Elections Who Should Run Against Trump in 2020?

Who should run against Trump

  • Total voters
    133
  • Poll closed .
Hillary needs to do her seizure "impression" again.

JIfuDRr.gif
 
Where is the poll option for Trump won't run in 2020? I think 5 months in he's already getting sick of this job.
 
KONG-D'SNT-TAP said:
Perhaps you understand that now after the fact
Click to expand...
What I don't understand is He won, without cheating yet you fucks still can't accept that someone like Trump can win the election. It's partly the Dems fault that all they can come up with against Trump was Hilary.
 
*Z* said:
Where is the poll option for Trump won't run in 2020? I think 5 months in he's already getting sick of this job.
Click to expand...

That's not really relevant to the thread despite the wording of the question.
 
*Z* said:
Where is the poll option for Trump won't run in 2020? I think 5 months in he's already getting sick of this job.
Click to expand...


Not to mention he's old and most likely won't survive long enough to run. Seriously, there needs to be a damn age limit on the POTUS
 
Jack V Savage said:
"Going to Syria" on its own is not unethical. Did you check out the whole story?
Click to expand...
Yes, all it says is she wouldn't say who paid for the trip.


No, she's nothing though. Why was she even invited? The point was to wine and dine her and persuade her, and she does indeed appear to be compromised.
Click to expand...

Why on earth would she want to be wined and dined in war-torn Syria of all places. It's not like she is opposed to US action against Assad because he wined and dined her. You make it sound like she went there because being wined and dined in Syria is luxury people just can't pass up.


So why would you like her? She isn't principled or honest, and she is very self-serving (witness her rise in politics and the Syria trip or her lies about her past positions).
Click to expand...
She is principled, vastly more than Hillary. If she was self-serving, she would have backed Hillary, instead she went for the underdog Sanders. If she was unethical and self-serving she would have kept her job as Vice-Chair and rose through the Dem ranks, instead she sacrificed Dem darling status to stand-up for what she believes in.



Oh, that's silly.
Click to expand...
There is nothing silly about. Some Dems , like Hillary , back hawkish US interventionist stances. Hillary backed the Iraq war, backed the ouster of Ghaddafi and pushed for the ouster of Assad. Madelline Albright and Hillary are good chums. Albright is pure evil, on par with the worst monsters in history. Anyone who is close friends with Albright and supports interventionsim like Albright is very bad for people anywhere.



It's insane to compare her to Clinton, but, sure, I'd agree that there are likely other politicians who are even less ethical than she is.
Click to expand...
We are talking about possible Dem candidates , so why wouldn't Gabbard be compared to Hillary.



No, her calculation was just different, likely because of the circles she's already found herself in.
Click to expand...
Or she is standing up for what she believes is right as opposed to snuggling with the establishment because it will advance her career.



That's not the right lesson to learn. And even if it were, if you have to abandon your principles and general sense of right and wrong in order to win elections, what's the point? If Trump weren't the alternative, I'd rather lose with a decent candidate than win with Gabbard.
Click to expand...

Trump was the outsider, he was not a GOP apparatchik darling. Trump shot from the hip and didn't care about tempering his statements based on how the media and DC apparatus react. And the people went for it, because people are fed up with career scheming politicians like Hillary. Now Trump has been a big disaapointment but that is a different issue.
 
Last edited:
KantoTerror said:
What I don't understand is He won, without cheating yet you fucks still can't accept that someone like Trump can win the election. It's partly the Dems fault that all they can come up with against Trump was Hilary.
Click to expand...


Gerrymandering had nothing to do with it though lol

Republicans rule by minority not majority rule.
 
Trump is going to run against Diabetes in 2020 because he is a fat ass.
 
Diamond Jim said:
Biden would be 77 and Trump would be 74 for a 2020 election. That's a lot of miles. I'm not sure Biden would make a run at it again. He should've jumped in last go around but the guy lost his second child. That takes a toll.

I still believe a male should be on top of the ticket. A like Franken but he's kinda soft. Bernie would be older than Biden in 2020. Booker has a few years to unite support around him. Lets see if he does. Brown is old, Cuomo doesn't excite anyone. The celeb thing I don't see working. The Amazon CEO will basically run the country by 2020 so I don't see him wasting a year running.

Dark horses IMO: Washington governor, Jay Inslee, New Orleans mayor, Mitch Landrieu, Congressman Seth Moulton from Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

Fuck that cocksucker Landrieu. Hope he runs and get KTFO by Trump.
 
uppercutbus said:
Hillary needs to do her seizure "impression" again.

JIfuDRr.gif
Click to expand...

She does not. We can relive the fun anytime we want through the power of the internet...

hillary-having-a-brain-seizure.gif


On a side note, I have so much faith in the Democratic party. Check out the Rock's lead in the poll. It's good to know the Democrats are so grounded and not swayed by any of the crazy antics of their party leaders.
 
MicroBrew said:
Yes, all it says is she wouldn't say who paid for the trip.




Why on earth would she want to be wined and dined in war-torn Syria of all places. It's not like she is opposed to US action against Assad because he wined and dined her. You make it sound like she went there because being wined and dined in Syria is luxury people just can't pass up.



She is principle, vastly more than Hillary. If she was self-serving, she would have backed Hillary, instead she went for the underdog Sanders. If she was unethical and self-serving she would have kept her job as Vice-Chair and rose through the Dem ranks, instead she sacrificed Dem darling status to stand-up for what she believes in




There is nothing silly about. Some Dems , like Hillary , back hawkish US interventionist stances. Hillary backed the Iraq war, backed the ouster of Ghaddafi and pushed for the ouster of Assad. Madelline Albright and Hillary are good chums. Albright is pure evil, on par with the worst monsters in history. Anyone who is close friends with Albright and supports interventionsim like Albright is very back for people anywhere.




We are talking about possible Dem candidates , so why wouldn't Gabbard be compared to Hillary.




Or she is standing up for what she believes is right as opposed to snuggling with the extablishment because it will advance her career.





Trump was the outsider, he was not a GOP apparachik darling. Trump shot from the hip and didn't care about tempering his statements based on how the media and DC apparatus react. And the people went for it, because people are fed up with career scheming politicians like Hillary. Now Trump has been a big disaapointment but that is a different issue.
Click to expand...

Poor Jack thought he could get away with spouting his nonsense. He should know better by now with all the times we've put him in his place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,693
Messages
55,435,130
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top