DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The 2020 Election: A Change is Gonna Come?

Before the 2016 election, I figured that Donald Trump was a dangerous man because he could further divide and cause even more problems between the classes, races, genders, and almost every other group out there.

I remember being appalled that this great country had two candidates in Trump and Clinton at the forefront. I am still astounded that they were our "choice." I despise both.

I just looked up the odds for the 2020 presidential election and Trump is the favorite. Other names include Sanders, Biden, Kamala Harris, Oprah, Pence, Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, and even The Rock.

I want change. I want Trump out. And I don't want some far left person who believes in tuition free colleges and other socialistic platforms that sound "lovely," but instead promote laziness and take the money out of the pockets of hard working middle class folks.

I want candidates that are open-minded enough to support equality for all groups and to realize that a solid work ethic is something to be pursued. I don't want exclusions and I don't want hand-outs. I want candidates that are fair.

That's a lot to ask, but one thing for sure.........I want two better candidates than the two scum bags that faced off in the last election.

Do any of you have favorites? And how do we go about promoting these candidates so they have a realistic chance?

Short list:

Bernie, Avenatti, Kasich

That order.

Bob Corker

The two parties are currently divided into extremes.

Therefore a Moderate will come to the forefront as that represents the majority of Americans.

Behold! The rise of the Libertarian Party!

That is why I mentioned Bob Corker.

Other than Rand, who?

Flake would also be an acceptable R to me.

Why not Rand?

The right hates Warren almost as bad as HRC. Booker will run but is a sell out imho. I really don't have much use for most of the establishment dems or the ones who have been here 'too' long. Excited about some of the newcomers, but not for President.

Avenatti name is being thrown around since he was asked and said he would consider if the dems couldn't find someone to beat Trump. He's a pitbull, don't know anything about his stances but would be fun to see him debate Trump.

Kanye West is my pick

Educate me on Warren. Her platform looks pretty good. What don't people like about her? You have to remember that in the past, I haven't followed these candidates.

I'm just to the point that I think [know] we need a drastic change in order to save our country.

I have another question. I didn't see Nicky Haley's name on the odds sheet for our next president. I find her incredibly impressive. She was governor for awhile hear in SC and I think she has done a great job at the U.N.

Anyone have any thoughts on her?

Dun Dun Dun...It will be Kanye West, who will run under the republican ticket.

First things first. 11-6-18 Blue Wave.

Horrible job with the UN. However, she seems like a tow the line, middle of the road Republican, so she's preferable to 99% of their candidates.

Kasich is a crook. Stealing nearly one billion from small business who were charged penalties because he refused to pay back the feds for the unemployment relief from the crash in 2009/10. PENALTIES, not interest, not repayment... all the while bragging about a 2 billion surplus. Finally, we become one of the last two states in the union to pay back our loan, only to find he passed the buck to Ohio JFS to collect. Last year my unemployment rate nearly quadrupled and I've STILL never laid-off any worker in fifteen years. Flat out lie-through-his-teeth crook.

Warren is Bernie superlite. She's a law Professor by trade. She's a Reagan Republican turned Democrat, then liberal progressive. Her big deal was consumer protection advocacy, that's what she became a leader in the Dem party for doing.

She's strong on things like equality, education, personal rights, income inequality, anti big banks, anti wall street, anti big money in politics, anti predatory lending, protecting the poor and restoring a strong middle class.

She's not as far left as Bernie but she's probably #2 in being far left.

She will be attacked over claiming native american ancestry way back in the day before politics. Her mother always said they were indian descendants when she was growing up but she can't prove it otherwise. All she did was get listed in some directory as a Native American Professor which led to a bigger job. But she gets destroyed on it politically, made out to be a liar.

She would also get attacked for everything Bernie does except being a socialist. She would also have the disadvantage of being a woman with a strong mind like HRC, so they will use similar attacks there too. She gets drug through the mud on the far right as a regular target.

I like her a lot, but Bernie is stronger on most of those issues and doesn't have as much baggage except the socialist moniker. So I look at it like why look to Warren who is a slightly weaker progressive with more attackable vulnerabilities.

