tuscl

Off topic. How to run for president and not turn off large blocks of voters

Saturday, October 14, 2017 3:17 AM
1. Don't go around saying large groups of voters are going to be out of work after your policies are law. Lost West Virginia , part of Pennsylvania. 2. Even if your base thinks negatively of everyone who remotely supports the other party, don't call potential voters names. Don't resort to name calling. Call voters names. You lose. Example. Deplorables. 3. Don't say stupid things that make you sound arrogant even if you are. Example after being investigated for wiping a server to erase evidence, ask, you mean with a cloth? 4. Don't be involved in a previous administration that had several "suicides" under mysterious circumstances. 5. Don't have an organization that collects funds from foreign organizations that makes you look like something shady is going on making you look corrupt and crooked in combination with the above. 6. Don't talk about your plans to overturn the second amendment before you are president. Many voters support the bill of rights and the amendments. Don't be caught on camera saying you would like to ban all guns. It will be used against you forever as your forever opinion. 7. Visit states where your opponent is if you think it will be close. Every state does count. That's the way our system is rigged. It doesn't matter if not one person in the entire state of California voted for your opponent. 8. Don't advocate open borders or controversial policies while running for president. Not every American wants criminals and millions of others just arriving in the country competing for jobs and taking welfare benefits, social security benefits, Medicare or Medicaid benefits that they paid nothing for while Americans here have worked years for these benefits. People feel slighted if their benefits get cut because you are promising to let millions of others to come and take what they thought would be their benefits. 9. Talk about how your policies will help voters in multiple states. Focus on improving the economy and voters economy and jobs. Ok this one was extra. Ok the political part. One candidate did the opposite of all of this and millions of Americans were in disbelief that she lost.

31 comments

  • sharkhunter
    •
    7 years ago
    This is all a distraction of course because the elephant in the room when it comes to politics is the huge debt and all the future liabilities this country owes which many believe we won't be able to pay back. I thought maybe the democrats would fix it if they controlled the White House and congress. Nope. Then I thought Republicans would fix it if they controlled the White House and congress. Nope. We're all so screwed. We have like 100 trillion dollars in national debt and future liabilities and the problem grows until the whole system collapses with no action to fix it. That's the really sad part because we could have implemented changes to fix the problem but no one does anything. I guess I didn't realize the Republican Party is really 2 different parties and is the same party in name only. Trump isn't really even a republican in my opinion. He's more like an independent, Our system is rigged. You have to be a millionaire to have a chance at spending the mega bucks to even get your name on the ballot in every state and pay for advertising etc. That means only the 1% has a chance at becoming president and many members of congress are in the same group and voters wonder why we have so many problems. If you could replace the president and congress with the middle class, I bet real change would come that would boost our economy and help the poor and middle class and everyone. Well the rich would pay more in taxes possibly. Can't deny that. However if the economy was booming, they might be paying more because they were making a lot more money. That's what I call a win win. Everyone makes more money. The government has more money to pay bills.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    I agree with a few of these points, but then you said "If you could replace the president and congress with the middle class, I bet real change would come... ." I bet it wouldn't. Human nature doesn't change just because you aren't rich. You then went on to say "... I bet real change would come that would boost our economy... ." Nope. If middle class people were really such financial geniuses I doubt they would still be 'middle class.' Trust me, they would fuck the economy up just as much as the rich folks do. The only way to solve our economic problems is to leave everyone the hell alone and to stop stealing their money. That means that we should especially stop taking rich people's money and giving it away to the middle class. The middle class receives the lion's share of the government money in this country and the rich people pay the lion's share of the taxes. If rich people are rigging the system, as so many people seem to believe, then they are doing a really bad job of stealing their own money back.
  • six300s
    •
    7 years ago
    Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth. Abraham Lincoln I do not think our current political situation is ANY of the above
  • RandomMember
    •
    7 years ago
    LOL! The tyranny of taxation! @Burlington obviously pictures himself as the hero of some Ayn Rand novel. He's a selfless and ultra-intelligent guy trying to rescue society from all the worthless parasites below him trying to take his money. Please, someone explain to me why strip clubs attract so many bizarre, long-winded, Randoids? There most be some kinds of weird association because the sugaring forums (with some truly rich guys) are mostly sane liberals and moderates.
