Meanwhile FOX doing their daily doomsday peddling - Cortez and the Muslim congresswomen splashes all over again. Run, those communist terrorists are coming!
Meanwhile FOX doing their daily doomsday peddling - Cortez and the Muslim congresswomen splashes all over again. Run, those communist terrorists are coming!
Checking in wrote:
Just checking in...
The trump lovers are still convinced that trump is never going to be forcibly removed from the White House in handcuffs.
That’s hilarious!!!!!
^ sorry, I fixed it, my bad :-(
SAlly Vx wrote:
bananass wrote:
Nope. Time to let Trump say exactly what he thinks about a person he illegally employed for years.
Remember, having sex with a bimbo is not the concern of anyone, according to Donald J Trump. But hiring illegals is very evil, according to Donald J Trump.
Pathetic. Just pathetic. You hate Trump so much you can't even function.
Poor little, unhinged, Sally boy. You did grow a pair after all.
bananass wrote:
SAlly Vx wrote:
Pathetic. Just pathetic. You hate Trump so much you can't even function.
Poor little, unhinged, Sally boy. You did grow a pair after all.
Let the guy run. Don't get your panties in a bunch. He has every right to run. Celebrate that!
SAlly Vx wrote:
bananass wrote:
Poor little, unhinged, Sally boy. You did grow a pair after all.
Let the guy run. Don't get your panties in a bunch. He has every right to run. Celebrate that!
FYI: Trump does not run. He does not believe in exercise. He knows it robs you of needed energy. ... So, stop running, Sally boy. Be like Trump.
L L wrote:
I agree with you that these Democrats campaigning for Schultz not to campaign is not pro democracy.
Though, after hearing him talk, I think he may take more Trump votes than Democrat votes.
Democrats liked Perot running because it helped Bill Clinton get elected.
They did not like Jill Stein running because she took votes from Hillary and got Trump elected.
(Stein had more votes than the difference between Hillary and Trump in PA, MI and WI. IF they all voted for Hillary instead, she would be president right now. Or maybe they wouldn't have voted at all and it wouldn't have changed anything)
The campaign against Schultz is not good.
I will reiterate my idea that the general election should be between exactly two people to give voters a binary choice. And there should be prelims open to all parties to encourage a moderate strategy to make the final two.
Abolish the Democrat and Republican primaries and conventions all together.
(no chance this will happen)
That Perot helped Clinton win is a myth. During the time that Perot had dropped out , Clinton easily out-polled Bush in a two candidate race.
I usually vote for the Democrat, but I considered voting for Perot, but when he said that he dropped out of the race because he thought Repulicans would mess with his daughter's wedding, he seemed like a paranoid nut. It also appeared that his "On Wings of Eagles" story was bullish-t.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ross-perot-myth-reborn-amid-rumors-third-party-trump-candidacyTrollminator wrote:
Meanwhile FOX doing their daily doomsday peddling - Cortez and the Muslim congresswomen splashes all over again. Run, those communist terrorists are coming!
Breitbart has a Cortez Countdown clock- time left until the end of the world.
They all really love raising her profile
L L wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Meanwhile FOX doing their daily doomsday peddling - Cortez and the Muslim congresswomen splashes all over again. Run, those communist terrorists are coming!
Breitbart has a Cortez Countdown clock- time left until the end of the world.
They all really love raising her profile
As a Dem, raising her profile is not good for us. She is our Sarah Palin.
I don't think it's good for democracy or America when someone calls for a boycott on businesses if someone runs as an Independent.
DumDum wrote:
L L wrote:
Breitbart has a Cortez Countdown clock- time left until the end of the world.
They all really love raising her profile
As a Dem, raising her profile is not good for us. She is our Sarah Palin.
Incorrect. . . . Sarah Palin is a 100% Trumpette. She can see Russia from her window. Oh, and her kids are a total disaster.
Trumpers are so frightened of a young, petite, brown woman who, unlike Palin, does not bend over when clowns (Trump Fake Media) make ignorant claims about her.
Baddd wrote:
I don't think it's good for democracy or America when someone calls for a boycott on businesses if someone runs as an Independent.
Explain how it is good business to impose tariffs to impose boycott-like pains on certain businesses? Such as American soybean farmers.
The fact still is that Clinton won with only 43% of the vote (6% more than Bush) and Perot got 19% of the vote.
Perot surely prevented anyone from getting a majority of the votes.
You can't say for sure how it affected the results but it indeed affected them one way or another.
I don't no where Bush was going to pick up 102 electoral votes. He won California in '88 and that's the last time I see that going Republican.
Ole Red wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
In normal times with a normal President at the helm, I would agree with you...but Trump is a clear and present danger, and Democrats have a reason to be perturbed at Schultz, and I believe in this case Democrats ARE putting country over Party in not wanting him to run.
Call me naive if you will, but I'm just an old redneck from the western Penn. Explain to me in terms that I can understand why the Democrats don't support Shultz running as an independent, but do support him running as a Democrat.
Man, no one has answered this for you yet?
Schultz is a lifelong Democrat, and if he were to run as a Democrat, he will either win the nomination or not...he won't be taking potential Democrat votes from the Democrat primary winner. Democrats aren't necessarily against HIM so much as they are against his potential to take down a Democrat candidate, opening up the door for Trump or whomever the Republican candidate will be to win. If he runs as an independent, he is likely to take more votes from Democrats than he takes from Trump...debatable there, but that is the reason Democrats would rather have him run as a Democrat than as an independent.
lock him up wrote:
Rule of Law wrote:
As a Rule of Law person, what do you think should happen to this person who is in the country illegally?
The person is of no interest. The person who hired her is of interest, The only way to stop the problem is to go after the person who hires. That means Trump. ... His penalty: fired from the job of president. Forced to sell his businesses that employed such individuals. Forced to pay back taxes with at least 3x the penalties and interest. Forever prevented from owning any business that employs workers. ... Sucks to be Trump.
Hiring undocumented workers is a felony. The company should be put out of business and those responsible should go to prison.
But of course, that never happens and we all know why.
Massive hiring at trump’s press secretariat (to deal with upcoming investigations), even though press conferences are rarely held. Amazing!
Flagpole wrote:
Ole Red wrote:
Call me naive if you will, but I'm just an old redneck from the western Penn. Explain to me in terms that I can understand why the Democrats don't support Shultz running as an independent, but do support him running as a Democrat.
Man, no one has answered this for you yet?
Schultz is a lifelong Democrat, and if he were to run as a Democrat, he will either win the nomination or not...he won't be taking potential Democrat votes from the Democrat primary winner. Democrats aren't necessarily against HIM so much as they are against his potential to take down a Democrat candidate, opening up the door for Trump or whomever the Republican candidate will be to win. If he runs as an independent, he is likely to take more votes from Democrats than he takes from Trump...debatable there, but that is the reason Democrats would rather have him run as a Democrat than as an independent.
The same would be true for Republicans if a more conservative candidate ran as an independent. For example, John Kasich has considered running as an independent. I don't think he will, but if he did that, that would almost for sure make Trump lose in 2020 (if Trump is actually on the ballot), and Republicans would not be for that.
Flagpole wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Man, no one has answered this for you yet?
Schultz is a lifelong Democrat, and if he were to run as a Democrat, he will either win the nomination or not...he won't be taking potential Democrat votes from the Democrat primary winner. Democrats aren't necessarily against HIM so much as they are against his potential to take down a Democrat candidate, opening up the door for Trump or whomever the Republican candidate will be to win. If he runs as an independent, he is likely to take more votes from Democrats than he takes from Trump...debatable there, but that is the reason Democrats would rather have him run as a Democrat than as an independent.
The same would be true for Republicans if a more conservative candidate ran as an independent. For example, John Kasich has considered running as an independent. I don't think he will, but if he did that, that would almost for sure make Trump lose in 2020 (if Trump is actually on the ballot), and Republicans would not be for that.
Yep pretty simple to understand. Dems just issuing a public warning shot to protect their turf. Trump would have certainly not won running as an independent. I’d say he might not have gotten even half the votes. There are so many voters who will just vote their party’s candidate by default, no matter what. It turned out of course that it was easy enough for Trump to take over the GOP just by showing more of his true self.
And since I just thought of this randomly- with Dems being more open to immigration and sympathetic to people who suffer outside our borders, while trumpers are much more concerned about protecting their space and building barriers around them... who sounds like a much more open minded, good-hearted and humane group? No wonder they voted for this scumb@g.
Flagpole wrote:
Ole Red wrote:
Call me naive if you will, but I'm just an old redneck from the western Penn. Explain to me in terms that I can understand why the Democrats don't support Shultz running as an independent, but do support him running as a Democrat.
Man, no one has answered this for you yet?
Schultz is a lifelong Democrat, and if he were to run as a Democrat, he will either win the nomination or not...he won't be taking potential Democrat votes from the Democrat primary winner. Democrats aren't necessarily against HIM so much as they are against his potential to take down a Democrat candidate, opening up the door for Trump or whomever the Republican candidate will be to win. If he runs as an independent, he is likely to take more votes from Democrats than he takes from Trump...debatable there, but that is the reason Democrats would rather have him run as a Democrat than as an independent.
In other words...party over democracy.
BOYCOTT STARBUCKS (even though he is not CEO any longer)!!!!!!!!!!!!
Trollminator wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
The same would be true for Republicans if a more conservative candidate ran as an independent. For example, John Kasich has considered running as an independent. I don't think he will, but if he did that, that would almost for sure make Trump lose in 2020 (if Trump is actually on the ballot), and Republicans would not be for that.
There are so many voters who will just vote their party’s candidate by default, no matter what. .
And some people want to just increase the number of voters via a new federal holiday, allow felons to vote, etc. instead of increasing the number of informed voters.
We have about 70% of voters who will vote for someone just because of the (D) or (R) at the end of their name. We don't need to increase that number - no matter which side. This is how we ended up with probably the two of the worst Presidents - Trump / Obama.
Trollminator wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
The same would be true for Republicans if a more conservative candidate ran as an independent. For example, John Kasich has considered running as an independent. I don't think he will, but if he did that, that would almost for sure make Trump lose in 2020 (if Trump is actually on the ballot), and Republicans would not be for that.
Yep pretty simple to understand. Dems just issuing a public warning shot to protect their turf. Trump would have certainly not won running as an independent. I’d say he might not have gotten even half the votes. There are so many voters who will just vote their party’s candidate by default, no matter what. It turned out of course that it was easy enough for Trump to take over the GOP just by showing more of his true self.
And since I just thought of this randomly- with Dems being more open to immigration and sympathetic to people who suffer outside our borders, while trumpers are much more concerned about protecting their space and building barriers around them... who sounds like a much more open minded, good-hearted and humane group? No wonder they voted for this scumb@g.
in what way is this the dems "turf"
doesn't sound very democratic or american