voted against Clinton is things that came out of her own mouth. She crossed a line for me when she was first lady. It pre-dates the Lewinsky scandal. It pre-dates the e-mail issue. It pre-dates Benghazi. It is why I voted for Obama (also a democrat) in the 2008 primary - specifically to keep Clinton out of office. Go ahead and pretend otherwise, but it will not help your cause. I am not a trumper. I am specifically anti-Clinton. So how do you feel about the things that came out of Trump’s mouth before you voted for him? And how about since then? You were totally able to set aside the pussy grabbing comment, the racist remarks, the lies, because Hillary said ... what, exactly? Because she made unkind comments about a woman who slept with her husband? Again, what she said pre-dates the Lewinsky scandal. There have been additional things since then. Many points against Trump made sense, but then there were worse things about Hillary. When Oprah stated that we did not have to like Hillary to vote for her, I felt that also applied to Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 13, 2018 23:41:18 GMT
So how do you feel about the things that came out of Trump’s mouth before you voted for him? And how about since then? You were totally able to set aside the pussy grabbing comment, the racist remarks, the lies, because Hillary said ... what, exactly? Because she made unkind comments about a woman who slept with her husband? Again, what she said pre-dates the Lewinsky scandal. There have been additional things since then. Many points against Trump made sense, but then there were worse things about Hillary. When Oprah stated that we did not have to like Hillary to vote for her, I felt that also applied to Trump. And are you happy with your choice? I simply can’t imagine what she said that you think was worse than the filth that spews from Trump daily.
|
|
|
Post by mlynn on Nov 13, 2018 23:52:51 GMT
Your inability to get on board does not change the facts. The reason I voted against Clinton is things that came out of her own mouth. She crossed a line for me when she was first lady. It pre-dates the Lewinsky scandal. It pre-dates the e-mail issue. It pre-dates Benghazi. It is why I voted for Obama (also a democrat) in the 2008 primary - specifically to keep Clinton out of office. Go ahead and pretend otherwise, but it will not help your cause. I am not a trumper. I am specifically anti-Clinton. So how do you feel about the things that came out of Trump’s mouth before you voted for him? And how about since then? You were totally able to set aside the pussy grabbing comment, the racist remarks, the lies, because Hillary said ... what, exactly? Because she made unkind comments about a woman who slept with her ? I’m actually not interested in rehashing the 2016 election with you. But please don’t presume me to be a fool. There is literally nothing that Hillary said at any time that came anywhere close to the offensive and hateful and untrue things Trump said on a daily basis before the election and ever since. You had a choice, you made it, and this is the result. I did not presume you to be a fool, but maybe you are projecting. You seem to be pushing that I am a fool. You refuse to hear me, and that is precisely why Trump has a shot at re-election. Pussy grabbing is less offensive than blaming a child for her own rape. It was her job to defend her client. It was not her job to attack the child in front of the media after the client had already been acquitted. I consider that worse than what Trump said.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 16, 2024 17:41:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
So how do you feel about the things that came out of Trump’s mouth before you voted for him? And how about since then? You were totally able to set aside the pussy grabbing comment, the racist remarks, the lies, because Hillary said ... what, exactly? Because she made unkind comments about a woman who slept with her husband? Again, what she said pre-dates the Lewinsky scandal. There have been additional things since then. Many points against Trump made sense, but then there were worse things about Hillary. When Oprah stated that we did not have to like Hillary to vote for her, I felt that also applied to Trump. What specifically did she say that still has you all up in arms about it?
