Why Trump Will Win in 2020

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,259
9,610
Eastern NC
The differences are subtle in the sense that it requires foresight. In hindsight it's fairly obvious: thousands dead. Trillions spent on the war to nowhere. The list goes on. 

But it's also not untrue that essentially Ds & Rs are just two sides of the same neo-liberal coin. Being disheartened and giving up... not voting, not engaging and not participating in any kind of activism... is really the point. Obey your corporate masters and bow down to the almighty dollar. It's sad when people can't see past that. This is why I respect Bernie so much - he can help people feel that there is a point even as he loses yet again.  
And the differences are very un-subtle when you examine a lot of specific cases.

If given a monolithic voting block that would support them NO MATTER WHAT including shrugging off an epidemic killing tens of thousands, I have no doubt that the Democrats would be just as vile and unwilling to govern as Republicans. As it is, they don't have to give a fuck about their constituents, and are now fully embracing the slumlord ideal of America. The Democratic Party is a bunch of disorganized namby-pambies who will to curry favor with the boardrooms of the corporate overlordship when they can, although they're not as reliable at it. And damn it, many of them still make choices in favor of their actual constituents! The nerve!

In local elections, I love to see third party or unaffiliated candidates,  and often vote for them. And sometimes they win. Right now, on a national scale, wishful thinking is not going to turn the tide, so I see voting Democrat as the only realistic alternative.

Hopefully we will still have elections.

- DSK

 

Jules

Super Anarchist
8,586
3,395
Punta Gorda
If Bernie had brought them in, he would have won the nomination. 
That's not the point, Sol.  The point is there are a lot of progressives, like the woman in the video, who will never vote for Biden unless he acknowledges their concerns and issues.

It's been reported that in 2016, a sizeable number of ballots were cast with no vote for president.  Anyone who wants Trump to be a one term president (and I'm in that category) should be very concerned about a repeat of 2016.  I don't know if it was all Hillary hate back then.  There could also have been many who simply were pissed that the DNC and the media shoved their candidate down their throats. 

We are almost at the end of the worst administration in modern history and I think the DNC, the corporate media and anyone else who wants to see that end needs to do everything in their power to make sure that happens.  There has to be some compromise between the moderates and progressives.  The moderates can't simply say you gotta vote for Joe.  That won't work.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
94,256
11,777
Earth
That's not the point, Sol.  The point is there are a lot of progressives, like the woman in the video, who will never vote for Biden unless he acknowledges their concerns and issues.

It's been reported that in 2016, a sizeable number of ballots were cast with no vote for president.  Anyone who wants Trump to be a one term president (and I'm in that category) should be very concerned about a repeat of 2016.  I don't know if it was all Hillary hate back then.  There could also have been many who simply were pissed the DNC and the media shoved their candidate down their throats. 

We are almost at the end of the worst administration in modern history and I think the DNC, the corporate media and anyone else who wants to see that end needs to do everything in their power to make sure that happens.  There has to be some compromise between the moderates and progressives.  The moderates can't simply say you gotta vote for Joe.  That won't work.
If the people who prefer Bernie don’t go to the polls when their preferred candidate is running, why should anyone listen to them? Of course they are not going to vote for joe. They’re not going to vote for their chosen candidate. Why should anyone give a flying fuck about the candidate choices of people who don’t vote? The DNC didn’t keep them from voting like the RNC will try to do. This is not some big complicated conspiracy. 
 

Vote. Don’t bitch without doing it. 

 

Jules

Super Anarchist
8,586
3,395
Punta Gorda
If the people who prefer Bernie don’t go to the polls when their preferred candidate is running, why should anyone listen to them? Of course they are not going to vote for joe. They’re not going to vote for their chosen candidate. Why should anyone give a flying fuck about the candidate choices of people who don’t vote? The DNC didn’t keep them from voting like the RNC will try to do. This is not some big complicated conspiracy. 
 

Vote. Don’t bitch without doing it. 
That lady in the video voted.  And there are a lot more like her.  Trashing those who didn't come out for Bernie won't solve a thing.  Maybe Joe can say or do something to get them to come out.  I don't know.  But what I do know is driving a wedge between Democrat leaning voters only helps Trump.

No conspiracy, Sol.  Just simple common sense.

 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,213
4,306
You might ask yourself who is driving that wedge. It's not Biden, nor Bernie nor the DNC. 

 

DustyDreamer

Anarchist
725
261
I actually feel the DNC, for a change, learned some lessons. Not all of them, but they deserve some credit for trying to swing a bit left. 