She's probably the strongest female candidate the GOP could put up. I'd call her mid right on most issues. Center right on a few. Ex Governor and came up through the ranks in SC Politics. Not my cup of tea, probably take some knocks for being part of the Trump admin even though many expected clashes between her and Trump, and doubtful she would run against him. She might be a candidate after Trump.

Thanks for the information. I think anyone that is disliked by the "far right" or "far left" might be okay. LOL

I like Rho Kahn and Tulsi Gabbard on the left.

and I wish Trey Gowdy would run but I don't think he ever will for the right.

MadDog 2020

Why do you believe that socialistic platforms promote laziness?

Free college education doesn't mean you don't have to work hard to get it. And it doesn't mean you don't have to work hard to make it count and keep it. You think just because a kid gets into college due to a free tuition program can skate by and not do work? Nope.

I'd even be ok with a free tuition program for students who performed at a certain level in high school.

In other countries with free college tuition, like the Netherlands for example, they have a lottery. I had a visiting professor who tutored me and he told me about his two sons, only one of which was able to attend University in their home country. It was free, but the other son could not attend because he wasn't chosen. Even though he had excellent grades.

So there are differing ways of doing things. It doesn't mean it promotes laziness.

And what other social program promotes laziness? Please don't say healthcare. Because healthcare for everyone, while it comes out of taxpayer money, will not promote laziness, just healthier people.

Watched a movie not long ago about an education system that simply killed the lowest 1/3 of pre-graduates based on a final exam. They were deemed unfit for society. This society had a corporate version of socialism where lives were perfect with good jobs for all, low prices on everything, all needs met because there was a surplus of everything.

SPOILER ALERT: The student who failed were actually taken underground to factories and hidden infrastructure where they became slave labor.

The reason I bring this up is to point out the inherent dangers in both Capitalism and Socialism. What we need is more effort to find solutions that work and to label the successful and most humane solutions as Amercanism.

The solution is communism.

Tell me more. I know you are not referring to old school USSR style communism. I'd like to know what you think is so wonderful about communism. Living communally, sharing everything equally, everyone doing their fair share of the work? I mean it sounds good until you add humans.

Now if we are talking about Star Trek style communism, then yes maybe i could get behind that.

Communism works great the smaller the system is. A family is a prefect example of it. You're able to hold everyone accountable and make sure everyone does their proper share. City government is also a good example, where police and fire are supported by the community. But I'd argue the bigger the government gets, the worse it becomes. Mostly because of what you're saying. The more humans you have the more corruption will work it's way into things. And the bigger the system, the harder it is to keep everyone accountable and/or move out of it.

We could not possibly agree more. Yet while I knew the results Trump would bring, I understood it a little more. People are sick of lifelong politicians and wanted an "outsider". I didn't think they would stoop to that level to get one, but I understood the reasoning behind it.



I'm not so sure about free college. Here in Tennessee under a Republican governor we have a program that gives a two year associates degree for free. There are qualifiers with grades that are attached however, so you do have to earn it by getting average grades in high school.

There's actually two different ways of looking at this. There's your way of looking at it, which I do understand. Then there's the other way, which is the way our state looks at it. Each state is competing for jobs. Most of today's technical and medical jobs require at least a two year degree. As such, having a populace that's educated and and prepared for such jobs gives your state an advantage by having that educated populace there for companies to employ. It helps attract business and can be seen as an investment for the future economy of your state.

Now I'm not one who is willing to go all out in one direction be it far left or far right in most cases. I think our nation does best when we keep an even keel and work on the art of compromise. So I think a happy medium can be achieved that works better for all.

As of now, I see a student loan program I feel is broken. I do see education as an investment. As such, I think the loan rate on student loans should be brought down to the prime rate. That's not a giveaway but at the same time it's also not allowing the government to use students as a profitable business.



While you're asking for something much like I am, I see no future that looks anything like that. Each side is moving either far right or far left and moderation seems to have gone the way of the dinosaur. Common sense has been thrown out the window by both parties.