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Nov 13, 2018 23:58:50 GMT
No, that may make you feel better but that isn't why Trump has a shot at reelection. No one was forced to vote for him. People need to take responsibility for their actions. If you can look at everything that was known before the election, look at everything he and his administration have done since taking office and still vote for him with your head held high then by all means do so. But do not pretend you didn't/don't have a choice.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 16, 2024 17:41:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 0:07:13 GMT
So how do you feel about the things that came out of Trump’s mouth before you voted for him? And how about since then? You were totally able to set aside the pussy grabbing comment, the racist remarks, the lies, because Hillary said ... what, exactly? Because she made unkind comments about a woman who slept with her ? I’m actually not interested in rehashing the 2016 election with you. But please don’t presume me to be a fool. There is literally nothing that Hillary said at any time that came anywhere close to the offensive and hateful and untrue things Trump said on a daily basis before the election and ever since. You had a choice, you made it, and this is the result. I did not presume you to be a fool, but maybe you are projecting. You seem to be pushing that I am a fool. You refuse to hear me, and that is precisely why Trump has a shot at re-election. Pussy grabbing is less offensive than blaming a child for her own rape. It was her job to defend her client. It was not her job to attack the child in front of the media after the client had already been acquitted. I consider that worse than what Trump said. Washington PostHere, you may want to read this from the Washington Post... “The facts about Hillary Clinton and the Kathy Shelton rape case”
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 14, 2018 0:12:01 GMT
I really want the Democrats to win. And for that reason, I regretfully say... They are stupid if they don't have a centrist white man run. I hate that, but it's true. Don't give any reason for someone not to vote. Women voters have proven they don't give enough of a shit about electing a woman. Voter turnout among minority groups isn't reliably where it needs to be to elect a minority candidate. We need to sway pissed off Republicans and independents, of which there are a lot, to vote for the democratic candidate. The best plan of action here isn't to try to increase voter turnout in minority groups, it is to try to bring already voting groups over to this candidate. It needs to be made socially acceptable in certain circles to vote for a Democrat in this situation, that hangs up a lot of people from voting for a Democrat even where they like and agree with the person on many platforms. And I don't think Bernie or Joe are the right pick. Bernie is too polarizing. Joe has too much of a persona as a dumb Labrador retriever. I would definitely put Joe in the VP slot again though. I disagree. Many voters of color sat out the last election because we ran a centrist white woman. We need a movement candidate to fire up the base, not a “safe” choice. I think that we also need someone who can pull in independent voters. Sanders and Warren cannot, and I hope that we can find someone who can.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Nov 14, 2018 0:27:49 GMT
In my opinion, it doesn't matter what democrat runs against Trump, they're going to win. Spongebob would kick his butt.
2020 won't have the never-Hillary voters, and 2020 won't have the ticked off Bernie voters. Those voters pushed Trump into the win, and I can't see that happening again.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 14, 2018 0:54:08 GMT
So how do you feel about the things that came out of Trump’s mouth before you voted for him? And how about since then? You were totally able to set aside the pussy grabbing comment, the racist remarks, the lies, because Hillary said ... what, exactly? Because she made unkind comments about a woman who slept with her husband? Again, what she said pre-dates the Lewinsky scandal. There have been additional things since then. Many points against Trump made sense, but then there were worse things about Hillary. When Oprah stated that we did not have to like Hillary to vote for her, I felt that also applied to Trump. Whoa! Hold the phones! Hillary said worse things than TRUMP? Look, I get that a lot of folks dislike her; the media made sure of that years ago. But what has she ever said that is worse than what comes out of Trump’s mouth? I am really curious, because I have followed politics closely for a long time, and I have no idea what that could be.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Nov 14, 2018 0:55:13 GMT
I don't know, this Texan would be willing to give him up if it was needed to help get the current shitshow out of the Oval Office. It would hurt, but we've got to be willing to sacrifice for the greater good.
It seems like it needs to be someone relatable, not someone from a long line of politicians (Kennedy). A person that convey "the common man" although Donald Trump is none of these things, he made it believable to the right states. Biden and Bernie are too old. Definitely not Warren; too polarizing like Hillary. Kristen Gillibrand might get a lot of crap because of the Obama, Hillary, New York State connection.
I like the idea of Kane because of his military background. Castro or Beto because of Hispanic heritage. Good for Florida, Texas, and Arizona (that's getting closer to being blue).
So I'm going for boring white guy and a minority who's heritage will someday be the majority of the population of the United States. People that will appeal to the purple states.
I'm hoping Trump gets impeached or resigns. The Republicans will realize they need to get their shit together and BOTH parties will have a sensible moderate. That's the dream.
If both end up being terrible, I'll vote third party once again because my state will always go to a Republican. I hate having only two parties in this country. That's why I think I'm okay with the popular vote. No way can two parties cater to every citizen.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 16, 2024 17:41:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 1:03:02 GMT
Robert o’rouke.
Honestly, astronaut Eileen Collins is the only woman I see winning against trump.
