How would you choose a President?

[Albion]

The issue was the following:

I'm actually an Independent leaning toward Republican, well, maybe just at the moment, because neither party actually cares about low paid white males in manual work

Apparently you want to talk about something else.

 

[Speedwell]

The issue was the following:


Apparently you want to talk about something else.

I was just responding to what I saw as your insinuation that one party actually does care more than the other. But I don't see why either party should care only about a subset of low-paid manual workers just because they are white.

 

[Ringo84]

Item one: I would choose a president that is not a sociopath who puts migrant children in concentration camps. While I'm not a single issue voter, that should be top on everyone's list come 2020 (especially those who claim to be disciples of Christ).

I would also want someone with the capacity to understand and respect the gravity and dignity of the highest office in the land. This person would not place their alternatively-intelligenced children/son-in-laws in nepotistic positions within their administration, wouldn't tweet like a deranged middle schooler, etc. They'd have the humility to act like a president, and not a child.

Finally, a person needs to be willing to help ALL Americans - not simply white, Christian ones in so-called "flyover states". I'd want a fighter who was willing to stand toe to toe with vested corporate interests to enact M4A. I'd want a fighter who was willing to enact things like reversing the 2017 billionaire tax cuts so that the 99% received all the cuts, benefits and breaks and billionaires received nothing.
Ringo

 

[Albion]

I was just responding to what I saw as your insinuation that one party actually does care more than the other. But I don't see why either party should care only about a subset of low-paid manual workers just because they are white.

OK, well, because that wasn't something that I insinuated, and it wasn't even what I had replied to (I already gave that quote to you), you may have to open a new thread to explore your own theory.

 

[cow451]

What is your second test?

The American people have a right to know if their President is a witch or warlock.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, well, because that wasn't something that I insinuated, and it wasn't even what I had replied to (I already gave that quote to you), you may have to open a new thread to explore your own theory.

Then whatever did you mean by it?

I just love it when the excuse comes back, "One party did a little of it but the other does it in spades, so there's no diff." We get that all the time around here.

 

[cow451]

My criteria includes:
1. No lying, cheating, stealing, treasonous grifters.
2. No one currently eligible for full retirement as defined by Social Security.
3. No one born in Alabama or who has ever held public office in Alabama.
3. I prefer the next President be a moderate.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The issue was the following:
Apparently you want to talk about something else.

I should have explained that is part of the picture.

Here in New Mexico I'm in the 28% who are the white majority. The 48% Hispanics being a minority therefore have priority for employment of course. The women are also a minority and veterans also have priority. So the 7% I belong to of white male non veterans is the slice that has to be discriminated against, because Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and a zillion billionaires belong to it so I have to take the hit for looking about the same.

I wouldn't choose a President whose stated policy includes more discrimination against me.

 

[Albion]

So your concern WAS race-based? I took your post to be about blue-collar American workers being disadvantaged by the tidal wave of illegal immigrants coming into the country. That problem would be the same if these people came from Ireland rather than Guatemala.

 

[MorkandMindy]

It's about discrimination and it's about quotas. Somehow I've ended up on the wrong side of everything. In a few minutes I'll get back to my day's work which is training for a job which has hardly any competition.

 

[Speedwell]

It's about discrimination and it's about quotas. Somehow I've ended up on the wrong side of everything. In a few minutes I'll get back to my day's work which is training for a job which has hardly any competition.

Apparently the justification (if you really care and which I don't think is really altogether true anyway) is that as a "privileged" white male that training is, or historically has been, more accessible to you than it is to women or to minorities. The vets, in my opinion, deserve their advantage.

 

[Albion]

It's about discrimination and it's about quotas. Somehow I've ended up on the wrong side of everything. In a few minutes I'll get back to my day's work which is training for a job which has hardly any competition.

I understand now. I simply thought that your issue was a little different when I read the first post.

 

[MorkandMindy]

It's based on averages, that I'm an average white male. Both my parents were stupid, one verging on retarded the other about average but with big personality problems.

I recall applying for a position I was perfectly qualified for and being told that an engineer from India had applied and as they had no engineers from India he would get the job.

I should explain neither of us had an engineering degree, I have an associates but an excellent track record including with that company and the other candidate knew nothing about engineering and the consensus was he had bought his degree, but he didn't speak much English and had an Indian passport so the job was his. And after 5 years in the job he has still achieved nothing and his English is still nearly incomprehensible but that's not his fault, nor that he seems to have no interest in the job.

That is just one of many examples, usually I've lost out to women who knew nothing about the job and didn't seem interested in it, but they are women and have suffered discrimination for over 100,000 years, since our species came into existence, so they deserve all the help they can get.

 

[PeachyKeane]

How much does he hate liberals?

 

[Magillacuddy]

Balance between progress and stability is good.

Congress is content with the status quo, for example the Medical Care Organizations that are making a fortune sitting in the middle creaming off 15% from the cost of medical care as they pass the bills on to the government, they are making a fortune and pay enough of the election campaigns of Congressmen and women to keep them from allowing a President of either party to fix the system. B Obama knew exactly what needed to be done but couldn't do it. D Trump also knew exactly what needed to be done but again Congress also blocked him.

That's stability and there is way too much of it. Any suggestions on how to get change through Congress if it reduces the income they are getting is of course welcome.


I'm guessing that on the really big issues Congresspeople will vote their own pocketbooks so the choice of President is very important.


(I'm feeling a bit despondent so I'd love to hear I'm wrong about Congress)

The first thing I do is count the freebies.

So far I am getting free health care, free education, free money, free food and freely open borders. I even gots me a free job from the government.

Those are all nice, but I'm holding out for free tea and crumpets. Or I will declare I am a Native British xi-sexual, and see who can pander the fastest. I'm thinking maybe Bernie, he is blind to rationality.

 

[Fantine]

Small states are already overrepresented on the Senate. Presidents should be elected on the basis of one person, one vote.

I am glad some states have freely voted to award all their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Balance between progress and stability is good.

Congress is content with the status quo, for example the Medical Care Organizations that are making a fortune sitting in the middle creaming off 15% from the cost of medical care as they pass the bills on to the government, they are making a fortune and pay enough of the election campaigns of Congressmen and women to keep them from allowing a President of either party to fix the system. B Obama knew exactly what needed to be done but couldn't do it. D Trump also knew exactly what needed to be done but again Congress also blocked him.

That's stability and there is way too much of it. Any suggestions on how to get change through Congress if it reduces the income they are getting is of course welcome.


I'm guessing that on the really big issues Congresspeople will vote their own pocketbooks so the choice of President is very important.


(I'm feeling a bit despondent so I'd love to hear I'm wrong about Congress)

How would I choose a President? If they have an "R" in front of their name.
Note: This is a joke.

 

[Magillacuddy]

Small states are already overrepresented on the Senate. Presidents should be elected on the basis of one person, one vote.

I am glad some states have freely voted to award all their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.

Do you think your idea is better than what the founders put into our constitution?

I kinda go with what they thought automatically, certainly above the modern liberal call for change.

 

[Fantine]

Do you think your idea is better than what the founders put into our constitution?

I kinda go with what they thought automatically, certainly above the modern liberal call for change.

The Constitution has been changed many times, by amendment and by activist judges. For example, the second amendment was seen very narrowly by every single Supreme Court until the 1980's, when the NRA began wielding its financial clout, endowing chairs at law schools all over the country to build their own cadre of judicial hit men--supporting assault weapons and making our country as violent as third world nations.

Right now states are making their own decisions about how to use their electoral college votes. Because some see the nightmare of what the past two presidents who have lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote have done to our country (Bush 43 and especially Trump) they have decided that "the people" are way, way smarter than "the electors." The Constitution doesn't take away states' power to remedy their flaws in changing times.

 

[Albion]

Right now states are making their own decisions about how to use their electoral college votes. Because some see the nightmare of what the past two presidents who have lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote have done to our country (Bush 43 and especially Trump) they have decided that "the people" are way, way smarter than "the electors." The Constitution doesn't take away states' power to remedy their flaws in changing times.

Amending the Constitution to change the way the Electoral College operates--or even to replace it altogether--is certainly authorized, even if it is not a good idea.

But the schemes that are currently underway, particularly the national popular vote initiative, circumvent the Constitution and most likely are unconstitutional.