Who will face Trump in the election of 2020?

[bibleverse2]

Elizabeth warren will be the first women president; to be elected in 2020

How about the first woman Vice-President, with Harris as the first woman President?

That is, it could be a two-fer of women.

But it would be a leftist end to the Constitutional Republic as we know it, helping to set things up in the U.S. for the world takeover by the future Antichrist -- the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast" (Revelation 13:4-18) -- who will not be from the U.S., but who will be lovingly embraced by the (anti-Christian) left in the U.S., and worldwide.

 

[Hobie]

The electoral college allows the states to retain some sovereignty. For it is the United States, not the United Coastal Mobs.

Also, look at a County map of the U.S., colored either Red or Blue according to the majority of "we" voters. You will be shocked at how few counties are Blue. The map is overwhelmingly, solid, Red.

And it is the wonderful U.S. Constitution itself which assures that the immoral Coastal elites and their city mobs cannot dictate to the moral, red and central expanse.

Thank God.

The leftists don't want only to get rid the of U.S. Constitution's electoral college, but also its Bill of Rights (esp. its freedom of religion and speech), so that they can ruthlessly persecute Biblical Christians in the name of a Satanic, "political correctness".

May God help us.

They will succeed, that is the worse part, and force everyone to follow the religious/political course they decide. That is a given, how long we have before it happens is the question.....https://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-the-beast.html

 

[annabenedetti]

How about the first woman Vice-President, with Harris as the first woman President?

That is, it could be a two-fer of women.

That would be awesome.

But it would be a leftist end to the Constitutional Republic as we know it, helping to set things up in the U.S. for the world takeover by the future Antichrist -- the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast" (Revelation 13:4-18) -- who will not be from the U.S., but who will be lovingly embraced by the (anti-Christian) left in the U.S., and worldwide.

No it won't be the end of our Constitutional Republic as we know it. It'll just be four years of a better presidency than the one we're being inflicted with right now.

 

[annabenedetti]

The electoral college allows the states to retain some sovereignty. For it is the United States, not the United Coastal Mobs.

Also, look at a County map of the U.S., colored either Red or Blue according to the majority of "we" voters. You will be shocked at how few counties are Blue. The map is overwhelmingly, solid, Red.

And it is the wonderful U.S. Constitution itself which assures that the immoral Coastal elites and their city mobs cannot dictate to the moral, red and central expanse.

Thank God.

The leftists don't want only to get rid the of U.S. Constitution's electoral college, but also its Bill of Rights (esp. its freedom of religion and speech), so that they can ruthlessly persecute Biblical Christians in the name of a Satanic, "political correctness".

May God help us.

"Coastal mobs?" What coastal mobs? I don't see any coastal mobs.

"Moral, red and central expanse?" How moral was it that someone shot up a church in Texas killing 26 people and wounding 20 more? How moral was it that three Trump-supporting militia members in Kansas were recently convicted for planning to blow up a mosque and kill everyone, including children? How moral is it that Kentucky has the highest child abuse rate in the country? I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.

 

[The Berean]

How about the first woman Vice-President, with Harris as the first woman President?

That is, it could be a two-fer of women.

But it would be a leftist end to the Constitutional Republic as we know it, helping to set things up in the U.S. for the world takeover by the future Antichrist -- the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast" (Revelation 13:4-18) -- who will not be from the U.S., but who will be lovingly embraced by the (anti-Christian) left in the U.S., and worldwide.

Harris as president would be HORRIBLE. She'd be 10x worse than Trump and I dislike Trump quite a bit.

I could put up with Elizabeth Warren as President.

 

[jamesdyson]

date-O7/03/2019
time
Today, at +/- 8:00 PM,
It's 9:09PM now
CST
Fox “NEWS” was talking about Hillary’s “e-mails”, way back then.,.,.,.
Sad, sad indeed
Feeding Trump’s nostalgic past memories, as if it were today~~~
Yes, Sad, sad indeed

the fox outfoxed itself

 

[jamesdyson]

Harris as president would be HORRIBLE. She'd be 10x worse than Trump and I dislike Trump quite a bit.

I could put up with Elizabeth Warren as President.

Some things just need repeating
You and I are one on this one

 

[annabenedetti]

 

[Rusha]

Well, that seems to spell the end of Biden....https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...-theyd-vote-for-biden-after-first-debate-poll

Not necessarily. Regardless, insofar as the 2020 election... any Dem will do.

 

[Town Heretic]

The electoral college allows the states to retain some sovereignty.

You mean it favors geography over people, which seems a bit silly to me, like doubling down on the Senate. And you don't get much sillier than the Senate.

For it is the United States, not the United Coastal Mobs.

You want a united acres, not people then.

Also, look at a County map of the U.S., colored either Red or Blue according to the majority of "we" voters. You will be shocked at how few counties are Blue. The map is overwhelmingly, solid, Red.

You do realize that even within those red counties a lot of people (where there are a lot of people) are blue (either) right? For instance, my home county in Alabama is overwhelmingly conservative, with about 75% of it voting for the president in the last election. But that means there are 50k people who didn't don't show up on that map. And in many counties the color of them on that map can be a fairly thin margin.

So color coded maps don't really/necessarily tell us that the less conservative and moderate sides of the nation are all found on the coast. It's just a version of the EC, with a winner take all misrepresentation.

And it is the wonderful U.S. Constitution itself which assures that the immoral Coastal elites and their city mobs cannot dictate to the moral, red and central expanse.

Hey, the Founders had a legitimate concern that people would simply turn out for their familiar, regional candidates before the advent of media that let people know a lot about other candidates from other regions, inviting a splintering of our then fragile and new union. That's no longer the case.

You should visit New York City. The only mob mentality you'll find there is probably in Jersey.

Thank God.

Every day, and I still say the EC is the second worse idea the Fathers ever had, right after, "Well, a little slavery couldn't hurt."

The leftists don't want only to get rid the of U.S. Constitution's electoral college, but also its Bill of Rights (esp. its freedom of religion and speech), so that they can ruthlessly persecute Biblical Christians in the name of a Satanic, "political correctness".

Yeah, that was their game plan all along. You must have gotten on their "secret plan" mailing list by mistake. I got on it for contributing 4 bucks to Save the Whales. Insidious. But how you whiffed at the opportunity to work guns and Muslims into that response is anyone's guess.

More seriously, you should be that (more serious). If you honestly think that about the blue then then the monied interests are getting their dollar's worth and it's an argument for diverting future wall funding to the education budget.

 

[drbrumley]

You mean it favors geography over people, which seems a bit silly to me, like doubling down on the Senate. And you don't get much sillier than the Senate.


You want a united acres, not people then.


You do realize that even within those red counties a lot of people (where there are a lot of people) are blue (either) right? For instance, my home county in Alabama is overwhelmingly conservative, with about 75% of it voting for the president in the last election. But that means there are 50k people who didn't don't show up on that map. And in many counties the color of them on that map can be a fairly thin margin.

So color coded maps don't really/necessarily tell us that the less conservative and moderate sides of the nation are all found on the coast. It's just a version of the EC, with a winner take all misrepresentation.


Hey, the Founders had a legitimate concern that people would simply turn out for their familiar, regional candidates before the advent of media that let people know a lot about other candidates from other regions, inviting a splintering of our then fragile and new union. That's no longer the case.

You should visit New York City. The only mob mentality you'll find there is probably in Jersey.


Every day, and I still say the EC is the second worse idea the Fathers ever had, right after, "Well, a little slavery couldn't hurt."


Yeah, that was their game plan all along. You must have gotten on their "secret plan" mailing list by mistake. I got on it for contributing 4 bucks to Save the Whales. Insidious. But how you whiffed at the opportunity to work guns and Muslims into that response is anyone's guess.

More seriously, you should be that (more serious). If you honestly think that about the blue then then the monied interests are getting their dollar's worth and it's an argument for diverting future wall funding to the education budget.

And there is also no talking to someone who says the State of California and the state of New York should make blanket laws for such rural states as Kansas....

 

[Town Heretic]

And there is also no talking to someone who says the State of California and the state of New York should make blanket laws for such rural states as Kansas....

Good thing that isn't my position on the legislative branches and that I was, instead, speaking to how we should elect the head of the executive.

 

[drbrumley]

Good thing that isn't my position on the legislative branches and that I was, instead, speaking to how we should elect the head of the executive.

Legislative branches? :sigh:

Well, that's done on the state level.....

Just as the President should be voted on at the state level...

If its your way, the 3 to 5 most populated states makes the rules for the entire nation...Screw that.

 

[drbrumley]

This is Town to the smaller states:

Vermont, screw you
Montana, shut up.
North Dakota, up yours....

etc etc etc

Even his home state gets the finger from Town.

 

[drbrumley]

Just shows he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about..

 

[Town Heretic]

Legislative branches? :sigh:

Well, that's done on the state level.....

Right. So imagine my eyebrows when you wrote, "And there is also no talking to someone who says the State of California and the state of New York should make blanket laws for such rural states as Kansas...."

I mean, that having no real relation to what I was speaking to with the EC.

Just as the President should be voted on at the state level...

That's one assertion. Mostly the stuff of small states that want to have a disproportionate power. But the Senate gives them their voice. The president should reflect the people's voice, one man, one vote.

If its your way, the 3 to 5 most populated states makes the rules for the entire nation...Screw that.

Well, no. First, you have the Senate, which splits that power with the House, again. And then you have the Constitution and the Court.

This is Town to the smaller states:
Vermont, screw you
Montana, shut up.
North Dakota, up yours....
etc etc etc
Even his home state gets the finger from Town.

Which alone should tell anyone with any sense that DR isn't getting my part right.

Just shows he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about..

Well, you're in the ballpark, but this one appears to serve alcohol a bit too early. lain:

 

[drbrumley]

That's one assertion. Mostly the stuff of small states that want to have a disproportionate power.

Disproportionate power?

So states with 3 electors has more power than California... which has 55. Are you really using this as an argument?

 

[Town Heretic]

Disproportionate power?

Yes, which they already possess, really, having the Senate and with it half the power of the legislative branch on the strength of...land, at the federal level and sovereignty within their borders subject to the Constitution. Don't get me wrong though, I can see the reason in the Senate, in their having that sort of power, to protect, say, the rural interest of the heartland and not have, as per your advance, New York deciding for Iowa. That sort of thing.

So states with 3 electors has more power than California.

You're crossing streams, though are you suggesting the EC doesn't favor the states? Because that appears to be the single reason the pro side raises about it.

My argument against the EC is that as the president is the representative of the people he should be elected by them. Otherwise you can have (and we've had) a minority in this country running roughshod over the majority, which is about as antithetical to a nation that believes in equality in right and before the law as you can have and still retain the semblance of a democracy.

 

[Hobie]

The electoral college allows the states to retain some sovereignty. For it is the United States, not the United Coastal Mobs.

Also, look at a County map of the U.S., colored either Red or Blue according to the majority of "we" voters. You will be shocked at how few counties are Blue. The map is overwhelmingly, solid, Red.

And it is the wonderful U.S. Constitution itself which assures that the immoral Coastal elites and their city mobs cannot dictate to the moral, red and central expanse.

Thank God.

The leftists don't want only to get rid the of U.S. Constitution's electoral college, but also its Bill of Rights (esp. its freedom of religion and speech), so that they can ruthlessly persecute Biblical Christians in the name of a Satanic, "political correctness".

May God help us.

This is why the founding fathers put in the electoral college to basically keep the densely packed sections such as the cities from overwhelming and imposing their will on the rest of the country.

 

[Town Heretic]

This is why the founding fathers put in the electoral college to basically keep the densely packed sections such as the cities from overwhelming and imposing their will on the rest of the country.

No, it isn't. It was to keep regionalism from destroying the necessary unity of a new nation. There weren't that many cosmopolitan areas then and a lot of people were spread out across a great divide, with no instantaneous media to give us a feel for the candidates who weren't from our neck of the woods.

That's no longer the case. And the founding fathers didn't trust the unlanded non-gentry. We had no free public education in those days. They feared an easily manipulated public.

Lastly, the Constitutional establishment did not create the winner take all effect we see in states today, so the unusual split we saw in the last election, where the popular and electoral votes differed and the lesser of the former won the job wasn't a thing built into the process. It was added in later.