Jump to content
270soft Forum

Who would you like to see run in 2020?


Herbert Hoover

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Now my "Fundamentalist Christian" aren't that bad are they.:P

Well, at least you actually BELIEVE in what you go on about, and devotedly swear by it, as much as I disagree with it, unlike Obama, Romney, Clinton, and Trump, who all obviously flip-flopped on many issues and insincerely pandered to a party base just to get votes over issues their histories and past comments show they obviously aren't personally fully on board with. I'll give you that, even if it means you're not pragmatic, flexible, or corruptible enough to likely get elected. :P

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

Well, at least you actually BELIEVE in what you go on about, and devotedly swear by it, as much as I disagree with it, unlike Obama, Romney, Clinton, and Trump, who all obviously flip-flopped on many issues and insincerely pandered to a party base just to get votes over issues their histories and past comments show they obviously aren't personally fully on board with. I'll give you that, even if it means you're not pragmatic, flexible, or corruptible enough to likely get elected. :P

I think flip-flopping can be a strength, so long as it isn't constant. I think inflexibility is far worse than flip-flopping in some instances. If an event occurs that requires a change in focus or stance on an issue, then someone who is too inflexible is going to be ineffective or worse. I'm not endorsing candidates that flip-flop routinely, but I do endorse candidates that evolve. I'll give Trump a big compliment here: I think his greatest strength is that he'd abandon some or all of his campaign promises if he later determined that fulfilling those promises would be impractical, dangerous, etc. Trump could turn Democrat by the end of his term if that party somehow soared in popularity. I don't think he sees himself as a Republican. 

Inflexible candidates that could have potentially done damage to the country, if breaking with their promise or ideology was required to meet a problem would include, Ted Cruz, Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Ben Carson and definitely more. I say this as a huge fan of Kucinich and Sanders. In a period of relative calm, these candidates (depending on your personal political views) would do relatively well. In a period of crises, I don't think they're flexible and pragmatic enough to be good presidents. An example is James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln. If Buchanan had been president in 1816-1844 or 1868-1916 or 1920-1928, or 1948-2000, I think he would have been a pretty good president for many people. He was too rigid in his beliefs. Lincoln, a flip-flopper, was the right man at the right time during the Civil War. He would have also done well in other crisis periods, such as WWII and 9/11, I think. 

We can thus determine, that if @Reagan04 is as inflexible as he says he is, then he'd probably be ineffective to terrible in periods of crisis, unless his ideology is the natural solution to that particular problem or problems. For my part, as progressive as I am, I'd sacrifice nearly every belief if I knew it was the only practical solution to a problem. If I was convince removing nearly every regulation is the only way to end a great depression, regain jobs, and raise the quality of life for most Americans, I would do at least a temporary removal of as many regulations as I would need to do. If I was convince that the federal government's role in a certain state matter is undeniably making a situation worse, then I would leave it to the states, when other progressive presidents would not have. If it were proven to me that immigrants from a certain country were clearly raising the crime rate in areas that they migrate to, then I would be tougher on immigration. If cutting taxes on the wealthy was proven to raise the purchasing power and quality of life of people of the middle class or lower, then I would cut taxes on the wealthy. If it was proven that easier access to a wider variety of guns curbed gun violence in the domestic and public spheres, then I wouldn't impose on any gun control. Etc. For me, my personal ideology is person, but as a public leader, I would look at each situation case by case. I'm a progressive primarily because their goals seem much better for America and the world than conservative ideas, at least to me. I can be convinced to go other directions, case by case. It just has to be irrefutable, practical, far-reaching, and beneficial to most Americans. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see Rubio, Cruz, and Paul run again, on the Republican side. (Though I doubt this will happen, as party rules forbid anyone from running unless Trump is EXTREMELY unpopular.)

On the Democrats, I liked O'Malley, and Jim Webb, and I would have voted for them over Trump. Also, I would LOVE if Tulsi Gabbard would run for President. Despite her being a Democrat, I would vote for her over most Republicans, and I believe that she is the greatest modern political figure to be our first female president. She's a war veteran, an anti-war figure, a strong leader, and understands the issues.

Hell, #RubioGabbard2020 I guess, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I'd like to see Rubio, Cruz, and Paul run again, on the Republican side. (Though I doubt this will happen, as party rules forbid anyone from running unless Trump is EXTREMELY unpopular.)

On the Democrats, I liked O'Malley, and Jim Webb, and I would have voted for them over Trump. Also, I would LOVE if Tulsi Gabbard would run for President. Despite her being a Democrat, I would vote for her over most Republicans, and I believe that she is the greatest modern political figure to be our first female president. She's a war veteran, an anti-war figure, a strong leader, and understands the issues.

Hell, #RubioGabbard2020 I guess, lol.

I suppose Rubio, Cruz, and Paul COULD run if Trump's flamboyance, anti-establishment tendencies, and confrontational behaviour do end up alienating him from Congressional Republicans in the end, even though they're currently giving the benefit of the doubt, and he ends up being the first US President since John Tyler to de facto (as I don't think there's firm rules in the party on the issue) be kicked out of the party he ran for office on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were a Republican, I'd like to see Kasich, Huntsman, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Colin Powell, Kelly Ayotte, Michael Bloomberg run against Trump. 

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

Michael Bloomberg run against Trump. 

Michael Bloomberg's a Republican? I think you might be thinking of Mark Cuban, who is a Republican, but was critical of Trump. Not dissing you or anything, but if Bloomberg is a Republican, that's news to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Michael Bloomberg's a Republican? I think you might be thinking of Mark Cuban, who is a Republican, but was critical of Trump. Not dissing you or anything, but if Bloomberg is a Republican, that's news to me.

He's an independent right now, but he's definitely more well-known as a republican, as he was originally elected (and reelected) as a republican, received Rudy Giuliani's endorsement, and, along with Giuliani and La Guardia, is one of the only New York mayors to win reelection as a republican.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Michael Bloomberg's a Republican? I think you might be thinking of Mark Cuban, who is a Republican, but was critical of Trump. Not dissing you or anything, but if Bloomberg is a Republican, that's news to me.

He's an independent and former Republican and former Democrat. Trump was technically an independent as well. I think Bloomberg would run Republican to try and unseat him in the primaries, and then possibly run 3rd party if that fails to drain votes from him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump were somehow "removed", in this scenario, I would hope to see Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann run. Both of these women are diligent, principled, and have what it takes to lead the country. On the plus side, I see one of these 2 (or another woman with similar conservative beliefs) as the first female president. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dallas said:

If Trump were somehow "removed", in this scenario, I would hope to see Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann run. Both of these women are diligent, principled, and have what it takes to lead the country. On the plus side, I see one of these 2 (or another woman with similar conservative beliefs) as the first female president.

If Palin were to run, I'd say she should chose a veep like Colin Powell, Tom Cotton, or someone else who has significant military and/or foreign affairs experience, because admittedly foreign affairs and military matters are big known weak-point of hers. And I say this objectively and pragmatically as someone who personally is not a fan of Palin but is trying to make a fair analysis.

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

If Palin were to run, I'd say she should chose a veep like Colin Powell, Tom Cotton, or someone else who has significant military and/or foreign affairs experience, because admittedly foreign affairs and military matters are big known weak-point of hers. And I say this objectively and pragmatically as someone who personally is not a fan of Palin but is trying to make a fair analysis.

You are right. Also coming from someone who is not a fan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...