Trump rebukes his supporters - Page 9 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-13-2019, 04:22 AM
recklessdriver recklessdriver is offline
Prepper elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lax
Posts: 4,128
Thanks: 785
Thanked 3,576 Times in 1,779 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker View Post
Such a bold prediction!!
He won't carry Texas either. Illegals replacement of citizens

This two party system needs to go
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-13-2019, 05:52 AM
Jdog67's Avatar
Jdog67 Jdog67 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Tampa Bay area, Florida
Posts: 3,043
Thanks: 680
Thanked 11,826 Times in 2,393 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recklessdriver View Post
This two party system needs to go
It's designed to trap us in the illusion of choice.

Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Jdog67 For This Useful Post:
Old 08-13-2019, 09:42 AM
LibShooter LibShooter is offline
M.R. Ducks
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: East TN
Posts: 16,620
Thanks: 6,249
Thanked 21,785 Times in 9,714 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recklessdriver View Post
He won't carry Texas either. Illegals replacement of citizens

This two party system needs to go
Texas will be closer than it has been, but President Trump will carry the Lone Star State.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to LibShooter For This Useful Post:
Old 08-13-2019, 09:51 AM
Cuteandfuzzybunnies's Avatar
Cuteandfuzzybunnies Cuteandfuzzybunnies is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 522
Thanks: 0
Thanked 688 Times in 291 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LibShooter View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by recklessdriver View Post
He won't carry Texas either. Illegals replacement of citizens

This two party system needs to go
Texas will be closer than it has been, but President Trump will carry the Lone Star State.
I’m not even sure. Annoy carried Texas by a huge margin. That means that a lot of people voted for abbot and either for Beto or against Cruz.

I’m a Texan and a Cruz supporter. But many pro trump Texans had issues with Cruz and may have taken what they thought was a safe protest vote.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-13-2019, 10:55 PM
LibShooter LibShooter is offline
M.R. Ducks
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: East TN
Posts: 16,620
Thanks: 6,249
Thanked 21,785 Times in 9,714 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuteandfuzzybunnies View Post
Iím a Texan and a Cruz supporter. But many pro trump Texans had issues with Cruz and may have taken what they thought was a safe protest vote.
President Trumpís popularity in Texas is hovering just above or just below 50% among likely voters, depending on which poll you choose. The election will be close. If it were held today against a generic Democrat, the President might lose Texas. However, the real election is more than a year away, and a real Democratic candidate will be less popular than a generic one. Iím pretty sure Trump will win in Texas.

However, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina will probably go to the Democrat.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-14-2019, 09:52 PM
Cavalcade of Events's Avatar
Cavalcade of Events Cavalcade of Events is offline
Legendary
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 2,019
Thanks: 262
Thanked 2,152 Times in 1,012 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LibShooter View Post
President Trumpís popularity in Texas is hovering just above or just below 50% among likely voters, depending on which poll you choose. The election will be close. If it were held today against a generic Democrat, the President might lose Texas. However, the real election is more than a year away, and a real Democratic candidate will be less popular than a generic one. Iím pretty sure Trump will win in Texas.

However, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina will probably go to the Democrat.
WI, MI, PA, NC, FL, NV, AZ will be the states to watch. NC, TX, NH and ME are the next tier, IMHO.

I expect the next Democratic candidate won't make the same mistakes HRC made with ignoring WI, MI, and PA.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 06:36 AM
recklessdriver recklessdriver is offline
Prepper elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lax
Posts: 4,128
Thanks: 785
Thanked 3,576 Times in 1,779 Posts
Default

Wisconsin will go Democrat we got our socialist Governor
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 03:13 PM
merlinfire's Avatar
merlinfire merlinfire is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,902
Thanks: 32,509
Thanked 44,912 Times in 13,131 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_Rafe View Post
Just wondering when you'll decide to vote for a 3rd party candidate which might be viable, but you and others are just waiting for him to get enough votes so yours doesn't matter anyway?

New parties don't start overnight. It takes years and several election cycles. By not voting for them and supporting them, you make sure they'll never get traction, and you'll never have that "come a day there might be a candidate which can win other than a Democrat or Republican".
Let me repeat myself.

There may come a day when the third party is viable. But it isn't when they're nominating Gary Johnson.

The most successful third-party challenger we've had in recent memory is Ross Perot. And I suspect you know why that example favors my viewpoint more than it favors yours.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to merlinfire For This Useful Post:
Old 08-15-2019, 03:48 PM
clocker's Avatar
clocker clocker is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,432
Thanks: 72,103
Thanked 30,046 Times in 6,491 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merlinfire View Post
Let me repeat myself.

There may come a day when the third party is viable. But it isn't when they're nominating Gary Johnson.

The most successful third-party challenger we've had in recent memory is Ross Perot. And I suspect you know why that example favors my viewpoint more than it favors yours.
From Perot's wiki:
...In the election, Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote, but did not win any electoral votes.<snip>... Perot ran for president again in 1996, establishing the Reform Party as a vehicle for his campaign. He won 8.4 percent of the popular vote against President Clinton and Republican nominee Bob Dole.
And Perot received 0 electoral votes [source] (both emphases, mine -- clocker)

Outside of Ross Perot in the **last 50 years**, no official 3rd party candidate got more than single-digit popular vote percentage, and no more than one electoral vote. [George Wallace, as an Independent, got 13.5% PV & 46 ECs.... in **1968** (51 years ago)]

Yeah, accept the reality, folk: Voting 3rd party is a wasted vote.

Any time anyone comes on here to advocate voting 3rd party, keep this in mind. A Leftist does this, doubly so.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 04:44 PM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is online now
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 15,790
Thanks: 11,128
Thanked 29,066 Times in 10,180 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker View Post
Yeah, accept the reality, folk: Voting 3rd party is a wasted vote.
Then your opponents have already won. Voting for a candidate who does not most support your views, means you are voting against your own principles!
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PeterEnergy For This Useful Post:
Old 08-15-2019, 04:48 PM
clocker's Avatar
clocker clocker is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,432
Thanks: 72,103
Thanked 30,046 Times in 6,491 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
Then your opponents have already won. Voting for a candidate who does not most support your views, means you are voting against your own principles!
I generally agree with you P.E., but history and logic are against you on this one.

You also engage in a false dichotomy. Candidates are not single-dimensional. They hold multiple opinions and have positions on many issues and philosophies. By your reckoning, then, you can't vote for anyone, since no one holds the same or near-same principles as you, or to the same degree.

If you get past that hurdle, then you have to find the candidates that best align with his principles and ideals. But, if everyone you back has zero chance of winning, you might have a personal victory for voting on principle, but lose to those who would successfully and *actually* place candidates into office who would destroy what you stand for.

P.S. I'm a man of very limited means, so the following is no small, idle bet for me. I'll bet you $200 that no official 3rd party candidate will get more than 1 EV. Write-in, non-candidates getting EVs don't count (cf., Colin Powell in 2016 got 3 EVs from rogue electors -- idiot electors who broke their vows and possibly state laws).
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 05:10 PM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is online now
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 15,790
Thanks: 11,128
Thanked 29,066 Times in 10,180 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
Then your opponents have already won. Voting for a candidate who does not most support your views, means you are voting against your own principles!
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker View Post
I generally agree with you P.E., but history and logic are against you on this one.

You also engage in a false dichotomy. Candidates are not single-dimensional. They hold multiple opinions and have positions on many issues and philosophies. By your reckoning, then, you can't vote for anyone, since no one holds the same or near-same principles as you, or to the same degree.
Yes, we often agree but not in this instance. There is no false dichotomy as their is only one candidate who is likely to MOST support your views. (I did not say must have near the same view on all issues).
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PeterEnergy For This Useful Post:
Old 08-15-2019, 05:13 PM
clocker's Avatar
clocker clocker is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,432
Thanks: 72,103
Thanked 30,046 Times in 6,491 Posts
Default

I see that you still haven't addressed the notion of voting 3rd party candidate as a wasted vote.
Can you at least acknowledge history and reality?
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 05:17 PM
recklessdriver recklessdriver is offline
Prepper elite
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lax
Posts: 4,128
Thanks: 785
Thanked 3,576 Times in 1,779 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker View Post
I see that you still haven't addressed the notion of voting 3rd party candidate as a wasted vote.
Can you at least acknowledge history and reality?
How Is the two party system working
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 05:19 PM
clocker's Avatar
clocker clocker is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,432
Thanks: 72,103
Thanked 30,046 Times in 6,491 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recklessdriver View Post
How Is the two party system working
You have eyes. You decide for yourself. Nothing I say can sway someone as rigid as you.
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 05:32 PM
clocker's Avatar
clocker clocker is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,432
Thanks: 72,103
Thanked 30,046 Times in 6,491 Posts
Default

Oh, PE, even if you take up and win my proposed (sucker) bet... Your principled candidate would still lose, whether he/she gets 2, 5, or 100 EVs. To remind everyone, candidates need *270* EVs to win the presidency. Just a teensie, weensie detail...

2020 Presidential Election Map
This isn't a popularity contest™ (great tagline)
https://www.270towin.com/
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-15-2019, 09:42 PM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is online now
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 15,790
Thanks: 11,128
Thanked 29,066 Times in 10,180 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker View Post
I see that you still haven't addressed the notion of voting 3rd party candidate as a wasted vote.
Can you at least acknowledge history and reality?
The wasted vote syndrome is a fallacy. Wasting oneís vote is achieved ONLY by voting for a candidate who does NOT have views most aligned with yours.

The wasted vote syndrome is achieved by getting people to falsely equate politics and political philosophy with a sporting competition. The teams with the best records are LIKELY to make the playoffs compared to the teams with the worst records. Politics is not horse racing.

I reject the proposition of choosing the lesser of two evils. I support the proposition of choosing the party whose philosophy most closely matches your own. In my case, that is the Libertarian Party, followed by the Constitution Party.

Of course, I acknowledge the history and reality of 3rd party votes. Are you familiar with the story of why the Communist Party disbanded and why the Reform Party has lost so much appeal since the Ross Perot days? Only 3rd party voting in numbers shifts public policy.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PeterEnergy For This Useful Post:
Old 08-16-2019, 12:31 AM
clocker's Avatar
clocker clocker is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,432
Thanks: 72,103
Thanked 30,046 Times in 6,491 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterEnergy View Post
The wasted vote syndrome is a fallacy. Wasting one’s vote is achieved ONLY by voting for a candidate who does NOT have views most aligned with yours.
Suppose candidate A aligns with your views & values 75% and has a 60% chance of winning, and candidate B aligns with your views & values 90% but has 20% chance of winning.

Keep in mind, there are candidates C, D & E who hold diametric views to yours, with negative alignments, -50%, -70 and -90%, each with at least 15-25% chance of winning.

If you care about your views and values to see them implemented and reflected in law, regulation, policy, enforcement, etc, which candidate would you vote for: A or B?


Now re-tweak the percentages to be more realistic. Candidates A with roughly the same alignment of values & chance of winning, now candidate B's 100% aligned with you, but his chance of winning is 0-2%. Now whom would you choose?

Realists like me would say A in both cases. (That's how I answered them)
Idealist like you, maybe B in both cases? One of each? I don't know.
(PE, please do answer in both scenarios; I'm genuinely curious)

Quote:
The wasted vote syndrome is achieved by getting people to falsely equate politics and political philosophy with a sporting competition. The teams with the best records are LIKELY to make the playoffs compared to the teams with the worst records. Politics is not horse racing.
I'm not equating the contest with the political philosophy. But I am practical in that I acknowledge that your viewpoint or mine won't mean squat if we can't place candidates. How many members of Congress in the last, say, 20 years have come from 3rd parties? [Of them, can you name a single bill they've proposed and passed? I bet none.] How many presidents? [zero]

Quote:
I reject the proposition of choosing the lesser of two evils. I support the proposition of choosing the party whose philosophy most closely matches your own. In my case, that is the Libertarian Party, followed by the Constitution Party.
I think it's fallacious to think that the 2020 general election of Trump vs whoever comes out of the Democrat primary is "a choice of lesser of two evils". It may be a choice of people who's platform/philosophies don't align with yours. Even if you downgrade Trump to 40% aligned with your values, can you say that any Democrat candidate running now even positively aligns with you??

