Would you vote for Hillary Clinton in 2020?

No one should fear Trump.

 

You are supposing. Let's see some proof of the contention that you make above outlined in red.

Or are you here simply to throw around some bones of contention because it amuses you?

What is happening in terms of the nomination process for a Dem PotUS candidate is perfectly normal. The selective process is long and arduous but DEMOCRATIC in nature - which cannot be said for Donald Dork's party* ....

*And they should pay-the-penalty for the heinous wrong they have committed in the Senate recently.

 

REPAIRING DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

There are plenty of candidates presently disputing the candidacy. Hillary is old-hat, and we need young-blood to reform America. It is this new generation (aged 18 to 30) that are looking into the future - whilst we old-fogies reminisce about the past.

Look at the present list of candidates! The most hopeful are those with New Blood. Not the old-fogies! (And I dearly like what a brave heart Bernie Sanders has!)

The key to electoral success is the number of people who show up to vote for a Democrat-candidate. It is entirely possible that Hillary would not be able to get a sufficient number of them off their duffs and into a voting-booth in sufficient numbers. (Do we really want a repeat of the last presidential election fiasco?)

Let's not forget what's wrong with "America's Democracy". It is called the Electoral College, which is the reason Hillary lost the election the last time around. The EC-system is warped to prefer Replicant candidates for the presidency. Which is how Donald Dork will win once again were he confronting Hillary!

Let's not go overboard once again. There are plenty of candidates running presently of which one would be ideal to represent a Democrat in the Oval Office. The problem is not in the candidates fielded, but in the warped system we have employed for more than two centuries to elect a PotUS!

Let's not forget we must FIX OUR WARPED DEMOCRACY and that objective is wholly the manner of electing a Head of state!

NB: And at the state-level, gerrymandering that also permits the Replicants to have majorities where they do not deserve them must be done away with. The Electoral College system should ONLY REPORT THE NUMBER OF POPULAR-VOTES OF EACH STATE CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY TO CONGRESS!

 

REDEFINING WHAT'S A "TRUE DEMOCRACY" (KEY ELEMENTS)

Both the HofR and the Senate - having had a national-agency previously (and continuously) inspect the voting process for "process authenticity" (which must yet still be defined*) - must agree that the vote is "authentic" and according to "established norms" (meaning legal).

They then announce the "PotUS-elect" to the nation - and they do so in a delay of 3-days from which the polls have closed (on the West-coast) ...

The nation must also "come up to standard" on a number of elements of a "truly valid voting system".

Excerpt from here (Wikipedia): Democracy

That above remains to be seen and verified for (supposedly) our "oldest democracy on earth".

The present EC was conceived from its origins to give smaller-population states "more say" in the matter of governance. Otherwise, since (in 1812) Europeans were flooding into US northern states, the voting-power of the southern-states (in the HofR) seemed grossly "unfair". Perhaps, but "grossly unfair" is no longer a prime consideration presently given that there is a free-flow of immigrants to live wherever they see fit in any state of the nation - as do US-born citizens.

And, thus, the nation does not need today an EC that makes three gross-errors that must be corrected for a True Democracy to exist:
1) Delete the "First-past-the-post Rule" that gives ALL the EC's votes to only the state's winning party-candidate - which is patently unfair and therefore undemocratic.
2) The relationship between the number of EC-votes allocated to a state is not in a strict relation to its population-count (as accredited by a national entity that oversees the voter count-process.)
3) Therefore only the raw popular-vote (of accredited voters) is acceptable ...

 

Yes, we should not. He's a passing element of American history - the sooner forgot, the better.

We must nonetheless give proper attention to the "political system" that allowed him to win the presidency whilst clearly having lost the popular-vote. This latter is a fundamental criteria of any "developed nation" that aspires to a fair-and-decent political system.

Which we don't have and have never had since Amendment 12 of the Constitution was passed by Congress in 1803 and ratified a year later. That is clearly more than two-centuries that we, as a nation, have blithely elected 45 presidents - all by an unfair and non-democratic system of electing a Head-of-state.

Moreover, in 1812, we allowed a Massachusetts governor to "invent" Gerrymandering, to which his name was given - and consists of this:

Gerrymandering has since become a political-tool to assure - in a two-party system - the dominance of the two major parties in either state or national legislatures.

Face it: This is NOT "democracy". It is a pseudo-democracy that permits people to think they are participating in a democratic-election - and therefore fulfilling their duties as "citizens".

Historically, however, five times in history the loser of the popular vote was elected PotUS. See the historical chart here: Comparable table of elections
- note that in all five elections a PotUS was elected who did not win the popular-vote. In any other supposedly "democratic" country a presidential vote of "second-place" is clearly insufficient to win an election.

But not in the USA! The consequence is simple. One may take a course in high-school Civics that teaches us the rudiments of our political structure. But, on the important point of "how do we elect our representatives to government" no mention whatsoever is made in Civics courses of either the manipulation of the Electoral College (winner-takes-ALL-electoral-votes) or Gerrymandering ...