  • Clubber
    •
    7 years ago
    I would never change what the dems do when campaigning. It has been very successful with over 1000 seats at the state and federal level. Keep up the good work. Even cnn predicts the dem's success will continue in the 2018 midterms.
  • Clubber
    •
    7 years ago
    See below... [view link]
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @RandomMember, no, they're not taking much of my money because I'm not rich. But that doesn't make it right. And I don't see all that many "Randoids" here. But I do see a strange hostility to libertarianism here that I actually don't see anywhere else. This is strange, because it's actually a fairly obscure ideology with zero chance of winning many elections at any level. Ever.
  • RandomMember
    •
    7 years ago
    And I don't see all that many "Randoids" here. THen you haven't been here long enough
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    Ok, so there's me, mark94, ppwh (I think), Dominic77 (if you really stretch the definition), and that's it. Who else am I missing?
  • Warrenboy75
    •
    7 years ago
    I bet it wouldn't. Human nature doesn't change just because you aren't rich No but it does appear living inside the 495 Beltway around DC causes one to be short sighted and not to be able to understand what the rest of the country needs and wants to live productive lives. I could go a step further and say they go stupid but at the very least they surround themselves with so much BS they forget why they were elected. Personally I've thought for the last 13 years we are headed for another civil/internal war but this time it will be the coast versus the middle of the country. It took a few years before people started to realize what they were hearing on the news wasn't really news anymore as much as an agenda ridden commentary but once they did, and once people realized you saw what happened. Both Trump like him or not and Sanders represent the same thing in one regard --a disgusted voter with politics as they have been the past 50 years.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @Warrenboy75 said "living inside the 495 Beltway around DC causes one to ... not to be able to understand what the rest of the country needs and wants to live productive lives." Okay. What do they need and want? My guess is that they all need and want very different things. Mutually exclusive things. "Personally I've thought for the last 13 years we are headed for another civil/internal war but this time it will be the coast versus the middle of the country." And what will this civil war be fought over exactly? I'm really curious to know. " ... once people realized you saw what happened. Both Trump like him or not and Sanders represent the same thing in one regard --a disgusted voter with politics as they have been the past 50 years." Yes, I saw what happened. I saw that Trump and Sanders got even fewer votes than the bitch they ran against. (And Trump got a lower percentage of the popular vote than even Mitt Romney did in 2012.) If the people are trying to launch a revolution against the wealthy and powerful, then they are going about it in a strange way: by electing a well-connected billionaire. Plus Trump and Sanders have no new ideas. Sanders' ideas on economics aren't much different from Hillary Clinton's, or John Edwards', or Walter Mondale's. I don't see much of a revolution there. And Trump's ideas are just an inconsistent mix of all the ideas of the post-war era. I don't see anything radical about Trump. His behavior may be different, but his ideas are mostly the same. So, based on this, what is going to be the theme of Trump and Sanders' revolution? What's the slogan of the revolution going to be? "Don't change anything, just keep doing what you've been doing, but be loud and angry about it!" Yeah, that sounds about right.
  • Clubber
    •
    7 years ago
    Burl, Trump is very much like Reagan with policies of the 2010s versus the 1980s. I think you tried to refute this before, but ignoring the obvious doesn't change the fact.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @Clubber, excuse me, but I think I already did successfully refute this. Just because you disagree or you chose to ignore what I wrote, that doesn't change the facts either. (Not that I can blame you for ignoring it, after all I do write a lot.)
