2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe scales have been lifted from my eyes.
Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:25 PM - Edit history (2)
I had an online political discussion this morning with a friend, an intelligent and thoughtful woman with extensive firsthand knowledge about the workings of Washington. Not surprisingly, the discussion was about the two presumptive Presidential nominees. I lamented to her the following:
"This time around, I wish I was voting FOR someone rather than AGAINST Donald Trump."
I pondered this for most of the day, chewed on it like a hungry puppy with a Nylabone. Then, as if by divine grace, I had an epiphany. I knew what to do.
This fall, I am going to vote for Vice President.
I'm quite serious. It is very likely that neither of the presumptive nominees will still be President by 2020.
Hillary is already under investigation by the FBI about the private email server. These lads don't give out slaps on the wrist. There's also the possibility of an investigation of money-changing at the Clinton Foundation. Even if nothing comes of these investigations, it will divert a ginormous amount of her time and energy. In addition, she made an assload of money giving speeches to Goldman Sachs and other investment firms - who don't typically give out assloads of money without expecting a ROI - and has stubbornly refused to release the transcripts of these speeches, which has not played well with the Democratic branch of the Democratic Party. Plus, and maybe most importantly, House Republicans have ALREADY began drawing up articles of impeachment for Hillary, and they don't exactly dilly-dally. She will have an enormously difficult time getting through the term, and anyone who does not recognize this is either naive or willfully deceived.
Trump? Judas Priest on a popsicle stick, he's given us at least 20 good reasons to impeach his sorry ass already. And the pressure to impeach won't be coming just from the Dems -- there are plenty of Reeps who will be eager to see him go down as well. It's questionable whether his candidacy will survive the GOP convention. Plus he's under investigation too, about Trump University, and he hasn't exactly helped his cause by openly insulting federal judges. Plus he refuses to release his tax returns, and it's not hard to figure out why. And just as importantly, Trump may very well get overwhelmed and/or bored - and decide to bail. He has the attention span of a goldfish. Though it's dangerous to underestimate the carnival barker, the odds are good he also may not see 2020 in the White House.
So where does that leave us? Vice Presidential candidates. I'll lay you odds-on that Hillary's Veep will be in the Oval Office in 2020, 8 to 5 for Trump's Veep. The party who puts up the better Vice Presidential candidate will get my vote in November. And as a life long yellow dog Dem, it pains me to realize it may mean a vote for the dark side.
So there you have it. A simple, airtight, and elegant solution. I won't be voting AGAINST Trump - I'll be voting FOR the best Veep.
Feels good. I will sleep well tonight.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)making an argument for voting, despite being faced with a shit sandwich, and a shit sandwich with extra shit.
yourout
(7,527 posts)kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)with making a decision. I applaud you because it makes sense to me. Ignore all the people who are eating sour grapes.
bvf
(6,604 posts)While I rec'd it, I don't recall saying I intended to follow suit.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Especially when it is true. And it is certainly not as bad as the post right below. Though those posts have always been tolerated too.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)everyone's thoughts and their thought processes? We all make decisions based on our own experiences and the information we have taken in. In addition, people have their basic temperaments and identities. For instance, some people here identify as a "Democrat," do or die. Some identify as a "Sanders supporter," do or die and will write his name in. We have people who a "risk takers" and others who are "risk adverse."
Age has something to do with it. If you are younger, you will be more likely to take risks. If you are older and have lived through and witnessed things such Nixon, Reagan, the losses of McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis, you are going to be less of a risk taker. We all have our own thought processes.
emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)That's a fucked up response.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)metroins
(2,550 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I'm pretty sure expressing indifference as in "wtf ever" is not considered bullying.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Are you aware that in the format with which we communicate here, indifference can be adequately expressed by nonparticipation?
If you instead take the time to sit down and belittle another person - "what the fuck ever" - then you're not being indifferent. You're actively engaging, and doing so in a hostile, bullying way.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to risk exposure to the Internet.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)There's a thread talking about children bullying Latino students with the line, "You were born in a taco bell." That's a pretty fucking ridiculous insult, even for children. But that's not the point. it's the fact that the assholes using the line feel so entitled to be such assholes to other people.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)on DEMOCRATIC underground, while also throwing in a perfunctory "Hillary for Prison 2016" line of commentary.
That's called trolling. People who troll invite unfriendly commentary.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And now we've transitioned from "expressing indifference' to "unfriendly commentary."
How 'bout that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in 6-7 days. This person deserves much harsher responses quite frankly.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Frankly I'd rather have somewhat ignorant posters, than vituperative, hate-filled rageaholic posters.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)All earned through being as innocent as a baby deer in a meadow, I'm sure.
Honestly hadn't noticed your Big Yellow Button. I'm just broadly annoyed that people who have proven an inability to speak to others with any modicum of civility are more welcome here than people who say something politically ignorant.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Bullying for righteousness.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)lancer78
(1,495 posts)others to vote for the republican nominee or their running mate. Therefore not a TOS violation.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)could come up with in less than two minutes. It's a tactic dreamed up in their so-called "think tank".
villager
(26,001 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)So much wrong with these sorts of posts.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)ashtonelijah
(340 posts)So long as you vote for our nominee, I don't really care. Not even enough to refute that silly theory.
mac56
(17,566 posts)I make no assumptions at this point. The better VP gets my vote.
PJMcK
(22,035 posts)mac56
(17,566 posts)Don't tase me, bro.
PJMcK
(22,035 posts)I'm asking a legitimate question. You're OP implies that you'll consider voting for the Republican ticket if you like their VP better than the Democrats'. If I've misunderstood you, forgive me but enlighten me.
mac56
(17,566 posts)It will be the first time in nearly 42 years, but I'm going to cast my vote FOR someone this time around.
niyad
(113,279 posts)realllllly?
mac56
(17,566 posts)realllllly?
niyad
(113,279 posts)And starting next Wednesday they will be.
Wish I could rec again, just for this little preview.
All in it together
(275 posts)Or not.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)DU. There is much to be done and supporters of Bernie's ideas will be busy sharing them on sites that work for progressive ideas.
mac56
(17,566 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)Response to Live and Learn (Reply #62)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Response to Live and Learn (Reply #130)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And we are many more than you are aware.
"Doofuses like Hartmann and Malloy" "Comrade Sarandon?" Hmmm. Tells me all I need to know.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)not saying the OP is a troll because that would be wrong but there are still plenty on here
mac56
(17,566 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)If the leave (and they will) and Bernie supporters leave, this place will be a pretty darn empty echo chamber.
mac56
(17,566 posts)"Live and Learn--- Learn--- Learn----"
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)jzodda
(2,124 posts)You say you are a Democrat for a long time. It goes without saying that HRC will nominate somebody much more progressive than the Republican.
Trump is already considered a RINO on most core conservative issues so he HAS to go to the right for his VP.
Also who in the Republican party do you respect so much that you would support?
mac56
(17,566 posts)Not a bit. I hope Clinton truly picks someone you can get excited about.
brush
(53,774 posts)You're kidding, right?
mac56
(17,566 posts)Is that hard to understand?
brush
(53,774 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:43 PM - Edit history (1)
mac56
(17,566 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)There are two candidates now.
One is "I'm Not Donald Trump."
The other is "I'm Not Hillary Clinton."
Neither are running "vote for me because I'm awesome" campaigns. They're both doing "Vote against that other suck-fish" campaigns. It's really rather disheartening that we've reached the point where our best option is someone who define themselves by not being someone else.
mac56
(17,566 posts)brush
(53,774 posts)mac56
(17,566 posts)I am (possibly) proactively casting a vote for his successor.
Easy, huh?
brush
(53,774 posts)mac56
(17,566 posts)No matter whether Hillary or Trump wins in November, there is a very good chance that whichever one wins the election will not still be in office by 2020. And if that person is still in office by then, he or she will be so tied up in procedural knots that nothing substantial will be accomplished. It will make the GOP's obstruction of President Obama look like patty-cake.
So. Rather than vote "against Trump" or "against Hillary," I have chosen to proactively vote FOR the Vice Presidential candidate that best matches my values, seeing as how that person has a pretty good chance of becoming President anyway. Whichever ticket he or she happens to be on.
With me so far? Anything else I can clear up for you?
brush
(53,774 posts)Even if it's a vp repug.
Gotcha!
mac56
(17,566 posts)Must have skipped that day in civics class.
brush
(53,774 posts)mac56
(17,566 posts)Keep on trying! Good for you!
brush
(53,774 posts)Learn to write clearly and with economy though.
Might help you to know better than to vote for a repug.
mac56
(17,566 posts)Miss Jensen, my grade ten English teacher!
Gosh, it's been so long. I think I still owe you 500 words on "How I Spent My Summer Vacation."
lancer78
(1,495 posts)He is done voting for "lesser of two evils". I easily see where he is coming from, as voting for "the lesser of two evils" is basically that person throwing away his freedom to vote FOR someone.
brush
(53,774 posts)In his OP he was debating as to which vp candidate to vote for, the Democratic candidate or the repug.
Which to me means, he/she doesn't know whether to vote for Clinton or Trump, which seems ridiculous.
There are other choices. Write-in, vote Green, stay home even (none of which are optimal), but to come on a progressive site whose raison d'etre is to get Dems elected and state that you don't know whether to vote for the Democrat or the repug, that is just . . . well . . . privileged navel gazing IMO.
mac56
(17,566 posts)I suppose I should be flattered.
brush
(53,774 posts)mac56
(17,566 posts)Am I today's assignment?
Go peddle your papers, junior.
brush
(53,774 posts)If you still persist with not knowing whether to vote for a Dem or a repug on a site dedicated to getting Dems elected, what do you expect?
mac56
(17,566 posts)Perhaps that's asking too much.
brush
(53,774 posts)a site dedicated to getting Dems elected?
mac56
(17,566 posts)Sorry, I'm spoken for.
brush
(53,774 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)So, a longer explanation was given. After which you were suddenly nostalgic for brevity.
Just for the record:
I'm not endorsing the OP's theory, just objecting to your blaming them for your lack of understanding.
brush
(53,774 posts)By my assessment, he WILL be out of the White House by 2020.
Considering that this was in response to your statement that "Keeping Trump out of the White House is the overriding point," surely nothing confusing there.
Well, we're not talking 2020, it's 2016 for God's sake. Did you both miss 4 years? What's with the leap-frogging of this upcoming election?
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)Your response, "Huh? Clarity in language is good," strongly suggests you didn't understand what mac56 was saying rather than that you disagreed.
Mac's response to you saying, "Keeping Trump out of the White House is the overriding point", was, "Don't worry he won't be there for long." It just seems a more logical answer from you would have been something along the lines of, "Any length of time is too long to have Trump as president!"
Just in terms of logical discussion, which seems to be frequently lacking here, that would have been more productive than saying the person wasn't clear.
But then, "Huh? Clarity in language is good," wasn't particularly clear in itself, so maybe I misinterpreted what you meant.
Seems to be a lot of that going around. Nothing personal, I just happened to be in a replying mood when I read and responded to your post.
I've just been lately really noticing that "discussions" on DU could really benefit from all of us trying to express ourselves more clearly and reading more carefully what others write. And that includes being willing to read a bit more than might be easy before jumping to TLDR.
Have a lovely weekend.
brush
(53,774 posts)then suddenly he's talking about 2020, skipping 4 years and skipping who he was to vote for in 2016.
I don't call that particularly clear.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)you're wrong. He was referring quite unambiguously to the 2016 election, espousing his theory that either presidential candidate we elect will probably not last until 2020. Therefore, the veep would become the president before 2020.
So, his vote in 2016 will be for the presidential candidate whose running mate he likes best.
He said it quite clearly initially in the OP,
and again at least twice in replies.
You made your points: a)don't vote for an R (and especially don't say so here) and b) any amount of time this country has President Trump is far too long.
I'm with you 100% on those points.
However, if you thought he was unclear, that's not his fault.
brush
(53,774 posts)Yeah, right. That makes it abundantly clear that either party's presidential pick, if successful, won't last through 2020.
Hah!
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)Neither mac nor I claimed that that first statement proves the second.
Good grief, either you really do have astoundingly poor reading comprehension skills, or you are a person so insecure that you would rather die than admit you're wrong.
Either way, I'm done with you. Enjoy stumbling though life in the dark.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)Then, when you elaborate because they failed to comprehend clear English, they get snarky about "brevity." Wow. Ignorance with arrogance.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)This election is pure burning evidence how fucked up the 2 party system has become.
When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it. . . [T]he preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
?Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)And the entire campaign is going to consist of a lot of depressing back and forth about whether or not Bill's escapades should be discussed, or Donald's bankruptcies, or whether Hillary should lose a few pounds, and so on.
Almost nothing of substance will be discussed. I'm depressed already.
Raastan
(266 posts)As the POTUS said earlier today, she is the most qualified for the office than anyone in a generation.
mac56
(17,566 posts)I don't think I'll start now.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)Someone with as bad of judgement as her (IWR, E-mail issue) is someone I don't want in charge of our military.
She could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives if she had been a true leader during the IWR debate. Chafee(R, Rhode Island, who switched to the democratic party a few years later) was going to vote against the IWR, and with all of the Dems, with HRC at their head being a leader, then the Iraq war would have never have happened.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)to make your thingie there light up and excite you.
Happy to help.
sandyshoes17
(657 posts)They give us a bad candidate. Then put this big bogey man up. And ooh we're supposed to be so scared into voting for the status quo again! Either way the establish wins again. Not again, not anymore, not this time
mac56
(17,566 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)when they had a good candidate with plenty of support. They got what they wanted. Status Quo.