 

FAIR & DECENT

Yes, we should not. He's a passing element of American history - the sooner forgot, the better.

We must nonetheless give proper attention to the "political system" that allowed him to win the presidency whilst clearly having lost the popular-vote by a sizeable margin of his opponent. This latter is a fundamental criteria of any "developed nation" that aspires to a fair-and-decent political system.

Which we don't have and have never had since Amendment 12 of the Constitution was passed by Congress in 1803 and ratified a year later. That is clearly more than two-centuries that we, as a nation, have blithely elected 45 presidents - all by an unfair and non-democratic system of electing a Head-of-state.

Moreover, in 1812, we allowed a Massachusetts governor to "invent" Gerrymandering, to which his name was given - and consists of this:

Gerrymandering has since become a political-tool to assure - in a two-party system - the dominance of the two major parties in either state or national legislatures.

Face it: This is NOT "democracy". It is a pseudo-democracy that permits people to think they are participating in a democratic-election - and therefore fulfilling their duties as "citizens".

Historically, however, five times in history the loser of the popular vote was elected PotUS. See the historical chart here: Comparable table of elections
- note that in all five elections a PotUS was elected who did not win the popular-vote. In any other supposedly "democratic" country a presidential vote of "second-place" is clearly insufficient to win an election.

But not in the USA! The consequence is simple. One may take a course in high-school Civics that teaches us the rudiments of our political structure. But, on the important point of "how do we elect our representatives to government" no or little mention is made in Civics courses of either the manipulation of the presidential Electoral College (winner-takes-ALL-electoral-votes) or Gerrymandering seats for the HofR ...

 

I voted third party against both Trump and Clinton in 2016 because both disgusted me to no ends. Some 9 million voters did the same as I and felt the same about the idiotic choices the GOP and democrats gave us. I would repeat that vote in 2020 if the match up is the same. As long as there is a third name on the ballot, that third name gets my vote. If no third name, a write in vote, but never for Trump nor Clinton.

 

It is not but was posted before people actually started voting. After Biden and Warren have been dominating the process for months, they were turned over night into also rans! The "kick the board over" part of me is laughing hysterically! But... more below...

Kind of moot now about Clinton cash but my impressions do not come from nowhere... example: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774. Also https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670. And more. But Bloomberg can buy and sell the Clinton's fifty times over. No? So now the concern is, is he simply going to buy the nomination and possibly the presidency? As I wrote above, I posted this thread before any voting actually started and OMG things are going down so differently than I thought they would. From Bernie's surprising strength to what happened in Iowa to Bloomberg purchasing the power to be in tonight's Democratic party debate. And I know very little about Klobuchar. Can you imagine a strong, honest, mainstream Democratic woman (if she is one) debating our grab 'em by the ***** POTUS? Grab your popcorn. I acknowledge my shortcomings and admit, I have absolutely no idea what is going to happen from here. EDIT: A prediction. There is a heck of a lot of enthusiasm for Trump out there. Example: I read that Trump got about double the votes that other incumbents got in previous elections. No matter who the Dems nominate, they have an uphill battle. But it doesn't seem the sure thing I thought it would be against Biden, Warren, or HRC 2.0.

 

Idle ramblings that come out in any pre-election period, as well as after. Whatever they say, there is little significance.

If Americans want Donald Dork for another two years, then so be it. They themselves will also be obliged to assume the consequences.

The poorer and younger elements in our country wouldn't even touch him if he paid.

The middle-class American is a fool to think that very low unemployment is the ONLY ECONOMIC GOAL worth targeting. Whyzzat?

Because Uncle Sam (as well as the rest of the world are in a fundamental Age-Shift. The Industrial Age moved all of its jobs to China. Only 12.8% of all Industrial Jobs remain in America! (And if you don't believe that, see here.) We have become a full-fledged Services Economy!

Why is it important to know that? Because Macdonald's and its kind are low-salary employers for those who do not or cannot obtain a Post-secondary Education. The higher-paying jobs are going to those with post-secondary degrees! And since such degrees are costly, around $15K a year for a diploma, there is a large contingent of families living below the Average Salary Level that cannot afford to send their kids! (In 2009 that ASL is $905 per week or $47,060 per year.

So? So this:
*Only those who have already a post-secondary degree are making salaries twice the average (that is, $100K a year) and sending their kids on to a post-secondary diploma. Which is about only a third of the population. See here. That is, only about a third of the US population have a post-secondary degree and therefore a chance at a very decent standard of living!
*That level of achievement is far too low in a world where technology is moving at breakneck speed and one must keep up with a professional diploma. (Maybe even two in a lifetime!)
*What's transpiring is that the other two-thirds of the population are waiting/hoping that Donald Dork has a magic-wand and will create employment forever. Only that aint-gonna-happin ... !

 

He still lost the election in terms of the popular-vote. Which is the ONLY vote that counts. (Except in the US that does not know how to establish a fair-and-honest electoral system.)