  • Book Guy
    •
    7 years ago
    six300s pointlessly said ... "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth. Abraham Lincoln I do not think our current political situation is ANY of the above" I disagree. I think our political situation is ENTIRELY and EXACTLY all of the above. Trump is giving the (moronic) people what they (moronically) believe would be in their (moronic) best interests, and the way he got his opportunity to do that (and to self-aggrandize, and gain emoluments on the side, of course) was to advertise in a way that would convince them that they (moronically) should put him in office. Right there, there's all three of your "of" and "by" and "for," all accounted for. It is utterly no matter that it actually is very much in the people's worst interests; that the people probably wouldn't have voted for Trump if they'd used facts to make decisions; that the system out there contains so many checks, balances, and safeguards, that Trump's most nefarious aims probably can't be realized and yet those exact aims are probably the ones that most of his voters would most support, against the very Constitution they so fervently (moronically) claim they espouse. He'll spend and create government infrastructure programs (wall out Mexico, anyone?) all more expensive than FDR's New Deal, raise taxes on certain services and products to pay for it, and claim he's a low-tax pro-business Libertarian-economic-policy Republican, but who needs reality? The (moron) voters believe protectionism will work and coal will save the American economy and they should have more than their (moronic) average of one boat, two houses, and two-and-a-half cars per person because they've been STOLEN from by our outlandishly high taxes (which are lower than any other developed country's taxes; except the most regressive ones, such as sales on clothing and grocery goods, which are unaccountably high relative to other developed countries), because A BOAT ISN'T ENOUGH TO BE MIDDLE CLASS ANY MORE. We've got of by and for the people and I hate it. The people are morons. I tried to live in Canada but I got black-balled because of my national origin too often to have a career there (they are really jingoistically opposed to USA's citizens, they just hide it well). So I came back at the end of the Clinton era. Now I wonder, would it be worse to deal with living under Trump and having to pretend he has a brain; or worse to move back to Canada only to be informed every single day "Let me tell you how fucking stupid this American was" and therefore have to pretend I don't have a brain. Sorry, got on a tear there. Plus, the strip clubs in Toronto and Vancouver are better than in New Orleans or Jackson MS.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @Book Guy, I don't know about the strip clubs in Canada, and I still do want huge tax cuts, but other than that I agree, thanks for this post. H. L. Mencken said that democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard. If the people were really using facts, they would never have voted for either of the candidates. The problem isn't too little democracy, it's too much. The founders wouldn't approve.
  • sharkhunter
    •
    7 years ago
    My primary choice for president has never won a primary. I feel better rooting for a football team underdog like LSU. Today. At least they win sometimes.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @sharkhunter said: "My primary choice for president has never won a primary. I feel better rooting for a football team underdog like LSU. Today. At least they win sometimes." Neither has mine. But you know, the only thing worse than voting for what you want and not getting it is voting for what you don't want and getting it.
  • Clubber
    •
    7 years ago
    Burl, Excuse me, but I think you tried to successfully refute this, but failed miserably. Just because you disagree or you chose to ignore what I wrote, that doesn't change the facts either. (Not that I can blame you for ignoring it, after all I do write the truth.)
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @Clubber, well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about Trump then. I'm sorry I couldn't convince you. Not that I'm surprised, but you seem to be exactly the kind of voter I was trying to find in my thread about Trump: a genuine Trump Fan. I just find it hard to believe that anyone would regard this guy as some kind of a hero or a savior, given what I know about him. But then, I couldn't fathom the love that some people had for Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, either. On the other hand, as I've said several times already, he hasn't been all that bad so far. I'm not sure whether it will end well, but so far, so good. Let's wait and see.
  • six300s
    •
    7 years ago
    @bookguy You are right about Trump, my comment was intended to be directed at the rest of government. Local and National. I live in Illinois and most of our license plates are made by our Convicted "representatives"
  • Clubber
    •
    7 years ago
    Burl, Here's the last of it from me. In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people, and simply let them be wrong. That said, continue being wrong.
  • san_jose_guy
    •
    7 years ago
    Vincent Foster there, having a Mafia drop gun? All deaths should be investigated as though they were homicides. SJG
  • Dominic77
    •
    7 years ago
    Mittens 2012. I'm wager a guess President Trump learned from Governor Romney's failed 2012 campaign but Secretary Clinton did not. That's how one runs for president and not turns off large blocks of voters
  • ppwh
    •
    7 years ago
    I don't think it mattered all that much whether Mitt said what he did in 2012. It was pretty obvious that he was a corporate shill to about everyone as far as I could tell. It's not like people who weren't paying federal taxes were on the brink of voting for him, but were suddenly turned off after hearing his remarks about pulling your own weight. And it's not like all the Republicans who stayed home disagreed with the pulling your own weight stuff.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @Dominic77, I think they both turned off large blocks of voters. One of them had to win anyway.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @ppwh, Romney made an inaccurate comment, but how does that make him a corporate shill? It just so happens that lots of people who don't pay any federal taxes do vote Republican, and many of them voted for him.
