I Pledge To Vote For Whomever The Dem Nominee Is Just To Get Rid Of President Trump..

[gemini104104]

It should be easy to get rid of tRump who is no real president by a lawlessly hacked, rigged and manipulated in demagogue, bully and tyrant in violation of U.S. Constitutional law, technically speaking. Yet if there are them who prefer to consider this imposter as some so-called president, well run with it, although they standards are in the toilet when it comes to what is considered to be a legitimate president. tRump is a terrible mistake on humanity to which I hope more individuals wake up and see the reality of it all.

 

[Bill]

Hello Bill,



WE NEED FEDERAL LEVEL RANKED CHOICE VOTING!!!

The way to get it is to bring it in at the local and State level first.

Get enough States to do that and the pressure will be on the fed level to follow suit.

That's how big change happens.

I don't think enough politicians want that, & that is all that is really important..

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Bill,

I don't think enough politicians want that, [Ranked Choice Voting] & that is all that is really important..

That's all that matters for THIS Congress.

But in the overall scheme of things, if we make these changes here and there at the local level, and keep pushing it more and more so we get this at the State level (it has already begun) and then we get enough States to do it, THAT puts pressure on the federal level for national change.

 

[Gonzomin]

Hello Gonzomin,



It's so true but she lacks charisma. She only appeals to the well informed. I love some of the things she says. She has the most policy proposals by far, and they sound GREAT. It would be totally awesome if she were elected. I'd vote for Elizabeth Warren in a heartbeat, without reservation. She'd be great.

She is an intelligent and honest person working for the people. I do not need entertainment from my politicians, although I liked Franken. The reds are all entertainment with Daffy Donald. He knows how to play them and they like being led around into crazy-land.

 

[Bill]

Hello Bill,



That's all that matters for THIS Congress.

But in the overall scheme of things, if we make these changes here and there at the local level, and keep pushing it more and more so we get this at the State level (it has already begun) and then we get enough States to do it, THAT puts pressure on the federal level for national change.

You are much more optimistic than I, my friend........

 

[cawacko]

I prefer to vote for who I want/like, regardless of their odds of winning.

I live in Calif, anyone popular enough to win the dem nom should beat him here..

It's interesting, NPR did a piece on this the other day about how many people in primaries don't necessarily vote for who they support but instead for the person they think has the best chance of winning the general. Part of the piece was how this (supposedly) hurts women candidates.

I get it, when you don't like the person in office you'll take basically anyone as a replacement. But that isn't necessarily the best mindset to have when trying to choose to a candidate to represent your values.

 

[Bill]

It's interesting, NPR did a piece on this the other day about how many people in primaries don't necessarily vote for who they support but instead for the person they think has the best chance of winning the general. Part of the piece was how this (supposedly) hurts women candidates.

I get it, when you don't like the person in office you'll take basically anyone as a replacement. But that isn't necessarily the best mindset to have when trying to choose to a candidate to represent your values.

I have seen it more times than I can count...

We have about 325 million ppl & only two choices, winner take all & IMHO that is nuts...

Many times ppl will not even consider listening to someone they don't think can win the party nomination, & the two party monopoly likes it that way, "if you're not voting for us, don't bother to vote"......

 

[My Parents Are Proud]

I'm still getting to know the Dem candidates.

Still learning about them.

There are so many.

I have some favorites.

Bernie, Marianne Williamson, Warren, Kamala Harris

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

I know there is a big chance I'll be voting for Biden in the end.

Not my first choice. Even though he does talk a good game.

(I think he's too integral to the old politics of big money)

But no way I am missing the chance to VOTE AGAINST TRUMP.

I don't care who the nominee ends up being, I am SO voting for that person.

And I hope I am not alone.

I don't care if I have to hold my nose just like 2016, I am already determined and committed to

VOTE AGAINST TRUMP​

I think Hillary should be the nominee again, Because it worked out so well the last time.

