Time to face some hard facts

[Care4all]

I do not think it was by accident that that opponent for the 2nd term has been just a terrible candidate almost guaranteeing a win for the sitting president. It is almost like the two parties have some sort of an agreement to make that happen.

Look back at the opponents.

Bob Dole
John Kerry
Mitt Romney

It is hard to believe such terrible choices would keep showing up every 2nd term election

But they are only terrible because they lost.

Up until the Russians threw the election, everyone was bemoaning what a terrible candidate Trump was. And he was a terrible candidate. It was never about him, it was about the contempt the voters had for the system.

The thing is, Trump got less of a percentage of the vote than Romney did. (46 vs. 47) only slightly more than McCain (45) or Dole (43) and less than Kerry (49)

Now, i think there is some validity to when you have a two term president, you dim out all the other stars in your party, which is why after two terms of Obama, all you had was Hillary and after two terms of Bush all you had was McCain, and after two terms of Clinton all you had left was Gore, all of whom were "Terrible" candidates in that they lost. .

I don't think Trump will win a second term because he really didn't win a first one. All the idiots who voted for third parties because "Hillary was just as bad" won't make that mistake again. But who knows the Democrats might fuck it up.

My bigger worry is that the Bernie Bros and other far leftists might become the dominant force in the party, and if Trump remains as unpopular as he is, they could win.

No, they were terrible when the ran, they lost because they were terrible.

By the way, I am one of the "idiots" that voted 3rd party and will do so again next election. I am used to the two party slaves calling me that so it does not bother me at all.

Good for you man, keep voting third party if that's the candidate that best represents your beliefs. IF more of us followed such a belief we'd break the two party choke hold.

you can't break the two party system....it is set up in the States, so that you can't with the states legislating WINNER TAKES ALL, with electorates....instead of proportionate electors given to the candidate, by the votes they received

Ross Perot as third party got 27 million votes, and not a single Electoral College vote....

The States can change this stranglehold on electors to go only to the two parties, but they won't, because the way they set it up, keeps 1 of the two parties, ALWAYS in office....in power.

It is time to outlaw the two parties and arrest the leadership. If only....

It's a simple change, my state does it already....we give our electors that represent how many House of Representatives we have in the US Congress to the candidates based on how many popular votes they received, then on the two extra electors we also get for the Senators of our state, the two extra, that every state is given, Maine gives those Elector votes to the winner of the State election, overall....

But in the LEAST, in Maine, any third party candidate has a chance to get some Electoral votes.... with the way the other States but 1, the winner of the pop vote is given ALL OF THE ELECTORS, even electors they did not win with their popular vote, goes to just 1 candidate....

the States can change this....we need to get them to change this WINNER TAKES ALL Electors, within each State....then and only then, will a Third Party candidate, have a CHANCE at winning, and sadly... otherwise voting third party, will always be a wasted vote....

 

[rightwinger]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do, he will have been a more successful president than decades worth of sitting US Presidents. In fact, he does not even have to do anything. Doing nothing will have made him a better President than those before him. The bar has really been set that low.

Naturally, they are trying to remove him before it gets to that. Just imagine another Trump election. They can't just let that happen now can they?

Given the strong economy, low unemployment, cheap gas, no wars....Trump should be immensely popular

But he struggles at 37% approval. That is because regardless of the state of the economy, Trump is still an asshole

 

[gipper]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do, he will have been a more successful president than decades worth of sitting US Presidents. In fact, he does not even have to do anything. Doing nothing will have made him a better President than those before him. The bar has really been set that low.

Naturally, they are trying to remove him before it gets to that. Just imagine another Trump election. They can't just let that happen now can they?

The problem with your statement is it assumes Trump seeks peace, which may not be the case. If he doesn't appease the militarists that control and inhabit both parties (all owned by the Military Industrial Complex), he might get his head blown off in broad daylight.

Nothing unites the two criminal parties more, than war...at least for a time. Just long enough to grow the power and wealth of government.

War is ALWAYS the health of the State.