  • ppwh
    •
    7 years ago
    @BHF, I don't think that comment had anything to do with whether he was a corporate shill or whether he won the election. There was just no compelling positive reason for anyone to vote for him. What I got from his campaign was that he was sort of Republicanish, but mainly was into letting big corporations have their way. And in the other corner was the First Black President.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @ppwh, letting big corporations "have their way" seems fine with me, and is in no way incompatible with the platform of the GOP. In that regard, he was more than a little "Republicanish," as you put it. But a Romney presidency wouldn't exactly be four years in Galt's Gulch. He was as pro-regulation as any serious presidential contender ever was. And at the end of the day, the number one domestic issue in 2012 was ObamaCare, particularly the individual health insurance mandate. It's what animated the Tea Party most of all. And yet when it came time for the GOP to select their candidate to oppose Obama... they chose the only other guy in America who had ever imposed an individual health insurance mandate: Mitt Romney. That was the best the GOP could do, even after railing against Obamacare for years: a telegenic bullshit artist who had created a state-level version of the exact same law in Massachusetts himself. That might have had something to do with his loss. The electoral college and the general alignment of voters at the time probably had more to do with it. The power of incumbency protecting Obama probably also had lots to do with it. But I doubt that Obama's being black had much to do with it at all.
  • Dominic77
    •
    7 years ago
    @BurlingtonHoFactory, True, but for some reason on comparision of candidate Donald Trump versus candidate Mitt Romney, more people can see themselves (IMO) as Donald Trump if they were to be rich or could in an alternate universe than they could see themselves as Mitt Romney. Mittens just seemed like the real life capitalist villain / CEO villain we love (IMO) hate. Through Bain & Co. and later Bain Capital, there's something about Mittens: he seems like the evil CEO how would foreclose on the homes of people you know and then layoff (pink slip) those very same people the next day. Then give himself a bonus for it all. That was the perception. Supposedly of his $190-250MM fortunate, he does supposedly donate a lot of it to charity and the church. Not sure that message got across to voters. I remember his charity boxing photo but not much else. Do think I dismissed the guy too early and too easily.
  • skibum609
    •
    7 years ago
    Random you crack me up with your oxymorons like sane liberal. Harvey Weinstein is the poster boy for all you lefties: hypocritical fucking fraud. When America didn't vote Romney we lost our last chance to succeed. I will never forget the smug look and tone of disdain the incompetent boob Obama used when Romney claimed Russia was our greatest enemy and smug d bag Obama laughed at him. Of course Romney was right. Then again why would America vote for a moral, religious guy who created a state version of obamacare; never tried to mess with abortion despite his personal opposition; made himself rich (his first investment ever was in a 1 store 10 employee business supply vendor called....Staples. Yes he inherited wealth, but he tithed 100% of it to the church then made his own. Funny guy too because at the saint paddy's day breakfast roast in southie his joke was ...ahh never mind, why I preach to the deaf amazes me.
  • BurlingtonHoFactory
    •
    7 years ago
    @Dominic77, exactly! There's a lot of smart opinions in this thread, but yours was spot on. I forget who said it, but I think it's true: "Donald Trump is a poor person's idea of what a rich person is." Anyway, for the record, although I'm critical of him, I nonetheless happily voted for Romney in 2012. But four years later, I just couldn't bring myself to pull the lever for Trump. As a libertarian, I only agree with about 50% of the GOP platform anyway. But once trump took the helm, that percentage got smaller and smaller. By election day, there was very little left for me to support. Thankfully, he governs somewhat differently from how he campaigned. Which is to say, he's not bad, depending on who is controlling him at the moment (Pence, etc.).
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion