• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Trump is likely to win the election in 2020

HumblePi

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
26,304
Reaction score
18,826
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I have to begin to explain how this will happen by posting a link to an article in the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/19/how-money-flows-campaign-donors-into-trumps-pocket/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d609770e0bf1

Trump is spending the weekend at his Bedminster Golf Club in New Jersey.

[snip]Upon arriving in New Jersey, though, he still has one item on the schedule: A “roundtable with supporters” that will be held at the golf club. This isn’t just a sit-down with some random Trump fans. It is, instead, a perk for high-dollar donors to the president’s reelection campaign. According to an invitation obtained by Insider NJ, those participating in this informal conversation have spent $100,000 to do so. That level of donation also earns donors a photo with the president.

That’s money that goes to the campaign — but some of it also ends up going back to Bedminster in the form of event space and catering. Meaning that some of it also ends up back in President Trump’s pocket.

According to data compiled from Federal Election Commission reports by ProPublica, three campaign committees linked to Trump’s reelection — the Republican National Committee, Trump’s campaign committee and Trump Victory, a joint committee between the Trump campaign and the Republican Party — have spent over $700,000 at Trump properties this cycle. Over the past year, the total is nearly $1.4 million.

The most spent in one day was at Mar-a-Lago in late March, when the RNC and Trump Victory spent over $400,000.[/snip]

Okay so you get the idea.

The following are the top donors to Trump's campaign:

1. Robert Mercer, Renaissance Technologies - $13.5 million
2. Sheldon Adelson and Miriam Adelson, Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) - $10 million
3. Linda McMahon, World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE) - $6 million
4. Bernard Marcus, Retired - $7 million
5. Geoffrey Palmer, G.H. Palmer Associates - $2 million
6. Ronald M Cameron, Mountaire Corp. - $2 million
7. Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies - $1.25 million
8. Walter Buckley Jr, Actua Corporation (ACTA) - $1 million
9. Cherna Moskowitz, Hawaiian Gardens Casino - $1 million
10. Peter Zieve, Electroimpact - $1 million

It's fairly obvious why wealthy people support Trump and want to keep Trump in the White House. He's good for their bank accounts. Focusing on the 2027 tax tables show that the tax cuts, 83% of it going to the top 1 percent, the richest people in this country.

The millionaires are happier than they've ever been and every day people are happy that their 401K is doing so well. So it will be a binary choice November 3, 2020, "do I vote for my 401K or do I vote for the country?" As you can see from the title of the thread, I already have a pretty good idea of what that choice will be.
 
HumblePi said:
I have to begin to explain how this will happen by posting a link to an article in the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/19/how-money-flows-campaign-donors-into-trumps-pocket/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d609770e0bf1

Trump is spending the weekend at his Bedminster Golf Club in New Jersey.

[snip]Upon arriving in New Jersey, though, he still has one item on the schedule: A “roundtable with supporters” that will be held at the golf club. This isn’t just a sit-down with some random Trump fans. It is, instead, a perk for high-dollar donors to the president’s reelection campaign. According to an invitation obtained by Insider NJ, those participating in this informal conversation have spent $100,000 to do so. That level of donation also earns donors a photo with the president.

That’s money that goes to the campaign — but some of it also ends up going back to Bedminster in the form of event space and catering. Meaning that some of it also ends up back in President Trump’s pocket.

According to data compiled from Federal Election Commission reports by ProPublica, three campaign committees linked to Trump’s reelection — the Republican National Committee, Trump’s campaign committee and Trump Victory, a joint committee between the Trump campaign and the Republican Party — have spent over $700,000 at Trump properties this cycle. Over the past year, the total is nearly $1.4 million.

The most spent in one day was at Mar-a-Lago in late March, when the RNC and Trump Victory spent over $400,000.[/snip]

Okay so you get the idea.

The following are the top donors to Trump's campaign:

1. Robert Mercer, Renaissance Technologies - $13.5 million
2. Sheldon Adelson and Miriam Adelson, Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) - $10 million
3. Linda McMahon, World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE) - $6 million
4. Bernard Marcus, Retired - $7 million
5. Geoffrey Palmer, G.H. Palmer Associates - $2 million
6. Ronald M Cameron, Mountaire Corp. - $2 million
7. Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies - $1.25 million
8. Walter Buckley Jr, Actua Corporation (ACTA) - $1 million
9. Cherna Moskowitz, Hawaiian Gardens Casino - $1 million
10. Peter Zieve, Electroimpact - $1 million

It's fairly obvious why wealthy people support Trump and want to keep Trump in the White House. He's good for their bank accounts. Focusing on the 2027 tax tables show that the tax cuts, 83% of it going to the top 1 percent, the richest people in this country.

