Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

2020 Election Poll

2020 Election Poll  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. If the economy stays as strong as it is now on election day 2020, then Trump will most likely defeat....

    • Joe Biden
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Elizabeth Warren
    • Cory Booker
    • Kamala Harris
    • Michael Avenatti
    • Michael Bloomberg
    • Oprah
    • Trump will not defeat any of these candidates, even if the economy is still strong
      0
  2. 2. If the economy falls into a recession by election day 2020, then Trump will still most likely defeat...

    • Biden
      0
    • Sanders
    • Warren
    • Booker
    • Harris
    • Avenatti
    • Bloomberg
    • Oprah
    • Trump will not defeat any of these candidates if the economy reverts to a recession.
  3. 3. If the economy is strong, but Mueller finds evidence to impeach Trump for collusion (but not strong enough for likely conviction), then Trump still defeats....

    • Biden
    • Sanders
    • Warren
    • Booker
    • Harris
    • Avenatti
    • Bloomberg
    • Oprah
    • Trump will not defeat anyone on this list if he is facing impeachment for collusion, even if Congress is unlikely to convict him.


Recommended Posts

New poll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel if Mueller does present some form evidence that Trump is connected to the Russian scandal, Avanati will hammer that till the convention- and it will benefit him as being one of the few men that can successfully take Trump to court. That said, will the Democratic party even nominate him? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, vcczar said:

New poll

Trump winning or losing isn't the point anymore. What I want to see in the U.S. is REAL political choice. And for that to happen, the political Duopoly must be broken, and it's ability to dominate elections through media control, a total grip on the electoral commission and the courts, and their firm position to rig elections and marginalize all opposition, and the Electoral College, also has to go. If this does not and cannot happen, the U.S. will remain as having the second worst, most corrupt, most complacent, least accountable, least transparent, and most resistant to true, needed change and the wishes of it's voter of any political culture in the First World, second only to Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Everyone but Biden (at this point I think Booker won't run. Why the shit did he accuse himself of sexual assault lmfao)
2. Only Bloomberg and Oprah
3. Warren, Avenatti, Bloomberg, Oprah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Patine said:

Trump winning or losing isn't the point anymore. What I want to see in the U.S. is REAL political choice. And for that to happen, the political Duopoly must be broken, and it's ability to dominate elections through media control, a total grip on the electoral commission and the courts, and their firm position to rig elections and marginalize all opposition, and the Electoral College, also has to go. If this does not and cannot happen, the U.S. will remain as having the second worst, most corrupt, most complacent, least accountable, least transparent, and most resistant to true, needed change and the wishes of it's voter of any political culture in the First World, second only to Japan.

If you lived here, you'd feel slightly different. At this point, I'd take the corpse of Richard Nixon or George W. Bush over Trump. A bad choice trumps and a horrific choice. I'm not sure when we will ever have choices again. I sort of wish we had 9 co-executives, so everyone has a chance to win. I think Switzerland has multiple executives. The last election in which we had a real choice for presidents, with no horrific options, was probably the 1950s (Eisenhower vs Stevenson, twice). To people that are more moderate, it may appear that we do have choices. I think what both you and I want are elections that have Progressives vs. Liberals or Progressives vs. Moderates, with no Conservative or Traditionalist candidates. I'd agree my own cone of acceptance is Bernie Sanders to John Kasich. I don't know if I'd like anyone left of Sanders (at least not yet), and I don't want anyone right of Kasich. My cone of tolerance is a little further--Sanders to Rubio, which pretty much leaves out the Cruz wings and the Bannon wings, but probably encompasses most Republicans (I hope).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vcczar said:

If you lived here, you'd feel slightly different. At this point, I'd take the corpse of Richard Nixon or George W. Bush over Trump. A bad choice trumps and a horrific choice. I'm not sure when we will ever have choices again. I sort of wish we had 9 co-executives, so everyone has a chance to win. I think Switzerland has multiple executives. The last election in which we had a real choice for presidents, with no horrific options, was probably the 1950s (Eisenhower vs Stevenson, twice). To people that are more moderate, it may appear that we do have choices. I think what both you and I want are elections that have Progressives vs. Liberals or Progressives vs. Moderates, with no Conservative or Traditionalist candidates. I'd agree my own cone of acceptance is Bernie Sanders to John Kasich. I don't know if I'd like anyone left of Sanders (at least not yet), and I don't want anyone right of Kasich. My cone of tolerance is a little further--Sanders to Rubio, which pretty much leaves out the Cruz wings and the Bannon wings, but probably encompasses most Republicans (I hope).

You know, I had suggested the committee apex executive system on @jnewt's more recent Constitutional Convention, that kind of fizzled out.@NYrepublican  said it was a disastrous idea because of the decentralized executive in the First French Republic, a republic which had a Reign of Terror (the Reign of Terror was NOT because of a decentralized executive, and, in fact, would have happened quicker and easier if Robespierre had just been given a singular apex executive role himself) and said such a committee apex executive "would always be fighting" (a very trite and stereotyped view, and ignoring that the legislative branch already lacks such unity and an apex executive office, in any modern country, is almost always unrepresentative enough of the population to have a true mandate to fulfill the duties assigned and represent the nation abroad). Those were the only two strokes he had against the committee system (both easily debunked, as I just did), but he ignored the MASSIVE amount of historical baggage, flaws, issues, problems, tragedies, atrocities, and tyrannies throughout history from singular apex executive office holders as being perfectly acceptable, and with far less "proven" flaws than the committee system. I think pretty much everyone else in that convention RP, except, I think   @ThePotatoWalrus, who seems to be an admirer of the Swiss political system, agreed with him, seemingly by default and without real consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

 You know, I had suggested the committee apex executive system on @jnewt's more recent Constitutional Convention, that kind of fizzled out.@NYrepublican  said it was a disastrous idea because of the decentralized executive in the First French Republic, a republic which had a Reign of Terror (the Reign of Terror was NOT because of a decentralized executive, and, in fact, would have happened quicker and easier if Robespierre had just been given a singular apex executive role himself) and said such a committee apex executive "would always be fighting" (a very trite and stereotyped view, and ignoring that the legislative branch already lacks such unity and an apex executive office, in any modern country, is almost always unrepresentative enough of the population to have a true mandate to fulfill the duties assigned and represent the nation abroad). Those were the only two strokes he had against the committee system (both easily debunked, as I just did), but he ignored the MASSIVE amount of historical baggage, flaws, issues, problems, tragedies, atrocities, and tyrannies throughout history from singular apex executive office holders as being perfectly acceptable, and with far less "proven" flaws than the committee system. I think pretty much everyone else in that convention RP, except, I think   @ThePotatoWalrus, who seems to be an admirer of the Swiss political system, agreed with him, seemingly by default and without real consideration.

It led to instability which allowed Robespierre to rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

It led to instability which allowed Robespierre to rise.

As opposed to a singular apex executive office which has been the subject of so much abuse by so many egotistical, self-aggrandizing, malign, and corrupt figures whose office empowered them to get away with horrible things more times in history than I possibly name. I think the weight of evidence if heavily loaded against you. You're "one anecdote debate victory" attempts have NEVER worked on me. Haven't you noticed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

As opposed to a singular apex executive office which has been the subject of so much abuse by so many egotistical, self-aggrandizing, malign, and corrupt figures whose office empowered them to get away with horrible things more times in history than I possibly name. I think the weight of evidence if heavily loaded against you. You're "one anecdote debate victory" attempts have NEVER worked on me. Haven't you noticed?

As opposed to numerous executive offices which has been the subject of so much abuse by so many egotistical, self-aggrandizing, malign, and corrupt figures whose offices empowered them to get away with horrible things more times in history than I possibly name. I think the weight of evidence is heavily loaded against you. You're "one anecdote debate victory" attempts have NEVER worked on me. Haven't you noticed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

As opposed to numerous executive offices which has been the subject of so much abuse by so many egotistical, self-aggrandizing, malign, and corrupt figures whose offices empowered them to get away with horrible things more times in history than I possibly name. I think the weight of evidence is heavily loaded against you. You're "one anecdote debate victory" attempts have NEVER worked on me. Haven't you noticed?

Edit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

As opposed to numerous executive offices which has been the subject of so much abuse by so many egotistical, self-aggrandizing, malign, and corrupt figures whose offices empowered them to get away with horrible things more times in history than I possibly name. I think the weight of evidence is heavily loaded against you. You're "one anecdote debate victory" attempts have NEVER worked on me. Haven't you noticed?

The thing is, a committee system would also be an internal counter-balance against such abuse, and, if based on regional or other such representation, would be far better reflective of the population in general than a single leader, and would have a more honest mandate to lead the country. Plus, the fact that there would have to be committee decisions would help avoid rash decisions which singular leaders are well-known for. And, my evidence AGAINST the wisdom of a singular leader is not a single anecdote - as I said, there are far more examples of horrid world leaders abusing their positions and being empowered to do horrible because of the power granted by their office in history than I can list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

 The thing is, a committee system would also be an internal counter-balance against such abuse, and, if based on regional or other such representation, would be far better reflective of the population in general than a single leader, and would have a more honest mandate to lead the country. Plus, the fact that there would have to be committee decisions would help avoid rash decisions which singular leaders are well-known for. And, my evidence AGAINST the wisdom of a singular leader is not a single anecdote - as I said, there are far more examples of horrid world leaders abusing their positions and being empowered to do horrible because of the power granted by their office in history than I can list.

That's what Congress and the Judiciary is for. If that's not good enough then I doubt that a council of executives will help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

That's what Congress and the Judiciary is for. If that's not good enough then I doubt that a council of executives will help.

If Congress and the Judiciary are such a balance to the problems of an apex executive office in the U.S., explain to me how George W. Bush managed to trample the U.S. Constitution underfoot numerous times and behave in a close to dictatorial manner, and declare wars on false pretenses just to enrich resource and contracting corporations, and was not stopped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

 If Congress and the Judiciary are such a balance to the problems of an apex executive office in the U.S., explain to me how George W. Bush managed to trample the U.S. Constitution underfoot numerous times and behave in a close to dictatorial manner, and declare wars on false pretenses just to enrich resource and contracting corporations, and was not stopped?

Do you seriously think that an executive council would've helped post-911?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

Do you seriously think that an executive council would've helped post-911?

They wouldn't have necessarily all agreed to the Bush agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

They wouldn't have necessarily all agreed to the Bush agenda.

They would expose themself to serious danger (electorally or physically) by doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

They would expose themself to serious danger (electorally or physically) by doing so.

A committee system of executive office doesn't mean that thug rule would suddenly become the norm, although that seems to be an assumption that forms the basis of your argument. Somehow Switzerland avoids all this chaos, infighting, and thuggery while having the system I speak of. Are you saying outright Americans are a barbaric society, who need a chest-pounding chieftain supported by a council of elders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

 A committee system of executive office doesn't mean that thug rule would suddenly become the norm, although that seems to be an assumption that forms the basis of your argument. Somehow Switzerland avoids all this chaos, infighting, and thuggery while having the system I speak of. Are you saying outright Americans are a barbaric society, who need a chest-pounding chieftain supported by a council of elders?

You made the claim that your system would prevent the post-9/11 abuses that flatly isn't true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

You made the claim that your system would prevent the post-9/11 abuses that flatly isn't true.

I didn't say it WOULD have, but there might have been more of a chance. You're saying flat-out it WOULDN'T have. You are speaking more confidently and certainly in the hypothetical, here, and I personally think you're argument on the whole singular vs. committee executive system is based on rote and that you're not REALLY thinking about it - you're just defaulting to your comfort zone, and refuse to budge rhetorically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

I didn't say it WOULD have, but there might have been more of a chance. You're saying flat-out it WOULDN'T have. You are speaking more confidently and certainly in the hypothetical, here, and I personally think you're argument on the whole singular vs. committee executive system is based on rote and that you're not REALLY thinking about it - you're just defaulting to your comfort zone, and refuse to budge rhetorically.

I find that suggestion about as likely to change anything as getting Jerry White on more ballots in 2016 would've improved his chances of winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

I find that suggestion about as likely to change anything as getting Jerry White on more ballots in 2016 would've improved his chances of winning.

What are you babbling about? is this a "if you can't bedazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit," attempt here? I don't even know what you're segweying the discussion into now. Who is Jerry White and how is he relevant here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×