• 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!

Will The Left Run Up The White Flag

MrWonka said:
When you know it's only because the elections are rigged it's not really demoralizing it's infuriating. Imagine if a large majority of Americans were voting Republican in almost every election, but Democrats still got to control all three branches of government due to gerrymandering, 2 senators per state, the electoral college and voter suppression? How do you think gun crazy white guys would handle that?
Click to expand...
Well, maybe instead of whining and crying and throwing tantrums and throwing out flimsy excuses, you guys actually came up with a platform people actually support you'd do better.
 
Bullseye said:
Well, maybe instead of whining and crying and throwing tantrums and throwing out flimsy excuses, you guys actually came up with a platform people actually support you'd do better.
Click to expand...

They can't. They hate America and are working to destroy it, so it can be replaced with a world-wide, authoritarian, collectivist, tyranical government.

Trumps actions are the correct ones to help America and its people. The people see that, a majority of them, and support Trump because it, despite Trump's rather annoying and unseemly bravado. They can look past all that, and see that President Trump will put the Nation back onto a healthy path.

The Lefties have to attempt to derail those actions, to achieve their longer term goals of global power. Or at least, those invisable manipulators running the Democratic Party see it that way, and have decieved the rank and file.

They cannot offer a platform which the American People would support, and earn their votes, because the Manipulators don't want the Nation to get better, they want America to collapse.

So, all they can do, is throw riots, arson, false accusations, division, hatred and chaos to make things get worse. They hope to collapse the nation inspite of President Trump's efforts.

Its a contest between the force of civilization and order, vs. the hatred and chaos mongers.

The Democratic Party is under the control of those who will not allow them a positive, noble, productive platform.

They've no choice but to offer hatred, division, envy and aim for Collapse.

-
 
Moderate Right said:
if they don't win the House? I mean how demoralizing would that be? Just when they don't think they could lose any more. What if they did? Another two years of Republican control. We know Trump isn't going anywhere. We know that the Senate isn't going anywhere. Then we could even have yet another opening on the Supreme Court, almost for sure if Trump wins in 2020. Oops, that means maybe the left still haven't hit rock bottom yet.
Click to expand...

They will become even more violent....
 
I was a registered Blue-Dog Democrat for over one and half decades!

I never like either party's deficit spending, but I felt that the Democrats were willing to stand for the common man, and believed a heart-felt level in Dr. King's dream, and sought to end racial discrimination and segregation.

Today, Keith Elison and Tom Perez want every moment of your life controled by your Racial Identity, and support re-segregating our colleges with White-Males locked out!

And if we try to point out those are not policies in keeping with the ideals of the JFK era Democrats, we're told to "Whites, Shut Up and Listen!"

Obama-care was never expected, by those telling the lies to sell it, to be a solution, it was a Wrecking BALL!, which was used to destroy the mostly working system, and force low-mid Income Americans into working two part time jobs, and never being able to see a doctor at all. But, as Obama so proudly stated, if you get significantly ill, they'll give you a pain pill... Unless you happen to be white male.

Grueber and Obama Lied, Low-Mid Income Americans died! And will keep on dying!

The DNC and Hillary Crime Inc sold its soul to the Saudi Oil Princes and Soros, and two plus generations of low-mid income Americans will suffer greatly for it.

But hey, Obama got to illegally import 1.6 Million Muslims, who hate U.S., won't respect our laws or culture, and only cost the American Tax Payer a meager CBO verified $257,000 each in "Getting Started Money", plus an additional average of $64,000 per person per year!

Imagine what an out of work Steel Mill worker family could do with $257K in Getting started money!

When I look at the once pround Democratic Party, I can help but think of the first Star Wars movie, "You will never find a more wretched hive of Scum and Villany!, We must be careful!"

The American Far-Left isn't a solution, it is deliberate sabotage and collapse for THEIR foreign manipulation masters profit and power!

I WAS a Blue-Dog Democrat for over 16 years!

Let the Democratic Party DIE, and good riddance to bad rubbish!

Let's get to work on the OWLs!

-
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
Actually Veritas if the left fails to at least take the House I do think the adults in the party are going to attempt to reign in the insanity and expect to see the left move back more to the center.But it could result in a complete split in the Democratic party.
Click to expand...

That would certainly be the preferable outcome. We have to marginalize those who want civil insurrection.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Broad brushing an entire group of people based on fearmongering and paranoia?
Way to go, I expect nothing less from you.
Click to expand...

Since the liberal leadership says and does nothing to tamp down the insanity, I can only conclude that it has become the accepted stance of the Democrat party that this type of behavior is to be tolerated, if not encouraged.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Pointing out that a group of people aren't quite aware of the wolf in sheep's clothing is a lot different than accusing that same group of actually being members of the wolf pack.
Do you like it much when people accuse conservatives of all being in cahoots with the Nazis?
The Democratic silence on Antifa (I read that article when it first came out, thank you very much) is coming to an end, precisely because Democrats are seeing Antifa assuming full flower. We see the Communist flags and the mutterings of "liberals get the bullet too", and we see journalists being attacked.

I'll thank you to quit terming it as "blatant" unless you want me to start affixing swastikas to everything you say from now on.
Click to expand...

But you guys all claim that everyone on the right is part of the wolf pack.
 
Perotista said:
I personally think you're overlooking the main reason Trump won, Hillary Clinton. I provided details on that in many a post since the election. I firmly believe almost any other Democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump.

I also think with all the indicators that the Democrats will win the house, they will pick up around 35 seats. Say, between 30-40 with more a possibility. The Democrats need 23 to regain control. In the senate, the Republicans will probably pick up North Dakota. They should hang onto Tennessee and Texas, although both races are extremely close at this time. The Republicans also have a shot at picking up Florida, Indiana and Missouri, all three pure tossups. But my money would be on the Democratic incumbents. The Democrats have an 50-50 chance of picking up Nevada and Arizona. I do think when one wakes up the day after the election, the Republicans will have between 50-53 seats.

As for 2020, it all depends on whom the democrats run and if Trump decides to seek reelection. All unknown factors that outside of speculation, no one has a clue.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of that except I don't think a far lefty would have beaten Trump in 2016 or would beat Trump in 2020. But, I do expect a Republican primary challenger in 2020 and I think it is also very possible that we may see some very legitimate third and maybe even fourth party runs, not to mention the option I like best, a possible Independent bid from Republican Kasich with Democratic Hickenlooper as his VP. That's what the country needs and I believe the ticket would be very highly competitive.
 
Moderate Right said:
if they don't win the House? I mean how demoralizing would that be? Just when they don't think they could lose any more. What if they did? Another two years of Republican control. We know Trump isn't going anywhere. We know that the Senate isn't going anywhere. Then we could even have yet another opening on the Supreme Court, almost for sure if Trump wins in 2020. Oops, that means maybe the left still haven't hit rock bottom yet.
Click to expand...

I am a white male, so chances are I will be ok. The new GOP is just a bunch of culturally motivated white nationalists. They don't even hide it anymore or try to dog whistle.
 
Moderate Right said:
I agree with a lot of that except I don't think a far lefty would have beaten Trump in 2016 or would beat Trump in 2020. But, I do expect a Republican primary challenger in 2020 and I think it is also very possible that we may see some very legitimate third and maybe even fourth party runs, not to mention the option I like best, a possible Independent bid from Republican Kasich with Democratic Hickenlooper as his VP. That's what the country needs and I believe the ticket would be very highly competitive.
Click to expand...

I based that statement, that almost any other democratic candidate would have trounced Trump on what independents thought of the candidates or even those not running, but asked about in polls. 57% of all independents disliked or had an unfavorable view of Trump, a whopping 70% of independents viewed Hillary unfavorably. In a normal election, which 2016 wasn't, folks usually don't vote for candidates they disliked. However, in 2016, a quarter of all Americans disliked both major party candidates. They basically had no choice but to vote for one or the other whom they disliked. Or as I like to put, they voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose. Not for the candidate they wanted to win.

Trump had a 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable among independents. A minus or negative 17. Sanders, Biden and Webb were all on the plus or positive side of that equation. Although few had heard of Webb. Would Sanders, although view positive by independents, Americans as a whole also, would that have been enough to overcome Sanders far left ideology? I think so, but we don't know as it didn't happened.

One thing you can be sure of, Sanders wouldn't have been as lazy and sat on his butt like Hillary did during the campaign. Sanders would have let Trump both out work him and out campaign him by that huge 116 campaign stops/visits for Trump vs. 71 for Hillary. You can bet Sanders would have been out there everyday. Hillary's laziness lost it for her, you can be sure no other Democrat would have been that lazy.

Interesting to speculate, isn't it?
 
Bullseye said:
you guys actually came up with a platform people actually support you'd do better.
Click to expand...