She is a republican tho, but she could pull that that trump truck of changing parties. She everything that we could want in a president.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 16, 2024 17:41:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 1:07:51 GMT
Again, what she said pre-dates the Lewinsky scandal. There have been additional things since then. Many points against Trump made sense, but then there were worse things about Hillary. When Oprah stated that we did not have to like Hillary to vote for her, I felt that also applied to Trump. Whoa! Hold the phones! Hillary said worse things than TRUMP? Look, I get that a lot of folks dislike her; the media made sure of that years ago. But what has she ever said that is worse than what comes out of Trump’s mouth? I am really curious, because I have followed politics closely for a long time, and I have no idea what that could be. My son has friends that were on her military security detail, they had some very interesting unkind things to say about her. I will not repeat them because they are young men and tend to spout off about everybody ( except general Mathis.) Btw there were 3peopke running for president and Gary Johnson would have made a fine president.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 14, 2018 1:14:58 GMT
Whoa! Hold the phones! Hillary said worse things than TRUMP? Look, I get that a lot of folks dislike her; the media made sure of that years ago. But what has she ever said that is worse than what comes out of Trump’s mouth? I am really curious, because I have followed politics closely for a long time, and I have no idea what that could be. My son has friends that were on her military security detail, they had some very interesting unkind things to say about her. I will not repeat them because they are young men and tend to spout off about everybody ( except general Mathis.) Btw there were 3peopke running for president and Gary Johnson would have made a fine president. I have heard stories that she is bitchy and bossy and not nice to those who work for her. They may be true, but I don’t believe that she could say anything worse than Trump. As far as third parties go, I will not vote for a third party candidate under our present system.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 14, 2018 3:14:50 GMT
My son has friends that were on her military security detail, they had some very interesting unkind things to say about her. I will not repeat them because they are young men and tend to spout off about everybody ( except general Mathis.) Btw there were 3peopke running for president and Gary Johnson would have made a fine president. I have heard stories that she is bitchy and bossy and not nice to those who work for her. They may be true, but I don’t believe that she could say anything worse than Trump. As far as third parties go, I will not vote for a third party candidate under our present system. Yeah, you know if she was a man they'd say she's meticulous, exacting, and a strong leader.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Nov 14, 2018 3:16:15 GMT
I don't know, this Texan would be willing to give him up if it was needed to help get the current shitshow out of the Oval Office. It would hurt, but we've got to be willing to sacrifice for the greater good.
It seems like it needs to be someone relatable, not someone from a long line of politicians (Kennedy). A person that convey "the common man" although Donald Trump is none of these things, he made it believable to the right states. Biden and Bernie are too old. Definitely not Warren; too polarizing like Hillary. Kristen Gillibrand might get a lot of crap because of the Obama, Hillary, New York State connection.
I like the idea of Kane because of his military background. Castro or Beto because of Hispanic heritage.
Pssst. Beto is not Hispanic. He's a white Irish guy who grew up in a Spanish-speaking city and got himself a Hispanic nickname as a result.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Nov 14, 2018 4:47:20 GMT
I have heard stories that she is bitchy and bossy and not nice to those who work for her. They may be true, but I don’t believe that she could say anything worse than Trump. As far as third parties go, I will not vote for a third party candidate under our present system. Yeah, you know if she was a man they'd say she's meticulous, exacting, and a strong leader. I thought of that after I posted and was too lazy to go back and edit. ![:blush:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/R6yG4nI0YHiVm0wktwl4.jpg)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 16, 2024 17:41:35 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 5:01:42 GMT
I have heard stories that she is bitchy and bossy and not nice to those who work for her. They may be true, but I don’t believe that she could say anything worse than Trump. As far as third parties go, I will not vote for a third party candidate under our present system. Yeah, you know if she was a man they'd say she's meticulous, exacting, and a strong leader. None of what these young soldiers said was close to bitchy, bossy or not nice. It was more dismissing , screaming and extremely rude. ( this was the nicest stuff that they said)
|
|
|
Post by heather on Nov 14, 2018 5:13:32 GMT
So how do you feel about the things that came out of Trump’s mouth before you voted for him? And how about since then? You were totally able to set aside the pussy grabbing comment, the racist remarks, the lies, because Hillary said ... what, exactly? Because she made unkind comments about a woman who slept with her ? I’m actually not interested in rehashing the 2016 election with you. But please don’t presume me to be a fool. There is literally nothing that Hillary said at any time that came anywhere close to the offensive and hateful and untrue things Trump said on a daily basis before the election and ever since. You had a choice, you made it, and this is the result. I did not presume you to be a fool, but maybe you are projecting. You seem to be pushing that I am a fool. You refuse to hear me, and that is precisely why Trump has a shot at re-election. Pussy grabbing is less offensive than blaming a child for her own rape. It was her job to defend her client. It was not her job to attack the child in front of the media after the client had already been acquitted. I consider that worse than what Trump said. She didn’t laugh at a rape victim. Please. You know that. Seriously, you know that. Eh. Maybe she should have put the child in a cage instead. Then you would have voted for her.
|
|
|
Post by mom on Nov 14, 2018 5:25:47 GMT
Whats everyone's thoughts on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand? Tonight a friend commented that she thinks Gillibrand will run for President. My friend commented that she thought she could be a great VP but wasn't sure she would make a great Pres.
She isn't on my radar at all, other than hearing about a book she wrote. Thoughts?
|
|