Enjoy your visit from the Secret Service.

Somehow they forgot to visit Lee Harvey, so I am not worried.

He's dead. You sure you want to go there?

I don't think you comprehend, which I suspect occurs with regularity.

I am the one demanding peace at all costs, while statists like you are fine with war. War is always the health of the state. JFK was a peacemaker and for this, he was murdered. Trump fears the MIC just as all presidents have since JFK. He is likely to do their bidding just like all the others.

 

[nat4900]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do,

Just for fun, Votto......

Under Obama, the unemployment rate was lowered from 10% to 4.8%

Further, on Obama's last full day in office, the stock market witnessed an increase of 181 percent.

 

[WillowTree]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do, he will have been a more successful president than decades worth of sitting US Presidents. In fact, he does not even have to do anything. Doing nothing will have made him a better President than those before him. The bar has really been set that low.

Naturally, they are trying to remove him before it gets to that. Just imagine another Trump election. They can't just let that happen now can they?

Doing nothing is what he has done so far. The economy is just a continuation of programs already in place. What legislation did he signed in his first year?

Do you recall EO’s?

 

[WillowTree]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do,

Just for fun, Votto......

Under Obama, the unemployment rate was lowered from 10% to 4.8%

Further, on Obama's last full day in office, the stock market witnessed an increase of 181 percent.

Yep. Because it was his last day in office!

 

[Care4all]

you can't break the two party system....it is set up in the States, so that you can't with the states legislating WINNER TAKES ALL, with electorates....instead of proportionate electors given to the candidate, by the votes they received

Ross Perot as third party got 27 million votes, and not a single Electoral College vote....

The States can change this stranglehold on electors to go only to the two parties, but they won't, because the way they set it up, keeps 1 of the two parties, ALWAYS in office....in power.

More to the point, even if a third party does manage to get some electoral votes, all that does is throw the election into Congress, where the two parties will simply pick one of their own.

OH CRAP! That can happen too, if one candidate does not get enough electoral votes!!!

That set up, ALSO is in favor of the ''two parties''....!!!

 

[EverCurious]

I do not think it was by accident that that opponent for the 2nd term has been just a terrible candidate almost guaranteeing a win for the sitting president. It is almost like the two parties have some sort of an agreement to make that happen.

Look back at the opponents.

Bob Dole
John Kerry
Mitt Romney

It is hard to believe such terrible choices would keep showing up every 2nd term election

But they are only terrible because they lost.

Up until the Russians threw the election, everyone was bemoaning what a terrible candidate Trump was. And he was a terrible candidate. It was never about him, it was about the contempt the voters had for the system.

The thing is, Trump got less of a percentage of the vote than Romney did. (46 vs. 47) only slightly more than McCain (45) or Dole (43) and less than Kerry (49)

Now, i think there is some validity to when you have a two term president, you dim out all the other stars in your party, which is why after two terms of Obama, all you had was Hillary and after two terms of Bush all you had was McCain, and after two terms of Clinton all you had left was Gore, all of whom were "Terrible" candidates in that they lost. .

I don't think Trump will win a second term because he really didn't win a first one. All the idiots who voted for third parties because "Hillary was just as bad" won't make that mistake again. But who knows the Democrats might fuck it up.

My bigger worry is that the Bernie Bros and other far leftists might become the dominant force in the party, and if Trump remains as unpopular as he is, they could win.

No, they were terrible when the ran, they lost because they were terrible.

By the way, I am one of the "idiots" that voted 3rd party and will do so again next election. I am used to the two party slaves calling me that so it does not bother me at all.

Good for you man, keep voting third party if that's the candidate that best represents your beliefs. IF more of us followed such a belief we'd break the two party choke hold.

you can't break the two party system....it is set up in the States, so that you can't with the states legislating WINNER TAKES ALL, with electorates....instead of proportionate electors given to the candidate, by the votes they received

Ross Perot as third party got 27 million votes, and not a single Electoral College vote....

The States can change this stranglehold on electors that go only to the two parties, but they won't, because the way they set it up, keeps 1 of the two parties, ALWAYS in office....in power.