The millionaires are happier than they've ever been and every day people are happy that their 401K is doing so well. So it will be a binary choice November 3, 2020, "do I vote for my 401K or do I vote for the country?" As you can see from the title of the thread, I already have a pretty good idea of what that choice will be.
Click to expand...

Okay, so what? You don't think that the ultimate Democratic candidate will be doing similar schmoozing with their side's wealthy and famous seeking contributions and endorsements?

Meanwhile, I also find myself happy with the tax cuts. This because I more than doubled my "return," as I not only got more back this time than ever before, they also took an equivalent amount less out of my paychecks in withholdings during the tax year.

How come people always complain about taxes having less impact on the rich than on the common taxpayer? Making comparisons like "10% of $100.00 has more impact on the common person than 10% of $1 million," yet ignoring how much more it also means to the common taxpayer when they get back more than what they did prior to these tax cuts?

Meanwhile, it won't be wealthy contributor's money that decides whether or not Trump will win, no it will be the same factors that decide any incumbent's chances. Is the nation doing better economically than before at the time of the election, and are more people than not content.
 
Last edited:
I've always found it amusing when people believe that it's only the right side of the aisle that has all of the rich donors.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Okay, so what? You don't think that the ultimate Democratic candidate will be doing similar schmoozing with their side's wealthy and famous seeking contributions and endorsements?

Meanwhile, I also find myself happy with the tax cuts. This because I more than doubled my "return," as I not only got more back this time than ever before, they also took an equivalent amount less out of my paychecks in withholdings during the tax year.

How come people always complain about taxes having less impact on the rich than on the common taxpayer? Making comparisons like "10% of $100.00 has more impact on the common person than 10% of $1 million," yet ignoring how much more it also means to the common taxpayer when they get back more than what they did prior to these tax cuts?
Click to expand...

I think it's because he only cares when it's Trump doing it, not matter what it is. Be the action legal, or illegal.
Yet is remarkably silent when it's his own people who are doing what they please.

My step sister was happy with her finances, as well was I for that matter. Even though democrats made fun of the returns, and other "crumbs" that we'd be getting.
 
Josie said:
I've always found it amusing when people believe that it's only the right side of the aisle that has all of the rich donors.
Click to expand...

Didn't Hillary's campaign cost almost a billion dollars, or something to the tune of like 800 million?
While Trump's wasn't even half that much. Then again he did receive almost 100 million in free press... so that nearly.. evens it out.. I guess?

This whole article is about what, Trump rubbing elbows with his own supporters and financers?
Sounds like more of an issue is being taken with the fact that he's doing it at his own golf club, than anything else.
 
Josie said:
I've always found it amusing when people believe that it's only the right side of the aisle that has all of the rich donors.
Click to expand...

I've always found it amusing that no one questions spending greater than a $Bil for a job that pays $400k annually.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Okay, so what? You don't think that the ultimate Democratic candidate will be doing similar schmoozing with their side's wealthy and famous seeking contributions and endorsements?

Meanwhile, I also find myself happy with the tax cuts. This because I more than doubled my "return," as I not only got more back this time than ever before, they also took an equivalent amount less out of my paychecks in withholdings during the tax year.

How come people always complain about taxes having less impact on the rich than on the common taxpayer? Making comparisons like "10% of $100.00 has more impact on the common person than 10% of $1 million," yet ignoring how much more it also means to the common taxpayer when they get back more than what they did prior to these tax cuts?

Meanwhile, it won't be the money that decides whether or not Trump will win, it is the same factors that decide any incumbent's chances. Is the nation doing better economically than before at the time of the election, and are more people than not content.
Click to expand...

Actually no. Most of the candidates have pledged not to take corporate PAC money, no fossil fuel money, no Super PACS money and no federal lobbyists money. Biden isn’t accepting money from “unions, federal contractors, national banks or foreign nationals.” Mayor Pete Buttigieg also rejects donations from the pharmaceutical industry. Eric Swalwell did not want support from “the NRA or tobacco industry.” Mayor Bill de Blasio specified he'll refuse any lobbyists or businesses that do business with New York City in his response.