And we lose.
mac56
(17,566 posts)I want to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone else.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)you made a good argument for why.
handmade34
(22,756 posts)Sanders has received a little over 12 million votes so far
Clinton has received almost 16 million votes so far
we are all in this together...
840high
(17,196 posts)Cosmocat
(14,564 posts)The powers to be walked into every voting booth in the country and voted for everyone?
People get REAL confused about this stuff.
Yeah, the monied tip the scale every way possible.
But, end of the people walk into voting booths and vote for who they want to vote for.
There is NO "establishment" republican who wanted Donald Trump to be the nominee of that party.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)$ is on just another manipulative game.
mac56
(17,566 posts)This is the solution that works for me.
raging moderate
(4,304 posts)The veep sometimes does become the president. Or the acting president temporarily. And the veep pick does tell us a lot about a presidential candidate's judgement and confidence and ability to think about possible future scenarios. Remember Bush jr's pick? Or, for that matter, Bush sr's pick? And, for that matter, even our candidates have made some less than stellar choices. Since Hillary apparently is going to win the nomination, I hope she will choose somebody strong enough and wise enough to handle the presidency if necessary.
mac56
(17,566 posts)Thank you.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)stronger than she is. That's one huge ego there. In fact, I'd lay money that her intent is just the opposite. A kind of insurance.
Agree with OP. The impeachment filing is probably a done deal...just awaiting the right time. This is Mecca to the Republicans.
Trump? Meh. He's never going to get near the White House. The re-invigorated Tea Party will tank again. I think he did it as a lark...bored and rich...and has been as surprised as anyone else about his success. He's doing everything he can to be unpopular and back out...seems. Now that's a sad statement about an American Party.
Neither one of them are very well liked...unfavorability ratings. That says more than anything about our political system.
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)of utter nonsense.
mac56
(17,566 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)OPs of this primary season. So many to choose from.
mac56
(17,566 posts)... I'd first like to thank my dear friend sufrommich for nominating me."
NJCher
(35,661 posts)Please 'splain.
Cher
mac56
(17,566 posts)are annoyed when you decide to vote FOR someone rather than AGAINST someone else.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)much as you how you've rationalized voting for Hillary, which you will be doing if you vote for the democrat in November.
mac56
(17,566 posts)Perhaps reading comprehension is a problem?
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)time. I said you will be voting for Hillary IF YOU VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE IN NOVEMBER. Does that help you to comprehend? Maybe you need glasses?
mac56
(17,566 posts)Parse that any way you choose.
Stallion
(6,474 posts)think again
mac56
(17,566 posts)Sorry, I've decided you're wrong.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)it's pretty clear that not being a full-blown, puckered-up Clinton acolyte is unacceptable.
mac56
(17,566 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)I am sol.
mac56
(17,566 posts)Who knows, I still might.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)mac56
(17,566 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)I get voting for the Green party or some other left wing party. You shouldn't advocate for it here of course. But honestly unless Clinton unburied Bull Connor to be her vp, I think it's mind-boggling that somebody claiming to be a Sanders supporter would think that voting for a ticket that includes Trump is a good plan.
mac56
(17,566 posts)The adjacent name on the ticket is a minor consideration at best.
Certainly you agree that people should vote FOR a candidate rather than AGAINST one?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)P.S. I'm sure Trump will nominate a real winner for VP. His choices include Christ Christie, Ben Carson, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and. .. . well that's about it.
brooklynite
(94,519 posts)Stallion
(6,474 posts)nm
LonePirate
(13,418 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)How about $100 to the charity of the winners choice?
840high
(17,196 posts)some more thought later. Thank you.
mac56
(17,566 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)These convoluted, crazy rationales for not voting for the Democratic nominee, reminds me of my kids excuses for not eating peas.
NJCher
(35,661 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)
I don't understand why anyone would think this post is outlandish. As I read it, I said "this guy has a lot of common sense."
Who among us would debate that at some point, HRC's going to come up against the legal system? You would almost be crazy to think she wouldn't.
An old friend of mine, a legal aficionado, used to assuage my impatience by reminding me of what Euripedes said:
Mills of the Gods,
Grind exceedingly slow,
But grind exceedingly fine..
Remember this: as corrupt as our politicians may be, we have a system. That system has been in effect for hundreds of years. The people who run that system are not politicians, they are bureaucrats. The politicians will always seek to sway things their way, but the bureaucrats are not there for just four or eight years. They are there for a career lifetime, and it is their will that will grind exceedingly fine. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe years from now, but the truth about what HRC did will come out.
The poster goes straight to the point: neither one of these candidates, if they even make it through the primaries, is going to last. It is consummately logical to vote for the VP.
Cher
mac56
(17,566 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)I obviously am not a HRC supporter, but a long-time Democrat. I need to be convinced she is honest...well, sort of anyway. And I'm going to be pissed it they drag this out forever.
I personally think she's screwed the pooch...hubris overload...Clinton Shuffle, etc. If she's found not guilty, I'll vote for her. She pulled it off. If she has not yet been proven to be innocent...i.e. the investigation Still not complete, that can't be good, but I'll decide the day before the GE. That's the best I can do.
mac56
(17,566 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Very clever thinking; it is an interesting way of looking at who to vote for.
mac56
(17,566 posts)People make their decision based on many different criteria. This is mine and I'm sticking with it.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I'm in the hold-your-nose-and-vote-against-Trump school myself, but I understand where you're coming from.
The part I don't understand is that you seem open to the possibility that the VP vs. VP choice will be a close call. I just can't imagine Trump picking a running mate who'd be better than the VP candidate on the Democratic ticket, let alone one whom I'd be happy to vote for. Take a very broad view of Trump's possibilities -- his defeated rivals (16 horrorshows right there), all current Republican elected officials at the Governor-Senator-Congressmember level, and anyone else who's been mentioned, such as Newt Gingrich -- and they're all terrible.
The only idea that occurred to me was that Trump, feeling desperate, might pick Ron Reagan, Jr., aiming at the low-information voters who got confused between him and his father. I'd rather see Ron Reagan, Jr. as President than, say, Max Baucus (a conservaDem who's been mentioned on DU as a possible VP candidate). The trouble is that even Trump, wild as he is, is extremely unlikely to be so wild as to pick Reagan.
Do you have anyone in mind who might conceivably induce you to vote for the GOP ticket? I'm curious about what running mate(s) might help Trump win over undecided.
chillfactor
(7,575 posts)and posts like this will be tossed
mac56
(17,566 posts)"Gonna get along without you now."
Logical
(22,457 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)That is the purpose of the VP slot, ya know, getting you to vote for someone you don't care for, and then being relegated to dinners and funerals.
I am not playing that game. And that "logic" doesn't work.
mac56
(17,566 posts)Honestly, I don't understand the opposition to finding someone I can vote FOR instead of needing to vote AGAINST someone else.
I guess a refusal to join the cult of personality doesn't play well 'round these parts.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Oh, well - I was never one for cults. And never will be.
betsuni
(25,476 posts)the scales have fallen from your eyes, not that they've been lifted. Had to Google to remember that it's a Biblical reference. Saul. So there you have it. That's why it bugged me. Feels good. I will sleep well tonight.
brush
(53,774 posts)mac56
(17,566 posts)Good catch.
treestar
(82,383 posts)People who say that make me SMH. The world is the way it is. Republicans exist. We have to vote AGAINST them. Otherwise they win. It's self preservation. There's simply no choice. It's nice if you can really like the Democrat running. But that's a luxury. There are people out there who are also able to vote who want to roll back progress.
This lament is very nonsensical. It's putting feelings ahead of common sense.
mac56
(17,566 posts)I prefer to be FOR someone than constantly playing defense. But that's just me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)common sense - the Republicans will vote - you have to vote against them unless you don't care about them getting what they want.
mac56
(17,566 posts)Maybe their campaign logos should read "NOT TRUMP" and "NOT HILLARY."
treestar
(82,383 posts)Don't want to vote against him?
mac56
(17,566 posts)I'm willing to accept the consequences of my vote.
If this is the best that the Democratic Party can do, they'll have consequences to accept as well.
How about you? Are you willing to accept the consequences of your vote?
emulatorloo
(44,120 posts)mac56
(17,566 posts)eppur_se_muova
(36,261 posts)Don't like the thought that Trump could get the football ? Don't think about it ! Problem solved !
mac56
(17,566 posts)I refuse to make this election about voting AGAINST someone. If the Democratic Party won't give me a Presidential candidate to vote FOR, I'll find someone that I can support. You do what you want.
redStateBlueHeart
(265 posts)mac56
(17,566 posts)I wish I had higher expectations for the top of the ticket, but I just and simply don't.
kevinmc
(3,001 posts)mac56
(17,566 posts)nruthie
(466 posts)I will take that advice. Thanks!
SCantiGOP
(13,869 posts)Have at it.
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)no matter how much I dislike the candidate put in place by the DNC establishment.
I'm watching to see who gets the VP nod, though.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Cynical, but then that is today's climate. I am cynical too, after all the election shenanigans by Debbie and her DINO-saurs.