Well, that's just the problem. People actually do support our platform more than Republicans, but thanks to election rigging by Republicans the people aren't getting what they want.
 
The Ethnocentric Lefties are bound and determined to put all White-Men into one of two boxes:

1] Good, Accepting of their Racial-Birth-Guilt, meek, subserviant, and compliant pajama-boys who accept their White-Priviledge and forever appologize for it.

2] Evil, Neo-Nazi skin head, White-supremacist, KKK member, Demons who spend ever waking moment colluding with evil Russians to rape minority women so they can eat their babies alive and screaming.


I think that assessment might be just a bit Hyperbolic.

Perhaps 99.9% of White-males are alright... and Neither!

-
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
I based that statement, that almost any other democratic candidate would have trounced Trump on what independents thought of the candidates or even those not running, but asked about in polls. 57% of all independents disliked or had an unfavorable view of Trump, a whopping 70% of independents viewed Hillary unfavorably. In a normal election, which 2016 wasn't, folks usually don't vote for candidates they disliked. However, in 2016, a quarter of all Americans disliked both major party candidates. They basically had no choice but to vote for one or the other whom they disliked. Or as I like to put, they voted for the candidate they least wanted to lose. Not for the candidate they wanted to win.

Trump had a 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable among independents. A minus or negative 17. Sanders, Biden and Webb were all on the plus or positive side of that equation. Although few had heard of Webb. Would Sanders, although view positive by independents, Americans as a whole also, would that have been enough to overcome Sanders far left ideology? I think so, but we don't know as it didn't happened.

One thing you can be sure of, Sanders wouldn't have been as lazy and sat on his butt like Hillary did during the campaign. Sanders would have let Trump both out work him and out campaign him by that huge 116 campaign stops/visits for Trump vs. 71 for Hillary. You can bet Sanders would have been out there everyday. Hillary's laziness lost it for her, you can be sure no other Democrat would have been that lazy.

Interesting to speculate, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yep. 2020 might be another wild ride, with more than two major candidates running, a viable third party and viable fourth party. In 2016 I was really hoping that the Libertarians would step up to the plate but they continue wanting to just be the party of "none of the above" instead of actually wanting to win. They always seem to be content with being the protest vote. I'm really looking forward to the possibility of a Kasich/Hickenlooper Independent run. That's what the country needs and I truly believe it can win.
 
Moderate Right said:
Yep. 2020 might be another wild ride, with more than two major candidates running, a viable third party and viable fourth party. In 2016 I was really hoping that the Libertarians would step up to the plate but they continue wanting to just be the party of "none of the above" instead of actually wanting to win. They always seem to be content with being the protest vote. I'm really looking forward to the possibility of a Kasich/Hickenlooper Independent run. That's what the country needs and I truly believe it can win.
Click to expand...

I never understood the Libertarians. They always put up a presidential candidate. Perhaps a few candidate for the senate and governor. But that is usually it. They seem to have no will or don't want to try to build a viable party at the grass roots level. That would require running candidates for such offices as county commissioner, mayors, state legislatures, school boards, local offices and build from there.

Until the Libertarians do that, they will be nothing more than as you put it, a protest outlet with no chances of winning anything. These guys has been around forever and yet seems satisfied to be more or less an exclusive club.

The only good thing the Libertarians are useful for is for people like me who detested both presidential candidates to vote for their candidate. Protest vote.

Kasich/Hickenlooper would be good, but they would have to have financial backing. Keep in mind in 2016 Trump and Hillary spent 2.4 billion on their run for the presidency. That's a lot of money to raise to be viable and able to get their message out. Also it is the Democratic/Republican bipartisan debate commission which determines who is in the presidential debates. The reason they took the debates away from the League of Woman voter's was to ensure no more third party or independent candidate ever get into the presidential debates again. The league let Ross Perot in, then the two major parties struck and took the debates away from them.
 
Last edited:
MrWonka said:
Well, that's just the problem. People actually do support our platform more than Republicans, but thanks to election rigging by Republicans the people aren't getting what they want.
Click to expand...
Sure, just keep telling yourself that. It's always someone else's fault, right? You guys are the enlightened ones poised to guide America to the ultimate workers' paradise benevolently ruled by you and your ilk. But those mean ol' Republicans keep getting in your way. That about sum it up?
 