24 campaigns are rejecting donations from corporate PACs
19 campaigns are rejecting donations from the fossil fuel industry
13 campaigns are rejecting donations from federal lobbyists
9 campaigns are rejecting donations from all Super PACs

The evidence shows that campaign donations buy access and policy outcomes. So no, there will be no special interests able to give donations to any of these democratic candidates. Most of their donations are coming from small personal donors.

You've answered that you like your 401K and when the choice comes, "401K or country" Your 401K wins, as I have predicted.
 
Josie said:
I've always found it amusing when people believe that it's only the right side of the aisle that has all of the rich donors.
Click to expand...
Incumbent Presidents don't have to spend a dime during primary season. Trump can just squirrel it all away until after the convention. The Democratic nominee will have spent as much as he collects and still borrow more, through Sept or Oct.
 
HumblePi said:
Actually no. Most of the candidates have pledged not to take corporate PAC money, no fossil fuel money, no Super PACS money and no federal lobbyists money. Biden isn’t accepting money from “unions, federal contractors, national banks or foreign nationals.” Mayor Pete Buttigieg also rejects donations from the pharmaceutical industry. Eric Swalwell did not want support from “the NRA or tobacco industry.” Mayor Bill de Blasio specified he'll refuse any lobbyists or businesses that do business with New York City in his response.


24 campaigns are rejecting donations from corporate PACs
19 campaigns are rejecting donations from the fossil fuel industry
13 campaigns are rejecting donations from federal lobbyists
9 campaigns are rejecting donations from all Super PACs

The evidence shows that campaign donations buy access and policy outcomes. So no, there will be no special interests able to give donations to any of these democratic candidates. Most of their donations are coming from small personal donors.

You've answered that you like your 401K and when the choice comes, "401K or country" Your 401K wins, as I have predicted.
Click to expand...

With over 20 people competing to get "noticed" and achieve a viable chance to be nominated, I am not surprised that they are "pledging" all sorts of things at this point in their campaigns. Hell, they are all already making massive "pie-in-the-sky" free everything promises too.

But IMO when the final contender gets selected, they will pander to wealthy interests just like Hillary did, or did you forget that "secret" event caught on someone's phone-cam where she promised rich donors all sorts of things?

As for your "401K" dismissal? I don't have one. Meanwhile that has NOTHING to do with the fact that most people got a decent tax break and the positive impact of having more money returned was just as great as the alleged opposite impact of being taxed at the same rate as a rich person. Your deflection notwithstanding. :coffeepap:
 
HumblePi said:
I have to begin to explain how this will happen by posting a link to an article in the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/19/how-money-flows-campaign-donors-into-trumps-pocket/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d609770e0bf1

Trump is spending the weekend at his Bedminster Golf Club in New Jersey.

[snip]Upon arriving in New Jersey, though, he still has one item on the schedule: A “roundtable with supporters” that will be held at the golf club. This isn’t just a sit-down with some random Trump fans. It is, instead, a perk for high-dollar donors to the president’s reelection campaign. According to an invitation obtained by Insider NJ, those participating in this informal conversation have spent $100,000 to do so. That level of donation also earns donors a photo with the president.

That’s money that goes to the campaign — but some of it also ends up going back to Bedminster in the form of event space and catering. Meaning that some of it also ends up back in President Trump’s pocket.

According to data compiled from Federal Election Commission reports by ProPublica, three campaign committees linked to Trump’s reelection — the Republican National Committee, Trump’s campaign committee and Trump Victory, a joint committee between the Trump campaign and the Republican Party — have spent over $700,000 at Trump properties this cycle. Over the past year, the total is nearly $1.4 million.

The most spent in one day was at Mar-a-Lago in late March, when the RNC and Trump Victory spent over $400,000.[/snip]

Okay so you get the idea.

