The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Northstar]

Go help us - is this where we've ended up?

Yes, this is what going with the "lesser of 2 evils" gets you.

 

[Biggles]

Yes, this is what going with the "lesser of 2 evils" gets you.

Personally, I think this is what voting for the "greater of 2 evils" gets you.

 

[Northstar]

Personally, I think this is what voting for the "greater of 2 evils" gets you.

Congrats on completely missing my point!

As long as we limit ourselves to 2 parties we will be screwed. It doesn't matter who you think is the "lesser" or "greater" evil since both parties are evil. This opens the door for people like Trump since they don't have to win on their own merits but rather how bad they can make their opponent look (which should tell you quite a bit about Hilary & Co.)

 

[Biggles]

Congrats on completely missing my point!

As long as we limit ourselves to 2 parties we will be screwed. It doesn't matter who you think is the "lesser" or "greater" evil since both parties are evil. This opens the door for people like Trump since they don't have to win on their own merits but rather how bad they can make their opponent look (which should tell you quite a bit about Hilary & Co.)

I'm not "missing your point" - I disagree with it.

 

[Northstar]

I'm not "missing your point" - I disagree with it.

So give an actual counter-argument than! Otherwise I'm left wondering if you even understood what I was getting at.

What led to the situation we had in 2016 where neither major party candidate was great and a bumbling orange moron got elected? It certainly wasn't the previous president as Obama may not have been great but he wasn't bad either (and he knew how to handle himself in public). And no matter how involved Russia may have been they don't have the power to control the climate which has allowed Trump to continue.

Or are you actually in favor of only having 2 parties? If so, why?

 

[CTznOfTime]

Sorry I advance for I have quoted a few posts from a while back...

Good Lord this guy is unfit for president

-Gave Xi endorsement for building Uighur concentration camps "exactly the right thing to do"
-Asked Xi to help him win the election by buying more farm products from the US
-It would be "cool" to invade Venezuela and that the country was "really part of the US" (Is he confusing it with Cuba? Venezuela is nowhere near the US)
-Did not know that the UK was a nuclear power
-Did not know Finland was its own country

Could Bolton all be making it up? Sure there is that possibility. But would the White House be so fervently trying to block its publication if that were the case? Aside from that...is any of this really unbelievable? I don't think so.

Look I've always felt like Donald Trump was a character rather than a person. I still think that's the case. But Donald Trump is so clearly selling out the interests of the country he is supposedly leading in order to enshrine his own brand, power and prestige. I wish all Trump supporters would take a momentary critical look. What do you want America to be? Is America still supposed to strive to be the moral leader of the world? Are we to be a nation underwritten by the basic tenants of Christian faith (if not overtly in a legal sense)? Because that can't possibly square with endorsing autocrats state-sponsored persecution of ethnic minorities.

Honestly, I already knew how unfit it is he since November 2015...

We didn't need to go through all these 4 years of constant continuous slide down the drain of terrible Breaking news to get further actual facts and evidences...
We could have skipped all that...

After his fake electoral college win, I gave him the benefits of my doubts, but there were probably half a handful of occasions in the past for years that he impressed me somewhat, and that includes when I perfectly recreated a truck driver on the white house lawn the way a child would emulate.

Polls haven’t changed since 2016. They’re going to continually be incorrect, especially at the state level, and I wouldn’t put stock into them.

One way or another
I am honestly not sure I would trust any polls.

How are they getting these numbers??
I am serious...

I guess I am not educated on how poll numbers are obtained, so I have my doubts.

But... why would anyone?

And I don't just mean Trump specifically. Why would anyone wake up in the morning, go to pick out some clothes for the day and settle on a politician's campaign t-shirt? Who thinks "I need to go outside and show everyone who I voted for 1,300 days ago"? Why would you even have one?

