Will Trump win the popular vote and lose the election?

#127
#127
Weezer said:
Like I said, I understand the idealism behind it, but do you really think he has a shot in hell of winning? When you go to the racetrack, do you bet on the horse you want to win, or the horse you expect to win? We're all betting on our future here.
Click to expand...

So am I, but I'm looking at a bigger picture than the next 4 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#128
#128
Vol8188 said:
You just went off on a really strange tangent here. SAT and ACT scores? Colleges should be free to pick their students however the choose. That's not the argument here. Just an odd tangent that you threw out there.

Being a member of a police force isn't an elected position. So whoever does the hiring can use any standard they see fit. That's completely unrelated.

This is an elected position. You are claiming we should allow agencies that many Americans don't trust to begin with (like the FBI) to tell us who can and cannot be president. It doesn't take many iq points to see the issue with allowing the government to tell you who you can and cannot vote for.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a strange tangent - simply a statement that there are formal, standardized processes in place to select candidates for any number of lesser positions than president - usually unchallenged unless someone on the liberal side decides they discriminate against minorities. It was also meant to demonstrate that those vetting processes span both personal elective decisions (education) and those that affect your safety (police, military, nuclear safety for example). I kinda thought that the president affects our health, welfare, and safety somewhat also - silly me perhaps.

I could care less who actually vets candidates as long as it is done fairly and objectively with the goal of passing anyone who can be expected to lead the nation in a sane and competent manner - including safeguarding sensitive information; and that does not mean left to the political parties. Perhaps we are wasting our time vetting military and security people if it's unimportant for the guy who has access to everything?

Now, would you prefer that we eliminate those other requirements - age, citizenship, etc since they would allow some agency to eliminate a candidate - if in fact they do even check? Oh, and why get panties in a knot over finances and medical reports if nothing matters anyway?
 
#129
#129
Weezer said:
Honestly, I've expressed how I feel the Libertarian Party should build itself up. I didn't come here to trade sarcastic barbs. I simply stated my views.
Click to expand...

Weezer, in what state(s) do you cast your votes?
 
#130
#130
Again, why won't the Libertarian or other 3rd party grow from the bottom up? Instead they want it from the top down.
 
#132
#132
DinkinFlicka said:
So am I, but I'm looking at a bigger picture than the next 4 years.
Click to expand...

The problem with looking at the bigger picture instead of the next 4 years is that the Clinton's are like a cancer in your body, and Trump is the chemotherapy that no one really wants to take. So, you can let the cancer spread for another four years which will do all types of unseen damage (there is already enough smoke that I'm convinced Hillary would sell out this country for her own benefit), or you can take the hit now and hope that the chemo isn't as bad as some proclaim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#135
#135
Instead of blaming the people who vote third party, maybe we should direct our anger at the people who nominated a candidate so poor that he's the underdog against a criminal and pathological liar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#136
#136
UTCVol said:
Instead of blaming the people who vote third party, maybe we should direct our anger at the people who nominated a candidate so poor that he's the underdog against a criminal and pathological liar.
Click to expand...

The guy got more primary votes than any other R in history. He's running not only against the Dem party but also the media and the Republican establishment. I'm actually surprised he's doing as well as he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#137
#137
Surprised it hasn't been mentioned or discussed, but those of you arguing that Gary Johnson has no chance do realize how our electoral system works right? Johnson doesn't actually have to win the election to become President. All he has to do is win enough states to prevent either of the two party candidates from reaching 270 electoral college votes - a very achievable target. In doing so, he would force the Republican controlled House of Representatives to decide the next President (just as in 1824). Who would they choose? Wildcard Trump or Conservative Johnson. Tough to say IMO but worth considering the fact that he doesn't have to outright win.
 
#140
#140
Neyland's Maxims said:
Surprised it hasn't been mentioned or discussed, but those of you arguing that Gary Johnson has no chance do realize how our electoral system works right? Johnson doesn't actually have to win the election to become President. All he has to do is win enough states to prevent either of the two party candidates from reaching 270 electoral college votes - a very achievable target. In doing so, he would force the Republican controlled House of Representatives to decide the next President (just as in 1824). Who would they choose? Wildcard Trump or Conservative Johnson. Tough to say IMO but worth considering the fact that he doesn't have to outright win.
Click to expand...

He won't win a single state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#141
#141
DinkinFlicka said:
Yeah, we should just stick to the two party system.
Click to expand...

To break up the two party system people like you and I need to start electing members from other parties at local levels. For most people that just doesn't seem to be a viable option for one reason or another. More variety would definitely be better for our country.
 
#142
#142
FLVOL_79 said:
To break up the two party system people like you and I need to start electing members from other parties at local levels. For most people that just doesn't seem to be a viable option for one reason or another. More variety would definitely be better for our country.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the idea that they need to win more local elections. Most people couldn't tell you the party of their local officials nor the names
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#143
#143
FLVOL69 said:
That's good to know but if Clinton is elected and has her way with the Supreme Court you're ****ed for at least a generation.
Click to expand...

But at least abortions would still be available after all that f@&*ing.
 
#146
#146
Neyland's Maxims said:
Surprised it hasn't been mentioned or discussed, but those of you arguing that Gary Johnson has no chance do realize how our electoral system works right? Johnson doesn't actually have to win the election to become President. All he has to do is win enough states to prevent either of the two party candidates from reaching 270 electoral college votes - a very achievable target. In doing so, he would force the Republican controlled House of Representatives to decide the next President (just as in 1824). Who would they choose? Wildcard Trump or Conservative Johnson. Tough to say IMO but worth considering the fact that he doesn't have to outright win.
Click to expand...

Do you realize the amount of chaos and destruction that would take place if HRC is left out and it's up to a Republican controlled house? Feces will hit the rotary oscillator.
 
#148
#148
FLVOL69 said:
Self explanatory , more dems are aborted than republican's , it's actually a win win situation..😱
Click to expand...

I'd actually wager that more conservatives have abortions. Imagine a preachers daughter getting knocked up out of wedlock. Guess what's happening to that pregnancy? Conservative values would seemingly increase the amount of abortions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top