I've had a few in the past but as I described above, none of them had a fighting chance. The best possible scenario I could imagine would be Jim Webb who is considered a "Conservative Democrat".

Democrats pushed out Webb and millions like him

It has nearly been forgotten now, but last fall, Democrats ridiculed and chased one of their primary candidates out of the race. In retrospect, it was a significant event. Now that Donald Trump has won the presidency on the back of a strong performance among low-income and rural white voters, it is worth pondering whether the same left-wing attitude toward Jim Webb is what has driven the white working class out of their party.

As we noted at the time, Webb had been comfortably within the bounds of the liberal Democratic mainstream when he ran for his only Senate term in 2006. He had opposed the Iraq War before it was launched, and also the Gulf War before that. As a senator, he opposed policies barring homosexuals from military service. He supported legalized abortion. He voted for Obamacare. He supported expanding Medicare. He opposed anything resembling privatization of Social Security.

But as a candidate who held too many politically incorrect beliefs, and who seemed culturally "retro" by the standards of coastal elites, Webb seemed out of place on the debate stage with candidates who were prepared to declare their affinity for socialism and gun control. Thus, liberals subjected him to intense ridicule.

In the only debate in which he participated, Webb was attacked for his writings in opposition to affirmative action. He defended those writings, pointing out that such programs are most harmful to down-scale white Americans who lack the family connections to succeed.

"When we create diversity programs that include everyone, quote, 'of color,' other than whites, struggling whites like the families in the Appalachian mountains, we're not being true to the Democratic Party principle of elevating the level of consciousness among our people about the hardships that a lot of people ... happen to have," he said.

Webb was also the only candidate willing to agree with the statement that "all lives matter," which was posed in the context of the Black Lives Matter movement.

When asked about his "A" rating from the NRA during his time in the Senate, Webb said he supports universal background checks, but added: "There are people at high levels in this government who have bodyguards 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The average American does not have that, and deserves the right to be able to protect their family."

To a very, very large number of people, Webb's comments were simple common sense. To liberals who watch Democratic primaries and chronicle them for major news organizations, they seemed out of place and kooky. These same liberals did not find it kooky when Bernie Sanders held up Denmark as the socialist model to which America should aspire (it isn't socialist, by the way), nor flinch at Clinton's baggage, nor question Clinton's and Sanders' promises to end all deportations.

But Webb was unacceptable, and he dropped out when he saw no path to victory.

Now that Trump has won the presidency, Webb's common sense should seem relevant once again among Democrats, if they want to regain the support of blue-collar voters. Over the years, the same left-wing attitude that pushed Webb out of the primaries may have pushed millions of others who identify with Webb's life and down-to-earth demeanor out of the Democratic Party. This attitude, which has been especially strong during Obama's lamentable presidency, probably prompted many of them to vote for Trump.

Before Tuesday, Democrats had convinced themselves that they had settled all the important issues, save perhaps how people should pronounce the gender-neutral pronouns ("xe") that they would be forcing everyone to use once they had finished enacting their policy agenda.

But on the way to the White House, they shunned and then shed a large group of voters to whom they had earnestly appealed in past times, and whose votes it turned out they needed.

That's food for thought for a party that now finds itself at rock bottom, out of power and out of prospects.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-pushed-out-webb-and-millions-like-him

As for asking how one would promote him so he would have a realistic chance? In today's environment of extremism, unfortunately, I don't have a clue how to even begin to answer such a question.

That may be an idea I could get behind right there.

I like her a lot and I think she has done an admirable job as governor and at the UN... Given most the other names being bantered about, I'd put her up against any of them...

So far she has managed to not get tangled up in the web of "Trump" and kept her reputation pretty clean... hopefully she can stay that way for a while longer..

Real change will never come from the ballot box....Its just not possible in this day and age. The system is pretty much set up to make sure that we maintain the status quo.

Any candidate that has a shot at winning the nomination is already deeply ensnared in that huge Washington machine. And so, no matter if you pick democrat or republican, you're still going to get more of the same.