 

[My Parents Are Proud]

I'd vote for old sushi, over Trump.

I don't think that old sushi is going to run again.

She learned that she is no match against Trump.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Bill,

You are much more optimistic than I, my friend........

I consider it to be realistic.

The whole reason Republicans have so many legislatures and so much control is due largely to gerrymandering. That was a specific strategy and effort on their part, and it worked out very well for them. Democrats are just beginning to wake up and try to level that skewed situation.

Part of the gains in 2018 are due to the efforts of the

National Democratic Redistricting Committee

 

[Gonzomin]

I think Hillary should be the nominee again, Because it worked out so well the last time.

She beat him by about 3 million votes. Trump very narrowly won the rust belt and polling shows he they learned their lessons. She could beat him now, but is not running. Trump is the accidental president.

 

[Bill]

Hello Bill,



I consider it to be realistic.

The whole reason Republicans have so many legislatures and so much control is due largely to gerrymandering. That was a specific strategy and effort on their part, and it worked out very well for them. Democrats are just beginning to wake up and try to level that skewed situation.

Part of the gains in 2018 are due to the efforts of the

National Democratic Redistricting Committee

Chicken or the egg came first??

In order to gerrymander you have to be the party in power, in order to be the party in power you must win the election!!!!!!! Did I miss something??

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Bill,

Chicken or the egg came first??

In order to gerrymander you have to be the party in power, in order to be the party in power you much win the election!!!!!!! Did I miss something??

You make it sound hopeless. It is not hopeless. Gains have been made. More gains will be made. No, it won't be easy. Little worth while ever is. It can be done.

One of the ways it can get turned around is to get the legalized corruption out of politics. Get the big money out of politics and the results will more proportionally represent the will of the people. Right now that doesn't happen. If you want to know how to get the big money out of politics the process is very easy to understand. The reason people overlook it is because it takes so long. But just because there is no instant gratification does not mean something cannot be accomplished.

The long term method to get the big money out of politics, which is appealing to conservatives AND liberals.

 

[Gonzomin]

Chicken or the egg came first??

In order to gerrymander you have to be the party in power, in order to be the party in power you must win the election!!!!!!! Did I miss something??

You missed it all. Gerrymandering has happened occasionally in states before. Now,the Repubs weaponized it. They ran hard in the 2010 election at state levels with Gerrymandering as their goal. Then they used it like nobody ever did before. They were ruthless and used some guys who perfected district drawing to go national. Every state with a Republican house redrew the districts with ruthless precision. The Dems are trying to get fair districts drawn, even in states they control. Some states passed referendums forcing fair districts.

 

[Bill]

You missed it all. Gerrymandering has happened occasionally in states before. Now,the Repubs weaponized it. They ran hard in the 2010 election at state levels with Gerrymandering as their goal. Then they used it like nobody ever did before. They were ruthless and used some guys who perfected district drawing to go national. Every state with a Republican house redrew the districts with ruthless precision. The Dems are trying to get fair districts drawn, even in states they control. Some states passed referendums forcing fair districts.

Ruthless=good @ it. I assume then the Dems are getting folks that are good @ it as well??

Here in Calif they can't do that.. & the super majority here is Dem, they could almost totally cut the gop out of what little they have now if not for the new system.. But even so, many districts look like inkblots, lol

The Dems did well in the mid-terms, who do you want to see get the nom?? If I may ask??

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Gonzomin,

You missed it all. Gerrymandering has happened occasionally in states before. Now,the Repubs weaponized it. They ran hard in the 2010 election at state levels with Gerrymandering as their goal. Then they used it like nobody ever did before. They were ruthless and used some guys who perfected district drawing to go national. Every state with a Republican house redrew the districts with ruthless precision. The Dems are trying to get fair districts drawn, even in states they control. Some states passed referendums forcing fair districts.