Does the minority party generally get their way in American politics? Do you think the now Left-dominated Democrat party is reasonable, and will listen to yours or my views, should they take power, either in the Executive and/or the Legislative branches? They took over the Lower House in 2018, and it's been nonstop crap -- grandstanding & "investigations" (not that it was all roses and sunshine when the GOP had both houses in 2016-17). The Dems take both Chambers, and/or the White House, and the country will be in serious doo-doo. Truth.

You don't think it's a game? Fine. You think things would be better if Democrats take power, and you have your self-satisfaction that you voted for whom you consider to be "the better man" (who will lose)?

[BTW, what makes you think the Dems aren't trying to recruit someone to run as a Libertarian or Constitution Party member to split the votes of good thinking people like yourselves? Are they above that sort of thing? Given what you've seen them over the last 2.5 years (the Kavanaugh hears, the violent talk, etc.), what makes you think they wouldn't?? You may not think it's a game, but THEY DO!]

Since Trump took office, it's been NONSTOP resistance, anti-American Socialist behavior, crazy accusations of racism, sexism, and every other kinda ism there is (and some made up), rogue agents within our government and a press that hell-bent on taking down a president. All this, and you still just want to go walk off and vote Joe Libertarian or Sue Constitutionalist, who have near-zero to zero chance of winning?


Quote:
Of course, I acknowledge the history and reality of 3rd party votes. Are you familiar with the story of why the Communist Party disbanded and why the Reform Party has lost so much appeal since the Ross Perot days?
I'm not familiar. Do tell. (I just figured they never had enough money or votes, and eventually gave up)

Quote:
Only 3rd party voting in numbers shifts public policy.
How many election cycles will it take for any third party to gain enough votes to win the presidency? Or, even just win 10 seats in either chamber? You know that Hell will freeze over before that happens, right? But a different Hell **will** happen, here on Earth, in America, when the Dems take charge. Will you look in the mirror and feel you have done everything in your power to try to avert it?

[Apologies for the long rant/exchange. This was important enough for me say. For all of us, I suspect.]
Quick reply to this message
Old 08-16-2019, 06:58 AM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is online now
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 15,790
Thanks: 11,128
Thanked 29,066 Times in 10,180 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker View Post
Oh, PE, even if you take up and win my proposed (sucker) bet...
Again, treating politics as a race horse, dumbed down enough to pretend it reduces to a bet on who will win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker View Post
Your principled candidate would still lose,
Irrelevant. If the ideas the candidate has is accurately supported by the electorate, the ideas will gain momentum. The ideas will live on to fight another day.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PeterEnergy For This Useful Post:
Old 08-16-2019, 07:04 AM
PeterEnergy's Avatar
PeterEnergy PeterEnergy is online now
Rom 14:1, 13; Jam 4:11-12
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 15,790
Thanks: 11,128
Thanked 29,066 Times in 10,180 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker View Post
I think it's fallacious to think that the 2020 general election of Trump vs whoever comes out of the Democrat primary is "a choice of lesser of two evils".
Agreed. Trump is an exception.

Trump is an exception because he is an outsider, effectively the 3rd party candidate.

I am a Libertarian but the one thing I disagree with the LP platform is open borders. Without borders, you don't have a country. Our national sovereignty, our very survival as an independent entity, is what the 2020 election is all about.

The next lethal public policy is the debt. And I know voting D or R is a wasted vote as they are OK with enslaving future generations.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to PeterEnergy For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net