Its basically a huge machine of indoctrination that begins before you even learn to walk. All of us are subjected to this. All our goals, ideas, thinking, its all been planted to keep us supporting the same clowns in whichever party you've been hoodwinked into supporting, to keep us supporting and believing in the system that controls us, and to keep us always believing that whichever shmuck we put into whichever office, that shmuck is gonna magically right the ship and bring about change.

The reality is that change is not possible. Its a fairytale, its something that's been sold to the masses to keep them engaged while their freedoms and livelihoods are sold out right beneath them. The American political system is a sham. And if you think that elected officials are going to bring about change, then you are delusional....

Thanks, man! I appreciate that.

I am not going to go down this road w/you. You get too angry and hurl too many insults. If I reciprocate, I will be suspended while you carry on.

I suggest you do a google search on the failures of socialism.

However, for the purposes of this particular thread........just tell me who you want running for president.

I'm fine if you want a socialist. I try not to judge anyone harshly for their political preferences. I just want two better candidates than we had last time.

Thanks Pit for the lengthy response. I will have to respond later because I am agitated about another topic.

I do want to say this, though. I didn't intend for this thread to be a confrontational thread, as in one side sucks and the other does not. I just think we need a change and was hoping to hear the candidates that y'all prefer.

I didn't do a very good job of making that clear. I realize that I put my own personal preferences in there w/the socialism comment and the working class reference.

So, let me try again......Who do you want to see as our top candidates and why do you want them there? For example, one might say I want Bernie Sanders because I love socialism.

Not trying to insult your intelligence.....I just think that its a pipe dream thinking that we can fix this country at the ballot box.....Its a societal, cultural cancer that has been festering since long before you and I first put on our pampers....

Those in power, and those who hold the wealth in this country will never let the people approach any position to challenge the status quo......because of that, there will never be change.

The system is too big, too entrenched, too powerful to ever allow for itself to become an instrument to enact real change.


I've been around for a miniscule 36 years. And much of that time I've been pretty damn ignorant of politics. I think that my first ideals and values formed out of my parents and family's values sometime around 12 years old; and I don't think that I really formed my own values until many years later.....probably around 25-30 years old.

So I'm pretty young in this arena. But, since I first developed an understanding of politics, probably some time during Bush I, I've seen several other presidents come and go; and honestly, I can't say that any of them had even come close to enacting the kind of change that would offer a better life for myself, or really anyone else. Not a single sitting president in my lifetime of political understanding has done anything other than upholding the status quo.

I hear you and I mostly agree. However..........

Trump was elected. He does not like minorities. He despises immigrants. The crimes against Hispanics and Muslims have increased since he took office.

On a contrary note. Some like socialism. Free this. Free that. They say the money is there because we have so many rich people. Yet, the rich don't pay. Working folk like my family pays. I'm sorry, but I don't want to pay for your free education. I don't want to pay for your free housing. I don't want to pay for your free food. I think getting things for free is an incentive to not work for them. I also want to clarify...........if the rich entertainers in Hollywood who bellyache about such things want to fund housing for the unemployed, pay for college for the poor, and feed all the poor people................go right ahead. Just give up one trip to Italy. Or one mansion in one city. One yacht. But, please stop taxing hard working folks that make up the backbone of our country.

Uh.......your wife makes $300,000.00 a year. You are a retired teacher, so you're probably getting around $30,000 a year. I believe you said you own 3 houses, after selling 1?

You are 'rich', according to the libs. Consequently, they want your money.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But, they want money from everyone that works. And yes, the uber rich don't pay it, I get that.

But I do. And, my wife and I combined are barely making 6 digits. When you look at 'net' income? Far below the 6 digit number.

We are not rich. Believe me. LOL

We struggle to pay the bills.

I was kind of echoing peen's point. That kind of money does not make you rich.

I better clarify. I am not complaining. Our tax status is frustrating, but we're thankful that we live in the United States of America.

Well, if your spouse is making over $300,000.00 a year, and you get your retirement, and you own 3 houses, yeah, by most people, you're rich.

I'm not saying you should pay more in taxes.

But yeah, the common, WORKING people, would consider you rich.

And I know some that make that kind of coin, and they aren't rich - but that has to do with their spending.