Bullseye said:
Sure, just keep telling yourself that. It's always someone else's fault, right? You guys are the enlightened ones poised to guide America to the ultimate workers' paradise benevolently ruled by you and your ilk. But those mean ol' Republicans keep getting in your way. That about sum it up?
Click to expand...

They won't listen until they've lost several more elections in a major way.

Even then, they still won't change their goals, they'll just change their message to attempt to get into power.

They will never admit socialism isn't an ideal, perfect, wonderful Panacea.

-
 
Perotista said:
I never understood the Libertarians. They always put up a presidential candidate. Perhaps a few candidate for the senate and governor. But that is usually it. They seem to have no will or don't want to try to build a viable party at the grass roots level. That would require running candidates for such offices as county commissioner, mayors, state legislatures, school boards, local offices and build from there.

Until the Libertarians do that, they will be nothing more than as you put it, a protest outlet with no chances of winning anything. These guys has been around forever and yet seems satisfied to be more or less an exclusive club.

The only good thing the Libertarians are useful for is for people like me who detested both presidential candidates to vote for their candidate. Protest vote.

Kasich/Hickenlooper would be good, but they would have to have financial backing. Keep in mind in 2016 Trump and Hillary spent 2.4 billion on their run for the presidency. That's a lot of money to raise to be viable and able to get their message out. Also it is the Democratic/Republican bipartisan debate commission which determines who is in the presidential debates. The reason they took the debates away from the League of Woman voter's was to ensure no more third party or independent candidate ever get into the presidential debates again. The league let Ross Perot in, then the two major parties struck and took the debates away from them.
Click to expand...

I'm not actually convinced that a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket would need much financial backing. Hell, Hillary & Co far outspent Trump and Trump beat her. I think there is much to be said for running sane candidates who are not extremist. Trump won the Republican primary with much less backing than his opponents because Republican primary voters were tired of establishments and dynasties. That is also true of the Democratic electorate but Hillary and the DNC had the primaries rigged so that only she could win. Hence, a large enough percentage of these Democratic primary voters voted out establishments and Dynasties by voting for Trump. So, both party's electorates are sick and tired of all of the gridlock, establishment, and dynasties. Kasich and Hickenlooper are both known well enough that they could garner a decent percentage of the vote without spending a lot of money. I personally believe there are a huge number of voters who would seriously believe voting for this ticket might help end the partisan fighting and gridlock. In other words, without much financial backing, this ticket might grab a very large portion of the votes from both Republican and Democratic electorates. In my fantasy world, I could see a very tight 3 way race between this ticket and the two major parties, like 34% to 33% to 33% of the popular vote.
 
Moderate Right said:
I'm not actually convinced that a Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket would need much financial backing. Hell, Hillary & Co far outspent Trump and Trump beat her. I think there is much to be said for running sane candidates who are not extremist. Trump won the Republican primary with much less backing than his opponents because Republican primary voters were tired of establishments and dynasties. That is also true of the Democratic electorate but Hillary and the DNC had the primaries rigged so that only she could win. Hence, a large enough percentage of these Democratic primary voters voted out establishments and Dynasties by voting for Trump. So, both party's electorates are sick and tired of all of the gridlock, establishment, and dynasties. Kasich and Hickenlooper are both known well enough that they could garner a decent percentage of the vote without spending a lot of money. I personally believe there are a huge number of voters who would seriously believe voting for this ticket might help end the partisan fighting and gridlock. In other words, without much financial backing, this ticket might grab a very large portion of the votes from both Republican and Democratic electorates. In my fantasy world, I could see a very tight 3 way race between this ticket and the two major parties, like 34% to 33% to 33% of the popular vote.
Click to expand...

Yes, Hillary outspent Trump 1.4 billion to a bit less than a billion. A billion is still a lot of money. Also Trump knew how to play the media, every morning he was calling into the morning shows to get his name out there while Hillary basically hid. Yes also to the democratic primaries being rigged in Hillary's favor. No doubt about that. What I find so strange about that is hardly any Democrats gave a hoot. Gave a hoot that Hillary was chosen as their 2016 nominee prior to the 2012 election in a meeting between Bill, Hillary and Obama. Perhaps the moral of that story is not to choose your presidential nominee four years in advance of the election.

Third party and independent candidates tend to fade the close the election becomes. Voters tend to buy into the propaganda spouted by the two major parties that an vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because they can't win. So it becomes a self fulling prophecy. Johnson in 2016 fell from 9% in August down to a final vote tally of 3.3%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom