Will you vote for the not-Trump candidate, whoever he is?

Yes

 

This is classic new speak. I'm sure you have no idea what that means.

Saying he is going to make America great again means nothing. What specific actions are going to make America great? And when did it stop being great? What does it mean to be great, specifically?

Are you referring to alienating our greatest allies?
Perhaps you mean coddling and even declaring his love for the most evil tyrants in the world?
Do you mean turning Americans against each other.
Or perhaps you mean his relentless attacks on the foundations of liberty, like the free press, the courts and judges, and everyone who doesn't support him?

There has never been a greater divider. He took people who would die for their country, and turned them into people who would wipe their ass with the flag. Because that is all it is worth now.

MAGA? That would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

A 3000 miles wall is a dumb idea and it will never happen. And Mexico certainly won't pay for it. But that isn't even the problem. The real problem is that he sold the wall by selling hate and fear.

People like Hitler sell hate and fear. The wall has nothing to do with it.

Then why are they creating fewer jobs per month than under Obama?

Yes, trumpers are now protectionists who don't believe in free trade. That makes you all socialists, just in case you didn't know.

It was upheld under Obama. What is trump going to do?

A catch phrase for any judge who makes rulings you don't like.

Yes, he managed to start a new cold war which will be fantastically profitable for the weapons builders.

I had a lot of respect for the flag until you all elected trump. Now I would wipe my ass with it. Because that is all its worth.

But not sustainable. And only at a great cost - costs your children and grandchildren will pay for, perhaps with their lives. They will certainly suffer because of your choice. But hey, at least it makes you want to wave your worthless flag.

 

Tell that to the victims of sanctuary cities.

Because we're at record employment. There are more jobs available than people to take them. Correspondingly, and predictably, wages are rising.

That's silly. All we want is fair trade.

And Trump will work to keep it that way.

No, it means judges who abide by the Constitution literally.

What "cold war"?

It doesn't represent Trump or any president. It represents the sacrifice and hard work of all who came before us. You're wiping your ass with ... them.

So you would prefer we import energy from Saudi Arabia?

 

Democrats are willing to become socialists due to their irrational hate of Trump. How very sad...

 

Nah, Trump is just a figurehead for that. Democrats are willing to become socialists, or anything else... for power. Look at Bloomberg's sudden rise in polling. He's literally trying to buy the Presidency through the Democratic party. And they're gobbling it up. He's also everything that Democrats say that they hate Trump for. A billionaire (bigger than Trump even). A racist. Quite willing to **** on the poor. And much more. Anyone that votes for Bloomberg just to get Trump out of office is a hypocrite because Bloomberg IS everything that they say they hate about Trump.

 

oh good grief, can't you get out side that lame fish bowl you occupy for even a little bit? You see him as divisive because he believes differently than you about what greatness is and how to acheive it. Leaders are not always unifiers, Obama certainly wasn't. In fact the American left as general rule have never been uniters. They have been dividing us along lines of race, ethnicity, and ideology for literally decades to that they have in the last fifty years added gender and since apparently two weren't enough they have decided that neurotic people get to have a gender of their own or two three rather than the psychological help they need.

 

Or anyone currently on the Democratic ticket all of seem at the moment to be running for the job of spoiled, melodramatic toddler rather than president

 

Get back to me when you can avoid combining fantasy, hyperbole, melodrama and slander all in one post.

 

Your complete lack rationality on the subject duly noted.

 

And what's he actually DOING about any of that?

 

Will you vote for the not-Trump candidate, whoever he is?

Yes....I will.

 

Trump has never bothered me like he has Democrats and the left. True, I don't like Trump, but it's more the man, Trump himself I don't like, his schoolyard bullying persona, throwing of temper tantrums, creating needless feuds, calling other names, someone with that kind of personality belong in the WWE as a wrestler and not the white house.

Having said that, Trump has done somethings I liked, supported and some I opposed, disliked. Just like any other president in my lifetime. Now I take each issue one at a time, each policy and decide where I stand on them via the issue and the policy. Not via a political party's stance or who is president. I have no use for political party animals who blindly follow and support their leaders, party like mindless robots.

Trump, I'd like to see him gone. But I'm not going to replace him with someone else I don't like just to replace him. That would be like replacing the devil you know with a devil you don't know. If I'm going to vote Democratic, it better be no devil at all or I'll vote against both devils like I did in 2016. 12% of independents, swing voters, the less to non-partisan, the non-affiliated voted against both Hillary and Trump in 2016. I wonder what the percentage will be for 2020. Higher, lower, that probably depends on who the democrats nominate. Candidates matter to this group, not so much political party. I'd advise the democrats to come up with candidate attractive to them. If they do, they'll win in a landslide. If not, another 2016 certainly is possible. The ball is in the Democrats hands, who they hand that ball off too will decide the fate of November.

 

Nothing good comes from disagreeing with people rather than ideas, but the very worst things come from agreeing with people rather than ideas.

 

Only of the ones who can lay brick. Can you lay brick? Want to learn? We're hiring laborers, tenders/apprentices and journeymen masons.

 

What EXACTLY was Pelosi "tried and convicted for" given that your criminal IMPOTUS called her a "High Tax, High Crime Nancy Pelosi"?

 

So if Bloomberg succeeds in openly purchasing the nomination you or other ethical minded political leftists will reject the man already repeatedly video recorded as being a bigot, a racist, and a misogynist?

 

Really? The border wall is for show, there's no reason to believe it will solve any problems.
https://ced.berkeley.edu/events-med...-solve-according-to-professor-emeritus-michae
Lower taxes on business is causing the deficit to explode.
The trade deals are essentially a re-branding of the old deals making no significant improvements.
The vast majority of Americans want stronger gun laws.
Constructionist judges? https://theweek.com/speedreads/8392...e-house-officials-blame-impulsive-nominations
He is taking funding away from the military to finance his border wall boondoggle.
You don't gain respect by politicizing the DoJ.
The road to energy independence was being paved well before the Divider-in-Chief fouled the Oval Office.

 

You just made a laundry list of things you wish he were for. Other than tax breaks for the rich, his record on the rest has been questionable, to put it mildly. He'll be for gun control one day, and against gun control the next. And talking about a "wall" in speeches because it gets him cheers, but having a history of hiring illegals, is actually one of the clearest examples of demagoguery He is most definitely not for constructionist judges, of course. It would be laughable if you actually believed that Trump is Anyway... demagoguery and actually believing in things is a distinction that his supporters are completely unable to differentiate.

I am very much in favor of some of those things. And, to respond to the question on the OP, I would be happy to vote for somebody who supports all of them. Even the ones I don't agree with. So long as they are not a criminal.

But, as I said on my side note, I very very much doubt that Trump is.

 

I, like you, voted 3rd party in 2016. However, unlike you, the candidate means nothing to me. I don't vote for a person; I vote for the ideas the candidate, if elected, will employ. I did not vote Trump in 2020 because I did not know what those would be. (I don't take people only by their word without any earned credibility.)

Nothing good comes from disagreeing with people rather than ideas, but the very worst things come from agreeing with people rather than ideas. I like the ideas that President Trump has employed. Those ideas are what's best for me. The democrats still think that people like me vote for people rather than ideas. That's why 'orange man bad' doesn't win over adults the way it does children who want to remain in the socialism of their youth. Name calling and conspicuous exclusionary behavior may work for 8th grade mean girls, but it doesn't win adults votes.

Do you think that exactly who the not-Trump candidate is will actually change actual votes?

 

Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

~ I'm voting for Pee Wee ! Only he can save us ...

 

I believe that the candidate does matter. That almost any other Democrat in 2016 would have beaten Trump other than Hillary. What I find interesting is a recent YouGov poll on the generic presidential vote, Trump or a generic Democratic candidate, 10% of those polled answered "It Depends." 18% of independents answered "it depends." Question 79.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/79zfxkws33/econTabReport.pdf

So their vote depends on what? Could be their vote depends on who the democrats nominate. If you have another take, I'd like to hear it.

Drop down to question 113. Trump's likability. we see 12% of the electorate neither like nor dislike Trump. 15% of independents neither like nor dislike Trump. That pretty close to the it depends numbers or percentages. I'd say who the democrats nominate could mean quite a lot to these 10-12% of the electorate.

Who they would vote for is another matter. Trump, maybe, the democrat, perhaps or maybe third party once more. We did have 9 million voters vote third party in 2016, 6% of the electorate. That's the most votes for third party candidates topping Perot's 1996 total of 8 million plus change. Although Perot received 8.4% of the total vote. Perot had money, name recognition, a good financed campaign, media attention.

Third party candidates had none of that in 2016, yet received 6% of the total vote. Compare that to 2012 1.5% voting third party, 2008 1.2%, 2004 1.0%. Yes, with approximately 10% of the total electorate, I believe who the Democrats nominate make a difference. To most independents, the non-affiliated, candidates matter more than political parties.

 

No. I don't vote.