Had he lost, Jerko would be writing his book about how it was all "rigged" that he should lose ...

 

My bad: I meant in the NH Primary 2020. His dominance was so prominent I think it likely he will fare far better in 2020 than he did in 2016.

In our country, the over-reliance on thinking you can just send people to college to improve their lot is why this book was written: https://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liber...keywords=listen+liberal&qid=1582124442&sr=8-1 I think most people should be able to afford a good standard of living. Our productivity has gone through the roof over the last 100 years. And most people do not need college. At this rate, I worry you will need a doctorate degree in how to spread tar. That has to change no matter who gets elected.

 

You do not appreciate rightly the fact that the world is going through Age Change. Profound Age Change.

What the steam-engine first did for the Agricultural Age in the 19th century (labor fled the farmlands to go to factories being built in cities that needed workers), the Internet is doing for the Information Age. It is changing profoundly the way we work and live. And therefore what and the way we learn is a more poignant necessity in our lives. Avoid that necessity and one condemns themself to mediocrity.

We've seen nothing yet compared to what is yet to come ...

 

Isn't that a silly post. Employment does require college or post-secondary votech.

 

Agreed. The more we learn the faster we learn. The faster we learn the more we learn. And creative destruction is happening so fast we don't have time to grow into this new and changing economy. But, even a guy that hangs drywall, in a super productive world, in a fair world, should be earning enough to make a good living. Our problems at this time are not productivity to care for ourselves but distribution. And I fear we have a "shortages industry" that profits by denying people. That has to be fought regardless of who wins.

Because the rules say so. For instance, one guy said to me that he had to take 5 years of college before even being allowed to sit for some type of math exam. I replied that if he has to pay for the exam (so that if what he is doing is stupid, he is primarily wasting HIS time) and he can pass without cheating, it is no one's g.d. business HOW he trains (online certs, OJT). These are artificial loops put in place for a number of reasons. Not the least of which, much of it was started, I think, in Austria. They pretty much wanted to jam the young into these institutions to brain wash them. The USA followed suit.

 

It certainly does not, but without post-secondary diplomas one is condemned to professional mediocrity and jobs that pay around the Median Annual Wage in the US (which is around $44K).

What allows people to progress up-market for a job is a post-secondary degree.

Which is why we must make the schooling necessary to obtain one free-gratis-and-for-nothing. (As we did for a high-school diploma at the turn of the 20th century.)

Anyone without an advanced schooling degree nowadays is just fooling themselves job- and income-wise ...

 

And those degrees start with professional diplomas for a variety of jobs. Each country is different, but most developed economies have understood the need for them. (And, at least in Europe, they are fee-paid by the government.)

The opportunity for obtaining a diploma in Europe is very easy. In the US, we are still tied to the notion that a post-secondary degree should not be subsidized by the government. Which is kinda-sorta stoopid. It simply provokes joblessness (for lack of sufficient credentials) ...

From the National Center for Education Statistics:

I, for one, think that 47% of the population with "an associate’s or higher degree" is not bad, but neither is it good-enough ...

 

Lafayette corrected my sophomoric answer. He said what I was thinking but that was not what I wrote. Thank you, LafetteBla.

Get your schooling, yokes.

 

Is it just me or is Biden in contention w/ Pelosi for the most artificially augmented senior citizen facial expressions... This past debate in NV was the first one that I watched all the way through & Crikey... He had some amazingly taught skin around his nose & bulging eyes when he raises his brows & tries to smile - his grand kids must be saying 'what the ---- Grandpa'... (can be seen at the very end of this funny, faux Bloomberg tweet clip)

https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230515129877434368

 

I posted this before voting started. The voting sure hasn't followed last Summer's polls. I cannot believe Biden is even still running. Super Tuesday is March 3. After it, I think he will be gone.

 

I held my nose and voted for her 3 years ago. I thought Trump was a dangerous egocentric wack job. I honestly believe that Trump wants us disengaged militarily more than She does as she wants us to intervene everywhere. To me both are too flawed now to vote for either.

 

Didn't vote for her in 2016, won't vote for her in 2020 or any year after that. She's almost as bad as Trump.

 

I'll vote for Trump because I love prosperity and he has been great for my retirement. Also, just to watch heads explode and endless crying from people who just can't accept the results of an election.

 

Sounds like you are terrified of Trump, to be honest.

 

The man has been pronounced "sick" by psychologists who consider him suffering from a bad case of narcissistic personality disorder. And this goes back a long time to before the election.

Read about that here from Psychology Today: Why Is the Trump Presidency of Extreme Psychological Interest?

Also, from the Atlantic: Trump Is Not Well - excerpt:

A word to the wise should be sufficient ...

 

You have the right, my friend. You guys won but you are such 'sore winners'. I bet you will be even more 'sore losers' in a few months.

LafayetteBis offers you such good guidance, Bucky: take it.