It has gone to several State Supreme Courts. Many have ordered districts redrawn in efforts to fix the Republican mess. It has been noted that without the heavily favored Republican-drawn districts, the Blue Wave of 2018 would have been far greater.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Bill,

Ruthless=good @ it. I assume then the Dems are getting folks that are good @ it as well??

No, actually the goal of Dems is to draw fair districts, not try to use the same dirty tricks as the Republicans. NDRC knows they do not need a gerrymandered advantage to beat Republicans, who would have far less control without cheating.

Here in Calif they can't do that.. & the super majority here is Dem, they could almost totally cut the gop out of what little they have now if not for the new system.. But even so, many districts look like inkblots, lol

The Dems did well in the mid-terms, who do you want to see get the nom?? If I may ask??

Dems would have done better with fair districts.

 

[Bill]

Hello Bill,



No, actually the goal of Dems is to draw fair districts, not try to use the same dirty tricks as the Republicans. NDRC knows they do not need a gerrymandered advantage to beat Republicans, who would have far less control without cheating.



Dems would have done better with fair districts.

IMHO NEITHER OF THEM SHOULD BE DRAWING "FAIR" DISTRICTS FOR THEMSELVES..period!!!!!

They need to adopt a system that is out of the direct hands of the crooks, I mean politicians, something similar/akin to the districting in Calif..

Something like this:The California Citizens Redistricting Commission is the redistricting commission for the State of California responsible for determining the boundaries of districts for the State Senate, State Assembly, and Board of Equalization. The Commission was created in 2010 and consists of 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four from neither major party. The Commission was created following the passage in November 2008 of California Proposition 11, the Voters First Act.[1] The commissioners were selected in November and December 2010 and were required to complete the new maps by August 15, 2011.[2]

Following the 2010 passage of California Proposition 20, the Voters First Act for Congress, the Commission was also assigned the responsibility of redrawing the state's U.S. congressional district boundaries following the congressional apportionment arising from the 2010 United States Census.


Also note: Repub have 5, same as Dems eventhough there are a lot more Dems..

THERE ARE ACTUALLY FEWER REPUBLICANS THAN UNAFFILIATED: Just under 44 percent of registered voters were Democrats, 27 percent were unaffiliated and 25 percent were Republicans.

 

[cawacko]

IMHO NEITHER OF THEM SHOULD BE DRAWING "FAIR" DISTRICTS FOR THEMSELVES..period!!!!!

They need to adopt a system that is out of the direct hands of the crooks, I mean politicians, something similar/akin to the districting in Calif..

Something like this:The California Citizens Redistricting Commission is the redistricting commission for the State of California responsible for determining the boundaries of districts for the State Senate, State Assembly, and Board of Equalization. The Commission was created in 2010 and consists of 14 members: five Democrats, five Republicans, and four from neither major party. The Commission was created following the passage in November 2008 of California Proposition 11, the Voters First Act.[1] The commissioners were selected in November and December 2010 and were required to complete the new maps by August 15, 2011.[2]

Following the 2010 passage of California Proposition 20, the Voters First Act for Congress, the Commission was also assigned the responsibility of redrawing the state's U.S. congressional district boundaries following the congressional apportionment arising from the 2010 United States Census.


Also note: Repub have 5, same as Dems eventhough there are a lot more Dems..

THERE ARE ACTUALLY FEWER REPUBLICANS THAN UNAFFILIATED: Just under 44 percent of registered voters were Democrats, 27 percent were unaffiliated and 25 percent were Republicans.

To your point if we want "fairness" it must be taken out of the hand of elected politicians. Political parties exist to win and maintain power. No matter what 'enlightened' rhetoric they use power is the reason for their existence. And neither party is going to draw "fair" boundaries.

 

[Bill]

To your point if we want "fairness" it must be taken out of the hand of elected politicians. Political parties exist to win and maintain power. No matter what 'enlightened' rhetoric they use power is the reason for their existence. And neither party is going to draw "fair" boundaries.

Of course that would be better, but this is better than what most states have...