And if more folks vote third party, then that third party takes all - not the reason.

The real reason is that the R's and D's got together and made it about 10 times harder for a third party candidate; they require 3 times the signatures and 4 times the money [a fee] to even have a "legal right" to be on the ballot.

 

[JoeB131]

Kinda like what we have with Trump now.

Oh, I agree. The two parties are just looking for an excuse to get rid of trump.

 

[BULLDOG]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do, he will have been a more successful president than decades worth of sitting US Presidents. In fact, he does not even have to do anything. Doing nothing will have made him a better President than those before him. The bar has really been set that low.

Naturally, they are trying to remove him before it gets to that. Just imagine another Trump election. They can't just let that happen now can they?

Doing nothing is what he has done so far. The economy is just a continuation of programs already in place. What legislation did he signed in his first year?

Do you recall EO’s?

EOs are not legislation. I thought the right hated them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do, he will have been a more successful president than decades worth of sitting US Presidents. In fact, he does not even have to do anything. Doing nothing will have made him a better President than those before him. The bar has really been set that low.

Naturally, they are trying to remove him before it gets to that. Just imagine another Trump election. They can't just let that happen now can they?

Doing nothing is what he has done so far. The economy is just a continuation of programs already in place. What legislation did he signed in his first year?

Do you recall EO’s?

EOs are not legislation. I thought the right hated them.

Both side's partisan hacks hate them when the other side is doing them and think they are the best thing since sliced bread when their side does them.

 

[rightwinger]

I do not think it was by accident that that opponent for the 2nd term has been just a terrible candidate almost guaranteeing a win for the sitting president. It is almost like the two parties have some sort of an agreement to make that happen.

Look back at the opponents.

Bob Dole
John Kerry
Mitt Romney

It is hard to believe such terrible choices would keep showing up every 2nd term election

But they are only terrible because they lost.

Up until the Russians threw the election, everyone was bemoaning what a terrible candidate Trump was. And he was a terrible candidate. It was never about him, it was about the contempt the voters had for the system.

The thing is, Trump got less of a percentage of the vote than Romney did. (46 vs. 47) only slightly more than McCain (45) or Dole (43) and less than Kerry (49)

Now, i think there is some validity to when you have a two term president, you dim out all the other stars in your party, which is why after two terms of Obama, all you had was Hillary and after two terms of Bush all you had was McCain, and after two terms of Clinton all you had left was Gore, all of whom were "Terrible" candidates in that they lost. .

I don't think Trump will win a second term because he really didn't win a first one. All the idiots who voted for third parties because "Hillary was just as bad" won't make that mistake again. But who knows the Democrats might fuck it up.

My bigger worry is that the Bernie Bros and other far leftists might become the dominant force in the party, and if Trump remains as unpopular as he is, they could win.

No, they were terrible when the ran, they lost because they were terrible.

By the way, I am one of the "idiots" that voted 3rd party and will do so again next election. I am used to the two party slaves calling me that so it does not bother me at all.

Good for you man, keep voting third party if that's the candidate that best represents your beliefs. IF more of us followed such a belief we'd break the two party choke hold.

you can't break the two party system....it is set up in the States, so that you can't with the states legislating WINNER TAKES ALL, with electorates....instead of proportionate electors given to the candidate, by the votes they received

Ross Perot as third party got 27 million votes, and not a single Electoral College vote....

The States can change this stranglehold on electors that go only to the two parties, but they won't, because the way they set it up, keeps 1 of the two parties, ALWAYS in office....in power.

And if more folks vote third party, then that third party takes all - not the reason.

The real reason is that the R's and D's got together and made it about 10 times harder for a third party candidate; they require 3 times the signatures and 4 times the money [a fee] to even have a "legal right" to be on the ballot.

Third party candidates do not work
All they do is ensure the candidate least like your third party candidate will win

 

[Dragonlady]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do, he will have been a more successful president than decades worth of sitting US Presidents. In fact, he does not even have to do anything. Doing nothing will have made him a better President than those before him. The bar has really been set that low.

Naturally, they are trying to remove him before it gets to that. Just imagine another Trump election. They can't just let that happen now can they?

This idea you have here, the "oh low bar" idea, is already kinda bullshit, JS. He's already doing shit; removing regulations from businesses alone is HUGE and that's just the tip of the ice burg of what he's done already.

Trump is doing things to jump start the economy.

Right or wrong it seems to be working.

This is also key to him winning again and he knows it.

Conversely, with Obama you had a President with virtually no economic growth. No President in US history had such an abysmal economic record, and he even had two terms.

Obama had record growth in employment and the stock market more than doubled during his administration, despite Republican opposition for 6 of the 8 years he held office.

Obama’s economic record is better than Reagan.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

But they are only terrible because they lost.

Up until the Russians threw the election, everyone was bemoaning what a terrible candidate Trump was. And he was a terrible candidate. It was never about him, it was about the contempt the voters had for the system.

The thing is, Trump got less of a percentage of the vote than Romney did. (46 vs. 47) only slightly more than McCain (45) or Dole (43) and less than Kerry (49)

Now, i think there is some validity to when you have a two term president, you dim out all the other stars in your party, which is why after two terms of Obama, all you had was Hillary and after two terms of Bush all you had was McCain, and after two terms of Clinton all you had left was Gore, all of whom were "Terrible" candidates in that they lost. .

I don't think Trump will win a second term because he really didn't win a first one. All the idiots who voted for third parties because "Hillary was just as bad" won't make that mistake again. But who knows the Democrats might fuck it up.

My bigger worry is that the Bernie Bros and other far leftists might become the dominant force in the party, and if Trump remains as unpopular as he is, they could win.

No, they were terrible when the ran, they lost because they were terrible.

By the way, I am one of the "idiots" that voted 3rd party and will do so again next election. I am used to the two party slaves calling me that so it does not bother me at all.

Good for you man, keep voting third party if that's the candidate that best represents your beliefs. IF more of us followed such a belief we'd break the two party choke hold.

you can't break the two party system....it is set up in the States, so that you can't with the states legislating WINNER TAKES ALL, with electorates....instead of proportionate electors given to the candidate, by the votes they received

Ross Perot as third party got 27 million votes, and not a single Electoral College vote....

The States can change this stranglehold on electors to go only to the two parties, but they won't, because the way they set it up, keeps 1 of the two parties, ALWAYS in office....in power.

It is time to outlaw the two parties and arrest the leadership. If only....

It's a simple change, my state does it already....we give our electors that represent how many House of Representatives we have in the US Congress to the candidates based on how many popular votes they received, then on the two extra electors we also get for the Senators of our state, the two extra, that every state is given, Maine gives those Elector votes to the winner of the State election, overall....

But in the LEAST, in Maine, any third party candidate has a chance to get some Electoral votes.... with the way the other States but 1, the winner of the pop vote is given ALL OF THE ELECTORS, even electors they did not win with their popular vote, goes to just 1 candidate....

the States can change this....we need to get them to change this WINNER TAKES ALL Electors, within each State....then and only then, will a Third Party candidate, have a CHANCE at winning, and sadly... otherwise voting third party, will always be a wasted vote....

Using your system nationwide, Hillary would STILL have lost the election.

Whine and cry all you want. The system is not the problem. Hillary was!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do, he will have been a more successful president than decades worth of sitting US Presidents. In fact, he does not even have to do anything. Doing nothing will have made him a better President than those before him. The bar has really been set that low.

Naturally, they are trying to remove him before it gets to that. Just imagine another Trump election. They can't just let that happen now can they?

The problem with your statement is it assumes Trump seeks peace, which may not be the case. If he doesn't appease the militarists that control and inhabit both parties (all owned by the Military Industrial Complex), he might get his head blown off in broad daylight.

Nothing unites the two criminal parties more, than war...at least for a time. Just long enough to grow the power and wealth of government.

War is ALWAYS the health of the State.

Enjoy your visit from the Secret Service.

Somehow they forgot to visit Lee Harvey, so I am not worried.

He's dead. You sure you want to go there?

I don't think you comprehend, which I suspect occurs with regularity.

I am the one demanding peace at all costs, while statists like you are fine with war. War is always the health of the state. JFK was a peacemaker and for this, he was murdered. Trump fears the MIC just as all presidents have since JFK. He is likely to do their bidding just like all the others.

Peace at all costs? You are such a conspiracy nut and a spineless wimp to boot!

 

[Votto]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do,

Just for fun, Votto......

Under Obama, the unemployment rate was lowered from 10% to 4.8%

Further, on Obama's last full day in office, the stock market witnessed an increase of 181 percent.

Obama is the first President in US history never to have the GDP get above 3%. Think about that for a minute, even though he got to serve 8 years.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do, he will have been a more successful president than decades worth of sitting US Presidents. In fact, he does not even have to do anything. Doing nothing will have made him a better President than those before him. The bar has really been set that low.

Naturally, they are trying to remove him before it gets to that. Just imagine another Trump election. They can't just let that happen now can they?

This idea you have here, the "oh low bar" idea, is already kinda bullshit, JS. He's already doing shit; removing regulations from businesses alone is HUGE and that's just the tip of the ice burg of what he's done already.

Trump is doing things to jump start the economy.

Right or wrong it seems to be working.

This is also key to him winning again and he knows it.

Conversely, with Obama you had a President with virtually no economic growth. No President in US history had such an abysmal economic record, and he even had two terms.

Obama had record growth in employment and the stock market more than doubled during his administration, despite Republican opposition for 6 of the 8 years he held office.

Obama’s economic record is better than Reagan.

Why don't you give up?

Every post you make has a bald-faced lie in it. The only thing it accomplishes is publicly display your ignorance.

 

[Votto]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do, he will have been a more successful president than decades worth of sitting US Presidents. In fact, he does not even have to do anything. Doing nothing will have made him a better President than those before him. The bar has really been set that low.

Naturally, they are trying to remove him before it gets to that. Just imagine another Trump election. They can't just let that happen now can they?

Given the strong economy. low unemployment, cheap gas, no wars....Trump should be immensely popular

But he struggles at 37% approval. That is because regardless of the state of the economy, Trump is still an asshole

Yes, and Hillary still leads in the polls.

Thanks for that.

 

[Votto]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do, he will have been a more successful president than decades worth of sitting US Presidents. In fact, he does not even have to do anything. Doing nothing will have made him a better President than those before him. The bar has really been set that low.

Naturally, they are trying to remove him before it gets to that. Just imagine another Trump election. They can't just let that happen now can they?

Doing nothing is what he has done so far. The economy is just a continuation of programs already in place. What legislation did he signed in his first year?

Do you recall EO’s?

EOs are not legislation. I thought the right hated them.

EO's are only bad when Trump signs them. like his immigration EO that restricted travel from certain Islamic countries, something Obama also did and no one said anything about it.

Funny how that happens.

 

[August West]

IF Trump is able to avoid war, unlike his predecessors before him, and he is able to revitalize the economy, which his predecessors have been unable to do, he will have been a more successful president than decades worth of sitting US Presidents. In fact, he does not even have to do anything. Doing nothing will have made him a better President than those before him. The bar has really been set that low.

Naturally, they are trying to remove him before it gets to that. Just imagine another Trump election. They can't just let that happen now can they?

This idea you have here, the "oh low bar" idea, is already kinda bullshit, JS. He's already doing shit; removing regulations from businesses alone is HUGE and that's just the tip of the ice burg of what he's done already.

Trump is doing things to jump start the economy.

Right or wrong it seems to be working.

This is also key to him winning again and he knows it.

Conversely, with Obama you had a President with virtually no economic growth. No President in US history had such an abysmal economic record, and he even had two terms.

The economy was doing well when Trump was "elected". His tweeting and golfing have not done a thing for the economy.