The President, or the Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Green/Reform party nominee, or a random senator, governor, representative, or whatever isn't someone to cheer on and support. They're a **** who's trying to convince you that they're great and their opponents are awful every couple of years so that you'll give them a vote to get more power, money, influence, and station. Their job is to try to fool you better than the other guy/gal does for their own personal gain. They're not in it for you, they're in it for them. They're con-men, and women (and other genders). All that wearing their t-shirt says is "I'm proud that this guy conned me" - whether Trump, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, or Clinton, or Romney, or McCain, or Gore, or Dole, or anyone.


Who's out there supporting professional liars like they're a football team?

I wholeheartedly agree with your point of view...
Even if your questions are rhetorical, I am still going to answer to make it clear:
Unfortunately there are tons of people out there, from any political party, who are ready to support their politicians, and even sometimes more than the way they support their musicians or sport athletes...

Have you not been to any US high school within the past 40 years...? It all starts there mimicking reality, if not earlier, how politics nomination and marketing are driven.... Pins etc...


And although I agree with you, and despite me not liking what trump currently stands for, and me disliking the red Maga hat, but I must admit that the people have the freedom to wear whatever they want...
It is their right, and I don't want to have their rights taken away just because I don't agree with them, because I don't want the same right I have taken away...

I just wish that people who are pro-trump could be more open minded and be able to think for themselves rather than mindlessly listening to FOX news, which is really no better than CCP state news...
MSNBC CNN and mainstream pro left are almost just as terrible...

People needs to learn to balance their news intake and get a variety from different sources from different apolitical spectrum, just like with their diet...

Too much of one thing cannot be good...
You have to have greens, veg's, fruits etc...

When you have no idea that the Constitution protects protests:

The way China is run now is becoming alarmingly dangerous... The CCP is corraling its people in a "unified" one state of mind without freedom from thought or deviation... It is scary....

As much as they see the threat from the West and the Chaos of having diverse people thinking individually, but I think it is how things should be...

Unfortunately, trump is imitating the CCP, as evidenced by his posts. Freedom of demonstration should be a right if it isn't. What is happening to Hong Kong should not be happening to any other countries.

The citizens should be able to voice their opinions.

Should I remind that the politicians are working for the people, and not the other way around!

It should be that people in public offices are to serve the people, anywhere in the world, no matter what form of government it is... That's how it should be!
Not the other way around.
Too many of them in the office incorrectly think that they have the power, but the only power they have is the power to serve others, to make people's lives better... Not the other way around. Trump should be washing my feet right now (it is an analogy and a reference to the bible, for those who don't know)!

The CCP and HOA are currently the most dangerous entities on planet right now... Growing in power at alarming rate right under our noses... Along with the corrupted established right And left.
They are serving themselves more to stay in power than they care about improving people's lives... They do, but only enough to give them credit to stay there indefinitely...

We need change all the time... Stagnation is corruption.

I think it's quite likely that Trump would step down if he felt he was definitely going to lose the election. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no sense of loyalty to anything other than himself.

I don't care how he goes down... As long as he and all of his entourage are all out of the white house... I don't want any of his children to get anywhere near the white house again...

4 years is enough already.

Hard to say. Of course Trump would blame it on millions of illegals/dead Democrats voting. He could also claim some kind of family/health emergency - that's a usual tactic. It's possible that he will leave some kind of Peronist aftermath with a loyal core... it's also possible that he will be disgraced & repudiated by a re-constituted Republican party.

Came across these two contrasting "family photographs" of the Trumps & the Obamas that speaks volumes:

View attachment 936659

View attachment 936660

These are images chosen by them to publicly represent their families. It remains astonishing to me that so many millions of Americans would think that Trump is someone who looks out for their interests.

I am surprised Baron was not sitting on a real Lion shot by one of his older half brothers....

It's classy. You obviously don't know class when you see it.

For people who can't read between the lines, Danoff is being sarcastic....

At least I hope for him...





Anyway, the reason I am posting today is get your feedback and point of view on this:




Do you agree or disagree with him ?
I learned so much and I would say that I agree with him...

We should have Ranked-Choice Voting....

 

[Famine]

Have you not been to any US high school within the past 40 years...?

Strangely, no.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Strangely, no.

Strangely is the wrong word to use. It should be "Factually".

For some reason I always thought you live among us...
Good for you...

But sure you have seen many movies or TV series depicting american high schools....

You know what I meant

 

[Biggles]

So give an actual counter-argument than! Otherwise I'm left wondering if you even understood what I was getting at.

What led to the situation we had in 2016 where neither major party candidate was great and a bumbling orange moron got elected? It certainly wasn't the previous president as Obama may not have been great but he wasn't bad either (and he knew how to handle himself in public). And no matter how involved Russia may have been they don't have the power to control the climate which has allowed Trump to continue.

Or are you actually in favor of only having 2 parties? If so, why?

You do realize this is not an actual argument:

Yes, this is what going with the "lesser of 2 evils" gets you.

The "lesser of two evils" is not an adequate way to describe the situation. Sometimes the greater evil can be really bad. Kanye West (which is where this started) would be a true disaster as a third party candidate. I think, in general, when you vote, it's generally not realistic to expect a "perfect candidate", perfectly reflecting your views, so you are always faced with some compromises. I think choosing the "better of the two options" is a more reasonable way of describing it than the "lesser of two evils".

I am definitely in favour of having more than two parties in the US, but I'm hard put to see how, in practice, this is going to materialize with the US system being what it is. In Canada, which has a parliamentary system based on the UK system, we have multiple parties & (IMO) it works surprisingly well (much better than it works in the UK). This is partly an accident of regional allegiances/language & partly because Canadians aren't as insanely partisan & divided as Americans. In many other countries they have a proportional representation system which actually allows people to vote for a range of parties that are likely to more closely match their own views. The government is often formed from a coalition of parties that are forced to accommodate their platforms to reach a working compromise.

As I see it the US system was carefully contrived to allow for checks & balances in the governing process by dividing power among 4 different bodies. This has worked reasonably well a lot of the time ... but with Trump something has got seriously out of whack. Trump, while not reflecting many of the traditional positions of the Republican party has managed to coerce the GOP into following his lead down a populist rabbit hole of nationalist, xenophobic, protectionist, racist & bigoted sentiment. Without the mandate offered by a strong majority of the popular vote & propped up by a Senate which is also not democratically representative, Trump has nevertheless run roughshod over the institutions of American government. I can't remember any other President attempting to do this, let alone succeeding doing this. Nixon was, in the end, turfed out by the votes of Republicans as well as Democrats.

Trump could have been a somewhat independent figure bringing Democrats & Republicans together under a populist banner, but he's been totally unable to do that - actually totally uninterested in doing that. That's because he is a terrible person ... I mean, really terrible. He really is the "greater evil". Getting rid of Trump is essential if the US - & the world - is to move on. I'm pretty convinced that Trump will be swept from office on November losing many, if not all the swing states, & the Republican party will be punished by losing control of the Senate as well as the White House. The old & uninspiring Joe Biden won't be an impediment to this, because after 4 years of Trump I think Americans are ready for a boring, uncontroversial President.

Perhaps the implosion of the GOP, as well as the more radical elements pulling the Democratic party apart could lead to the formation of new parties on the left & right that would challenge the two party system. I'm pretty skeptical about that actually happening in this very partisan environment, but would be interested to hear how you envisage it coming about.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Trump, while not reflecting many of the traditional positions of the Republican party has managed to coerce the GOP into following his lead down a populist rabbit hole of nationalist, xenophobic*, protectionist, racist & bigoted* sentiment. Without the mandate offered by a strong majority of the popular vote & propped up by a Senate which is also not democratically representative, Trump has nevertheless run roughshod over the institutions of American government.**

* Really?
** It's called 'draining the swamp'.

 

[longshot1314]

Trump's not the first president to abandon the traditional positions of his party. Clinton was actually the one to usher in that trend given how conservative his administration was on many issues. Bush followed that with runaway spending. Obama followed that by bailing out the banks and backing wall street over the working class. You can kind of see how the trend led us to Trump.

 

[Danoff]

* Really?
** It's called 'draining the swamp'.

It's called creating a swamp.

 

[dlshearon]

Trump's not the first president to abandon the traditional positions of his party. Clinton was actually the one to usher in that trend given how conservative his administration was on many issues. Bush followed that with runaway spending. Obama followed that by bailing out the banks and backing wall street over the working class. You can kind of see how the trend led us to Trump.

👍

 

[Danoff]

Trump's not the first president to abandon the traditional positions of his party. Clinton was actually the one to usher in that trend given how conservative his administration was on many issues. Bush followed that with runaway spending. Obama followed that by bailing out the banks and backing wall street over the working class. You can kind of see how the trend led us to Trump.

Bush had runaway spending?

Bush broke with the conservative party line a little, but not based on spending. It kinda looks like you're trying to pin the 2008 crash as both anti-republican (runaway spending under Bush) and anti-democrat (bailing out wall street under Obama).

And I'm not sure what you mean that this led us to Trump. Do you mean that people wanted more breaking with party lines and so they asked for Trump who they knew would do that?

 

[UKMikey]

You had a black president so it obviously led to a xenophobic president

In other news it's time to #BROCKTHEVOTE as a former Mighty Duck throws his rather large hat into the ring.

 

[Joey D]

Why does Brock Pierce look like a Wal-Mart version of Crocodile Dundee?

 

[dlshearon]

You had a black president so it obviously led to a xenophobic president

In other news it's time to #BROCKTHEVOTE as a former Mighty Duck throws his rather large hat into the ring.

Good luck to him, he’ll need it.
As much as I’d like a 3rd party to win one, I doubt it happens.

 

[longshot1314]

Bush had runaway spending?

Bush broke with the conservative party line a little, but not based on spending. It kinda looks like you're trying to pin the 2008 crash as both anti-republican (runaway spending under Bush) and anti-democrat (bailing out wall street under Obama).

And I'm not sure what you mean that this led us to Trump. Do you mean that people wanted more breaking with party lines and so they asked for Trump who they knew would do that?

Either case Bush had increased spending relative to previous administrations with the two wars, plus got the ball rolling on the bank bailouts which would be the opposite of being fiscally conservative. The Obama administration continued that process and also did little to hold Wall Street accountable, in addition to renewed commitments to the wars.

With Trump what I mean is that people had become fed up with bought and paid for politicians on both sides so Trump's subsequent dismantling of the Republican candidates and promises to 'drain the swamp' and end the wars sounded appealing if one didn't look to deep into Trump's qualities of being a conman. It didn't help that the DNC picked the most establishment rooted candidate over the populist one who essentially was Trump's opposite.

 

[Danoff]

Either case Bush had increased spending relative to previous administrations with the two wars, plus got the ball rolling on the bank bailouts which would be the opposite of being fiscally conservative. The Obama administration continued that process and also did little to hold Wall Street accountable, in addition to renewed commitments to the wars.

With Trump what I mean is that people had become fed up with bought and paid for politicians on both sides so Trump's subsequent dismantling of the Republican candidates and promises to 'drain the swamp' and end the wars sounded appealing if one didn't look to deep into Trump's qualities of being a conman. It didn't help that the DNC picked the most establishment rooted candidate over the populist one who essentially was Trump's opposite.

Thanks for the clarification. It makes it an even worse transgression that Trump doesn't hold the party line though.

 

[Pigems]

* Really?
** It's called 'draining the swamp'.

Trump IS the swamp.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Trump IS the swamp.

Trump brought the swamp from Florida with him...

He Swamped the swamp

 

[ryzno]

Trump IS the swamp.

Is he really? I consider anyone in a government office that has been in the same office 20+ years the swamp.
It's not like they do much.
I also love the we will fix America crap every year.
Between the top 3 Democrats you see in the news almost every day they have over 100 years combined in office...
Same could be said for the Republicans.
All that said, Trump has almost 4 little years in office.
Y'all really need to look at the problem cause it ain't Trump.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Is he really? I consider anyone in a government office that has been in the same office 20+ years the swamp.

What if a person is in office only 19 years? Then they can't possibly be the problem? They only qualify for that once they've been in office for 20+ years? Therefore it can't be Trump because he's only been there for 4 years.

The mental gymnastics you guys do are incredible.

 

[Joey D]

Is he really? I consider anyone in a government office that has been in the same office 20+ years the swamp.
It's not like they do much.
I also love the we will fix America crap every year.
Between the top 3 Democrats you see in the news almost every day they have over 100 years combined in office...
Same could be said for the Republicans.
All that said, Trump has almost 4 little years in office.
Y'all really need to look at the problem cause it ain't Trump.

Drain the swamp typically means to root out corruption in politics and Trump is about as corrupt as they come making him pretty swampy.

Really, when it comes to the president, experience does mean something. At the very least they should have some military experience since they're commanding the entire armed forces. Past that some diplomatic experience certainly helps, as does a basic understanding of law. Trump's experience consists of TV shows and running several businesses into the ground.

 

[Danoff]

Is he really? I consider anyone in a government office that has been in the same office 20+ years the swamp.
It's not like they do much.
I also love the we will fix America crap every year.
Between the top 3 Democrats you see in the news almost every day they have over 100 years combined in office...
Same could be said for the Republicans.
All that said, Trump has almost 4 little years in office.
Y'all really need to look at the problem cause it ain't Trump.

Depends on what you mean by the swamp.

For example, if you're talking about an elected representative who is holding the same position after 20 years, you're not talking about someone Trump can do anything about. They're an elected official, it's up to voters to do something about that person. So if that's the swamp, you're talking about someone Trump can literally not "drain".

If you're talking about appointed officials, for example within the executive branch, government employees and department heads who have been in place or in government for 20+ years, you're talking about someone who has survived many administrations and political environments. If that's "the swamp" it largely describes people who are competent and who are considered in a bipartisan manner to be the right person for that job. This is exactly the person you don't want to get rid of.

Many officials within the executive expect to be replaced when the new administration comes in, and tender their resignation for acceptance or non-acceptance by the new administration. For example, like this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=u...tion each time administration changes&f=false

And a lot of them get taken up on it. It actually can lead to a great deal of instability within government offices, and causes some of the "it's not like they do much" impression. I remember when I worked for NASA the NASA administrator was repeatedly replaced in this manner, and it led to instability and waste within the agency. So in that case you have someone who does not survive from one administration to the next and it still causes problems to "drain the swamp". Animosity between the republicans and democrats leads to a lot of wasted taxpayer dollars by changing the guards at the higher levels of the executive.

Maybe you feel that this is a good thing, and I can sympathize with that when it comes to a lot of government tasks. But Trump's era has been no different in that regard. He has replaced lots of people with, in some cases, not all cases, corrupt or incompetent people, or people who at least outwardly appear to have conflicts of interest, and this is what I call the swamp. Corruption, entrenched government bureaucrats that are either incompetent or with personal conflicts of interest, or both. And in that regard, Trump himself has been literally the swamp and has also brought the swamp in at many levels of government.

Before we had a government that was more inept than it had to be because of partisan nonsense. Now we've ratcheted that ineptitude to a higher level with partisan nonsense on crack and sprinkled in a dusting of real actual corruption in government.

In otherwords, Trump is creating the swamp.

 

[McLaren]

You had a black president so it obviously led to a xenophobic president

In other news it's time to #BROCKTHEVOTE as a former Mighty Duck throws his rather large hat into the ring.

There's only 1 name like that I'd consider voting for, and his name is Dwayne Johnson.

Is he really? I consider anyone in a government office that has been in the same office 20+ years the swamp.
It's not like they do much.
I also love the we will fix America crap every year.
Between the top 3 Democrats you see in the news almost every day they have over 100 years combined in office...
Same could be said for the Republicans.
All that said, Trump has almost 4 little years in office.
Y'all really need to look at the problem cause it ain't Trump.

The issue I have here is Trump once said he would impose term limits during his original run. That was probably one of the few ideas he had that any political person could get behind since it brings in fresh blood. However, I haven't heard a peep about that in a long time.

So, sure Trump may not be the root of issues from over 20+ years of political controversy, but he's not doing anything to solve it either, like he said he would.

 

[Liquid]

He appoints family members to security councils, supposed "friends" to top level jobs and hosts functions at his own properties and resorts to generate revenue for himself that borders on defraud.

If that's not a kleptocratic swamp, I don't know what is. And he's openly corrupt as proven in his impeachment trial. His spineless, bootlicking party is the only thing that kept him in office.

 

[Biggles]

Depends on what you mean by the swamp.

For example, if you're talking about an elected representative who is holding the same position after 20 years, you're not talking about someone Trump can do anything about. They're an elected official, it's up to voters to do something about that person. So if that's the swamp, you're talking about someone Trump can literally not "drain".

If you're talking about appointed officials, for example within the executive branch, government employees and department heads who have been in place or in government for 20+ years, you're talking about someone who has survived many administrations and political environments. If that's "the swamp" it largely describes people who are competent and who are considered in a bipartisan manner to be the right person for that job. This is exactly the person you don't want to get rid of.

Many officials within the executive expect to be replaced when the new administration comes in, and tender their resignation for acceptance or non-acceptance by the new administration. For example, like this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=u-kb9X9k2pUC&pg=RA1-PA47&lpg=RA1-PA47&dq=executive+branch+officials+tender+resignation+each+time+administration+changes&source=bl&ots=iDKAHbYdME&sig=ACfU3U0VMDxJzd-X8pS8aM8Q1GJh3EoFnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1uP7f6b7qAhWTG80KHYKFAkUQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=executive branch officials tender resignation each time administration changes&f=false

And a lot of them get taken up on it. It actually can lead to a great deal of instability within government offices, and causes some of the "it's not like they do much" impression. I remember when I worked for NASA the NASA administrator was repeatedly replaced in this manner, and it led to instability and waste within the agency. So in that case you have someone who does not survive from one administration to the next and it still causes problems to "drain the swamp". Animosity between the republicans and democrats leads to a lot of wasted taxpayer dollars by changing the guards at the higher levels of the executive.

Maybe you feel that this is a good thing, and I can sympathize with that when it comes to a lot of government tasks. But Trump's era has been no different in that regard. He has replaced lots of people with, in some cases, not all cases, corrupt or incompetent people, or people who at least outwardly appear to have conflicts of interest, and this is what I call the swamp. Corruption, entrenched government bureaucrats that are either incompetent or with personal conflicts of interest, or both. And in that regard, Trump himself has been literally the swamp and has also brought the swamp in at many levels of government.

Before we had a government that was more inept than it had to be because of partisan nonsense. Now we've ratcheted that ineptitude to a higher level with partisan nonsense on crack and sprinkled in a dusting of real actual corruption in government.

In otherwords, Trump is creating the swamp.

Amen. The swamp is career politicians (& sometimes newly arrived politicians) who have got into bed with lobbyists for their mutual benefit. Trump hasn't gone after that at all. What he has done is go after any civil servants in whatever branch of government - Justice, military, intelligence, diplomatic, health, whatever - where they do not precisely echo his views. This has caused serious damage to the fabric of government & left Trump calling the shots on a whole range of issues about which he is very obviously unqualified & uninformed.

 

[UKMikey]

[Moved to Kanye celebrity candidates thread]

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...nt-of-the-united-states.394901/#post-13165964

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The issue I have here is Trump once said he would impose term limits during his original run. That was probably one of the few ideas he had that any political person could get behind since it brings in fresh blood. However, I haven't heard a peep about that in a long time.

So, sure Trump may not be the root of issues from over 20+ years of political controversy, but he's not doing anything to solve it either, like he said he would.

Probably too much opposition from the party or politicians in general. I would imagine for a career politician more terms would be desirable.