 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
94,256
11,777
Earth
30E60986-EFB3-4B5D-ADE9-6D092B52DDF8.jpeg

 

Mark K

Super Anarchist
47,621
1,860
In 2016, Hillary was their anointed.  This time it was Joe.  So the results wouldn't be any different.  The DNC doesn't look for the best candidate.  They look to see whose turn it is or who is most liked within the organization (not to be confused with the members).

Democracy would demand we let the voters choose but most voters don't take the time to get to know what the candidates have actually done to determine who would be the best choice.  

If we took the process out of the hands of the political parties (it is OUR election after all) and created minimum requirements like an employer would, we might have a better chance of winnowing down to the two best candidates.  But that will never happen.  The political parties have a stranglehold on the process and would never allow it.
Both parties have turned their nomination process all but completely over to populism. This is historically speaking a fairly recent event. How many primaries did Ike win? Zippo..  He didn't even run for nomination. Garfield is another "brokered" candidate a party pulled out of their asses during their convention, and there are many others who could be cited.

 Party polls have become elections in themselves now. The Dems hung on to the concept of retaining a bit of control with their Super Delegates, but that was just a half-assed attempt to correct the issue of populism, to which the Party turned after the chaos of Chicago in 68,  producing the tragically un-electable McGovern.  

 "I we took the process out of the hands of the political parties..." ??  Done did. Anybody think the R's went into 2016 with an incompetent grifting shitweasel on the top of the wish-list? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,397
4,216
New Oak City
We sure don't want a direct democracy so instead we'll have a republic, if you can keep it. We damn well don't want universal suffrage so let's limit voting to property ownin' white dudes. Ain't no way we want even them to choose a preznint so we'll have this Lectoral College thingy. Senators, they is just way too important to be elected by voters so let's have states do that.

At a certain point, you have to expect your citizenry to do their job.

 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
44,259
9,610
Eastern NC
....    ...

 "I we took the process out of the hands of the political parties..." ??  Done did. Anybody think the R's went into 2016 with an incompetent grifting shitweasel on the top of the wish-list? 
Yep. A racist bankrupt misogynist incompetent grifting shitweasel, please.

- DSK

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
That's not the point, Sol.  The point is there are a lot of progressives, like the woman in the video, who will never vote for Biden unless he acknowledges their concerns and issues.

It's been reported that in 2016, a sizeable number of ballots were cast with no vote for president.  Anyone who wants Trump to be a one term president (and I'm in that category) should be very concerned about a repeat of 2016.  I don't know if it was all Hillary hate back then.  There could also have been many who simply were pissed that the DNC and the media shoved their candidate down their throats. 

We are almost at the end of the worst administration in modern history and I think the DNC, the corporate media and anyone else who wants to see that end needs to do everything in their power to make sure that happens.  There has to be some compromise between the moderates and progressives.  The moderates can't simply say you gotta vote for Joe.  That won't work.
Well said Jules.  Too many people are completely dismissive of everyone who politically disagrees with them. It's almost as though some think that an election will miraculously vaporize everyone in dissent.  

The folks with different priorities, different perspectives are still citizens, aren't going anywhere, and need to be considered in the national agenda. 

Everyone knows I swing right, but I've never thought that the perspectives of those who think differently should be ignored.  We need to do a better job of being considerate of folks as people 1st, and quit trying to advance our agendas by demeaning others.  

Ok, I'm off the soapbox - I need another glass of wine. 

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,599
2,103
Back to the desert
Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
:lol:  Says the dude with libs on his ignore list  :lol:
No dude, you're likely on ignore not because of your "perspectives", but because you're an angry, bitter, sanctimonious hater who rarely has a good thing to say or a valid point to discuss.  

 

roundthebuoys

Super Anarchist
9,909
919
Limelight
The whole disinformation campaign that says "if you can't have Bernie, you should vote for Trump or not vote at all" is so transparent and such bullshit.  But after 2016, it's going to be a thing.  Trump touting Bernie says it all.

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,397
4,216
New Oak City
I voted for Warren in the CA primary. Bernie was good too and I voted for him in the 2016 primary. I’ll vote for Biden in the general just like I voted for Hillary in the 2016 general.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,599
2,103
Back to the desert
Do in in all states at once, and have run offs until you get the person actually selected by the members of the party.  I guess by law, the party really doesn't have to do any of it and can just select who they want to run.  At this point, that may have been better.
In 2016, Hillary was their anointed.  This time it was Joe.  So the results wouldn't be any different.  The DNC doesn't look for the best candidate.  They look to see whose turn it is or who is most liked within the organization (not to be confused with the members).

Democracy would demand we let the voters choose but most voters don't take the time to get to know what the candidates have actually done to determine who would be the best choice.  

If we took the process out of the hands of the political parties (it is OUR election after all) and created minimum requirements like an employer would, we might have a better chance of winnowing down to the two best candidates.  But that will never happen.  The political parties have a stranglehold on the process and would never allow it.
I know this is an old post, but someone bumped the thread and I'm catching up.....  

  1. You need to dissuade yourself that the Primary has anything to do with democracy.  It is and continues to be a party run affair to choose who they want to run for their nomination.  Full stop.  I agree with bhrbd that it would be better if we're going to go through this charade of an "election" for the primary, then do it all on the same day at the end of Spring or early summer just before the Convention.  This would force the candidates to get to as many states as possible, would force them to ALL have to go the distance and would give the voters times to actually get to know them - or at least the ones who GAF.  Letting the tiny early states like Iowa and NH essentially steer the nomination and have undue influence on who gets to run for POTUS is ridiculous.  
  2. If you don't like a 1-day winner take all contest, then go back to letting the party choose their candidate behind closed doors in a smokey back room over whiskey and cigars.  That system actually produced some of the better candidates in our history.  Not perfect.  But the current system selects the lowest common denominator candidate for the lowest common voter.  I personally think its been a disaster on the whole since we started the charade of letting voters vote in primaries.  Because the candidate is usually chosen by a tiny fraction of the fringe of the party.  

The bottom line is the primary is a party deal and there is nothing about it that is required to be fair or "democratic".  

 

Jules

Super Anarchist
8,586
3,395
Punta Gorda
You might ask yourself who is driving that wedge. It's not Biden, nor Bernie nor the DNC. 
Let's face it.  The Democratic party consists primarily of Haves.  Progressives consist primarily of have-nots.  Unfortunately, there are more and more have-nots today. 

If we go back to the 50s and 60s, when middle America owned 50% of the country's wealth, everyone was pretty happy.  Even into the 70s and early 80s things were pretty good for average American.  Then greed set in. 

My parents knew if their kids worked hard, they would prosper.  That doesn't exist anymore.  The boomer's children have to work their asses off to achieve what their parents had. 

And that's why we have progressives and AOC and Bernie Bros. 

The wedge isn't a few people.  The wedge is the system that favors the donors.  It's a party that claims to feel your pain but ignores you unless they want your vote.

 

Jules

Super Anarchist
8,586
3,395
Punta Gorda
I know this is an old post, but someone bumped the thread and I'm catching up.....  

  1. You need to dissuade yourself that the Primary has anything to do with democracy.  It is and continues to be a party run affair to choose who they want to run for their nomination.  Full stop.  I agree with bhrbd that it would be better if we're going to go through this charade of an "election" for the primary, then do it all on the same day at the end of Spring or early summer just before the Convention.  This would force the candidates to get to as many states as possible, would force them to ALL have to go the distance and would give the voters times to actually get to know them - or at least the ones who GAF.  Letting the tiny early states like Iowa and NH essentially steer the nomination and have undue influence on who gets to run for POTUS is ridiculous.  
  2. If you don't like a 1-day winner take all contest, then go back to letting the party choose their candidate behind closed doors in a smokey back room over whiskey and cigars.  That system actually produced some of the better candidates in our history.  Not perfect.  But the current system selects the lowest common denominator candidate for the lowest common voter.  I personally think its been a disaster on the whole since we started the charade of letting voters vote in primaries.  Because the candidate is usually chosen by a tiny fraction of the fringe of the party.  

The bottom line is the primary is a party deal and there is nothing about it that is required to be fair or "democratic".  
In the same sense, there is nothing about a select group of people expecting the masses to follow their lead being democratic either.

But, then again, I have been an anarchist all my life.  Had I been a good conformist, I would own a much bigger boat now.

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,599
2,103
Back to the desert
We sure don't want a direct democracy so instead we'll have a republic, if you can keep it. We damn well don't want universal suffrage so let's limit voting to property ownin' white dudes. Ain't no way we want even them to choose a preznint so we'll have this Lectoral College thingy. Senators, they is just way too important to be elected by voters so let's have states do that.

At a certain point, you have to expect your citizenry to do their job.
:lol:  The "citizenry" is why we are in this fucking state in the first place!  Have you seen the average "citizen" doing their jobs???  You can't even convince them to stay home when it's their and their families actual fucking life on the line, much less convince them to make an informed choice in an election.  

As Mark K correctly said, populism was the FF's greatest fear and they did everything in their power to stamp it out and have sober and intelligent folks run the country.  And at every point, we've ignored that and eroded that plan and all but ensured populism would eventually take hold.  And here we have TOSS.  

 

Latest posts




Top