The following are the top donors to Trump's campaign:

1. Robert Mercer, Renaissance Technologies - $13.5 million
2. Sheldon Adelson and Miriam Adelson, Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) - $10 million
3. Linda McMahon, World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE) - $6 million
4. Bernard Marcus, Retired - $7 million
5. Geoffrey Palmer, G.H. Palmer Associates - $2 million
6. Ronald M Cameron, Mountaire Corp. - $2 million
7. Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies - $1.25 million
8. Walter Buckley Jr, Actua Corporation (ACTA) - $1 million
9. Cherna Moskowitz, Hawaiian Gardens Casino - $1 million
10. Peter Zieve, Electroimpact - $1 million

It's fairly obvious why wealthy people support Trump and want to keep Trump in the White House. He's good for their bank accounts. Focusing on the 2027 tax tables show that the tax cuts, 83% of it going to the top 1 percent, the richest people in this country.

The millionaires are happier than they've ever been and every day people are happy that their 401K is doing so well. So it will be a binary choice November 3, 2020, "do I vote for my 401K or do I vote for the country?" As you can see from the title of the thread, I already have a pretty good idea of what that choice will be.
Click to expand...

Hmm... do folks vote for being able to personally save for their retirement, by being able to keep more of what they earn, or count on the ever growing federal government spending (and debt) to take care of their needs?

The biggest problem with (promising ever more) socialism is that you will eventually run out of other people's money to spend and/or borrow. When the nation currently refuses to tax enough to fund Medicare for some, even with its $135/month in additional premiums (reduction in Social Security retirement benefits) and covering up to 80% of medical care costs, then it is very hard (impossible?) to believe that it would tax enough to cover Medicare for all with no premiums and covering 100% of medical care costs).
 
HumblePi said:
I have to begin to explain how this will happen by posting a link to an article in the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/19/how-money-flows-campaign-donors-into-trumps-pocket/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.d609770e0bf1

Trump is spending the weekend at his Bedminster Golf Club in New Jersey.

[snip]Upon arriving in New Jersey, though, he still has one item on the schedule: A “roundtable with supporters” that will be held at the golf club. This isn’t just a sit-down with some random Trump fans. It is, instead, a perk for high-dollar donors to the president’s reelection campaign. According to an invitation obtained by Insider NJ, those participating in this informal conversation have spent $100,000 to do so. That level of donation also earns donors a photo with the president.

That’s money that goes to the campaign — but some of it also ends up going back to Bedminster in the form of event space and catering. Meaning that some of it also ends up back in President Trump’s pocket.

According to data compiled from Federal Election Commission reports by ProPublica, three campaign committees linked to Trump’s reelection — the Republican National Committee, Trump’s campaign committee and Trump Victory, a joint committee between the Trump campaign and the Republican Party — have spent over $700,000 at Trump properties this cycle. Over the past year, the total is nearly $1.4 million.

The most spent in one day was at Mar-a-Lago in late March, when the RNC and Trump Victory spent over $400,000.[/snip]

Okay so you get the idea.

The following are the top donors to Trump's campaign:

1. Robert Mercer, Renaissance Technologies - $13.5 million
2. Sheldon Adelson and Miriam Adelson, Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) - $10 million
3. Linda McMahon, World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE) - $6 million
4. Bernard Marcus, Retired - $7 million
5. Geoffrey Palmer, G.H. Palmer Associates - $2 million
6. Ronald M Cameron, Mountaire Corp. - $2 million
7. Peter Thiel, Palantir Technologies - $1.25 million
8. Walter Buckley Jr, Actua Corporation (ACTA) - $1 million
9. Cherna Moskowitz, Hawaiian Gardens Casino - $1 million
10. Peter Zieve, Electroimpact - $1 million

It's fairly obvious why wealthy people support Trump and want to keep Trump in the White House. He's good for their bank accounts. Focusing on the 2027 tax tables show that the tax cuts, 83% of it going to the top 1 percent, the richest people in this country.

The millionaires are happier than they've ever been and every day people are happy that their 401K is doing so well. So it will be a binary choice November 3, 2020, "do I vote for my 401K or do I vote for the country?" As you can see from the title of the thread, I already have a pretty good idea of what that choice will be.
Click to expand...

Ah, wealthy people....like me.
 
Captain Adverse said:
With over 20 people competing to get "noticed" and achieve a viable chance to be nominated, I am not surprised that they are "pledging" all sorts of things at this point in their campaigns. Hell, they are all already making massive "pie-in-the-sky" free everything promises too.

But IMO when the final contender gets selected, they will pander to wealthy interests just like Hillary did, or did you forget that "secret" event caught on someone's phone-cam where she promised rich donors all sorts of things?

As for your "401K" dismissal? I don't have one. Meanwhile that has NOTHING to do with the fact that most people got a decent tax break and the positive impact of having more money returned was just as great as the alleged opposite impact of being taxed at the same rate as a rich person. Your deflection notwithstanding. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Using the 401k was only a euphemism for money and the "the economy". I know that not all people have a 401K. My point is that the economy and jobs are used primarily by Trump voters as a reason to vote for him again in 2020. That's not an accident. A beginner's class in 'Populism 101' would tell you that in order for a populist to get support of people they have to provide them with jobs which will improve their lives. Jobs and the economy.

401k was used to represent the reason for approval of Trump by people who feel he made their life better financially, either through tax cuts, more jobs, etc. And again, the binary choice will be '401k or country' and that's essentially what has cemented his base and will win him votes in 2020 in addition to the voluminous financial backing of the wealthiest people in the country.


"when the final contender gets selected, they will pander to wealthy interests just like Hillary did"

When Elizabeth Warren announced her candidacy, she made this statement; “I’m not taking a dime of PAC money in this campaign. I’m not taking a single check from a federal lobbyist. I’m not taking applications from billionaires who want to run a Super PAC on my behalf. And I challenge every other candidate who asks for your vote in this primary to say exactly the same thing,”

And you know what? I like a politician that vows to shun lobbyists, Super PACS and corporate money. If a president is going to be fighting the drug epidemic they shouldn't be endebted to big pharmaceutical companies, and so on.
 
The OP is way off the mark, and so is the source Washington Post article it is all based on.

Trump can (and probably will) win a second term because Democrats refuse to learn anything from 2016, and at this point Trump can lose the popular vote by 4-5 million votes and still secure the EC by convincing enough people from key states to hold their nose and vote for him just to ensure whoever from the batch of lunatics running for the Democratic nod does not win.

And no matter who said what they all will benefit from PAC money.
 
Captain Adverse said:
This because I more than doubled my "return," as I not only got more back this time than ever before, they also took an equivalent amount less out of my paychecks in withholdings during the tax year.
Click to expand...
The government withheld and taxed you at less than 1/2 the rate of the previous year and you received more than double your usual tax refund this year?

Please educate me on what part/s of Trump’s new tax law allowed you to manage that?
 
I will repeat. To me there are two reasons to support trump, you are either rich or you're a racist. How any woman can vote for trump is beyond me???
 
OrphanSlug said:
.... secure the EC by convincing enough people from key states to hold their nose and vote for him ....
Click to expand...
Don’t hold your breath waiting for that second lightning strike.:roll:
 
HumblePi said:
Actually no. Most of the candidates have pledged not to take corporate PAC money, no fossil fuel money, no Super PACS money and no federal lobbyists money. Biden isn’t accepting money from “unions, federal contractors, national banks or foreign nationals.” Mayor Pete Buttigieg also rejects donations from the pharmaceutical industry. Eric Swalwell did not want support from “the NRA or tobacco industry.” Mayor Bill de Blasio specified he'll refuse any lobbyists or businesses that do business with New York City in his response.


24 campaigns are rejecting donations from corporate PACs
19 campaigns are rejecting donations from the fossil fuel industry
13 campaigns are rejecting donations from federal lobbyists
9 campaigns are rejecting donations from all Super PACs

The evidence shows that campaign donations buy access and policy outcomes. So no, there will be no special interests able to give donations to any of these democratic candidates. Most of their donations are coming from small personal donors.

You've answered that you like your 401K and when the choice comes, "401K or country" Your 401K wins, as I have predicted.
Click to expand...

so let me ask a question

maybe you can send them an email, or get a reporter to ask it

will they open their entire set of books for ALL campaign expenses and inflows for scrutiny?

it is a yes or a no

if not, i dont want to hear who they are or arent getting money from

because if we cant audit it....there is no transparency
 
OldFatGuy said:
I've always found it amusing that no one questions spending greater than a $Bil for a job that pays $400k annually.
Click to expand...

Well, since they are spending other people's money what do they have to lose?
 
gdgyva said:
so let me ask a question

maybe you can send them an email, or get a reporter to ask it

will they open their entire set of books for ALL campaign expenses and inflows for scrutiny?

it is a yes or a no

if not, i dont want to hear who they are or arent getting money from

because if we cant audit it....there is no transparency
Click to expand...

I don't need to send an email to anyone to get an accounting of all campaign contributions. Campaign funds are always open for public scrutiny, unless of course your name is Donald Trump. It was his payment of hush money to Karen McDougal from campaign funds is what put Michael Cohen in prison. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) whose mission is: "to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections." This can be accessed by any citizen in this country.

Public Inspection of Candidate Campaign Records | www.pdc.wa.gov

During the 10 days preceding a primary, general, or special election in which the candidate's name is on the ballot, the campaign's books of account showing all contributions received, expenditures made and outstanding debts must be opened for public inspection. An inspection may occur on weekdays beginning on the eighth day before the election — excluding legal holidays — by appointment between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the location agreed up by both the treasurer and the requester or electronically in lieu of in-person inspection. WAC 390-16-043

“Books of account” means a ledger or similar listing of contributions, expenditures and debts, such as a campaign or committee is required to file regularly with the PDC, but current as of the most recent business day.
 
If Trump wins re-election, it will be due to the Electoral College not because he won the support of a majority of voters. In fact, I predict that the total vote count in 2020 between any Democratic candidate and Trump will be greater then the 3 million voter delta in 2016. There is only so much the majority will take if this happens which is likely. If any of you thought his first term was divisive, his second could very well start a revolution.
 
btthegreat said:
Incumbent Presidents don't have to spend a dime during primary season. Trump can just squirrel it all away until after the convention. The Democratic nominee will have spent as much as he collects and still borrow more, through Sept or Oct.
Click to expand...

And on top of that, the Democratic Primary candidates will be campaigning against each other for an entire year. There’s a reason why the President holds an institutional advantage.
 
Vadinho said:
If Trump wins re-election, it will be due to the Electoral College not because he won the support of a majority of voters. In fact, I predict that the total vote count in 2020 between any Democratic candidate and Trump will be greater then the 3 million voter delta in 2016. There is only so much the majority will take if this happens which is likely. If any of you thought his first term was divisive, his second could very well start a revolution.
Click to expand...

popular votes dont matter

if it did, california and new york would rule the USA

that isnt the way it works....

you win a state, you get those EC votes....

every vote counts....but only in its own state
 
gdgyva said:
popular votes dont matter

if it did, california and new york would rule the USA

that isnt the way it works....

you win a state, you get those EC votes....

every vote counts....but only in its own state
Click to expand...

Exactly right, and if it were not this way, then the rest of the country would be ruled by the needs of the 4 or 5 most populated States.

You know, the "two wolves and a lamb sitting down to vote on what's for dinner" analogy?

The member you responded to is claiming there would be a "revolution" if Trump wins re-election. I myself wonder how long this nation would remain "united" if the "Social Democrats" (i.e. socialists) ever gain control.

The very first thing they would have to do would be to disarm everyone they don't consider "trustworthy (which might very well begin such a revolution). That, as with Venezuela, is the only way to empower the government to stifle dissent and enforce socialism. That in and of itself might begin the dissolution.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Exactly right, and if it were not this way, then the rest of the country would be ruled by the needs of the 4 or 5 most populated States.

You know, the "two wolves and a lamb sitting down to vote on what's for dinner" analogy?

The member you responded to is claiming there would be a "revolution" if Trump wins re-election. I myself wonder how long this nation would remain "united" if the "Social Democrats" (i.e. socialists) ever gain control.

The very first thing they would have to do (which might very well begin such a revolution) would is disarm everyone they don't consider "trustworthy," and that in and of itself might being the dissolution.
Click to expand...

they might try

i have a feeling 200 million americans with their guns might have something to say about that though

i know most of us are very law abiding and dont cause much of a ruckus

you try to take away my guns....

same as trying to take away my vote, my freedom, or my other liberties
 
gdgyva said:
popular votes dont matter

if it did, california and new york would rule the USA

that isnt the way it works....

you win a state, you get those EC votes....

every vote counts....but only in its own state
Click to expand...

Did you intend this comment to fill a gap in my knowledge or was it simply a reply restating what I said in my post? We have had two elections decided by EC votes instead of popular votes in the last 19 years, both went to Republicans due to the EC. The last one had a 3 million American voter delta meaning that three million voters were ignored by design. When that number gets to 4 or 5 or 10 million, expect trouble, lots of trouble. That was my point. The day after Trump was inaugurated, millions upon millions of people hit the streets peacefully. Don't expect the same peaceful reaction if he does it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom