Jazzta
Guest
No because I would have not voted for Trump. It’s a very simple concept.
The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
No because I would have not voted for Trump. It’s a very simple concept.
That's no basis for a system of government!
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
But you don't like Trump.
As someone who doesn't like Trump and who wouldn't vote for him, you know what Trump hopes you will do? Vote 3rd party that's what.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Me likes
Simple is as simple does
I'd rather you stick with I voted with who I wanted to win, not which party I wanted to win. Ya gotta live the change before you preach it. That's gonna get you a few lumps, but the game to this state because of partisan politics and policies. Start teaching the value of voting your mind, and not your party. Make that strong, and cultivate demonization of voting party line.
Jazzta
Guest
Well said, and beware of the news pundits that try to steer the public’s opinion right after the debates and during the following days.
Red
Well-Known Member
Appointing Ratcliffe as DNI is a joke. Just another power grab by Trump. And it will be completely approved by Trump supporters, who simply refuse to recognize power grabs by this would be dictator. I expect him to own the Republican Party. That's not atypical for a president. But the Justice Department? And now the entire Intelligence Community?
And don't be surprised if he makes certain, by any and all means, that he does not lose in 2020. I put nothing past this man.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/john-ratcliffe-dni-dan-coats-donald-trump.html
Emily Tamkin: I saw you comparing the Ratcliffe nomination to the situation with Attorney General Bill Barr. To what extent is this what we’ve seen before, with Trump putting his own loyalists in, and to what extent is this unique?
Ned Price: We’ve seen this before across the Trump administration. There’s no doubt about that. But we haven’t seen this when it comes to a national security position like the director of national intelligence. I think the comparison to Barr is an apt one, and I think Trump intends to nominate Ratcliffe because he wants him to be the Bill Barr of the intelligence realm. But the comparison with Barr can only go so far.
I think what’s instructive to remember is back [in the spring] of this year, when Trump made some waves by delegating to Barr declassification authorities vis-a-vis his inquiry into the intelligence community’s Russia analysis. Were John Ratcliffe to be confirmed to this position, that proactive step wouldn’t be necessary because Ratcliffe would have both classification and declassification authority when it comes to our most sensitive national assets. That is, sources of intelligence, methods of intelligence, programs, priorities: the keys to our intelligence kingdom. And in Ratcliffe, he would find someone, I think as we’ve seen from his appearance during last week’s Mueller hearing, his Fox News interviews—he would find someone who seems be willing to put Trump’s interests over those of the American people. We all take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I think my concern is Ratcliffe would see this job as protecting and defending Donald Trump, the Constitution be damned. And I think the tools at his disposal, chiefly, classification and declassification, along with ready access to the president on a near daily basis, could be a very dangerous combination when it comes to someone like this as director of national intelligence.
And don't be surprised if he makes certain, by any and all means, that he does not lose in 2020. I put nothing past this man.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/john-ratcliffe-dni-dan-coats-donald-trump.html
Emily Tamkin: I saw you comparing the Ratcliffe nomination to the situation with Attorney General Bill Barr. To what extent is this what we’ve seen before, with Trump putting his own loyalists in, and to what extent is this unique?
Ned Price: We’ve seen this before across the Trump administration. There’s no doubt about that. But we haven’t seen this when it comes to a national security position like the director of national intelligence. I think the comparison to Barr is an apt one, and I think Trump intends to nominate Ratcliffe because he wants him to be the Bill Barr of the intelligence realm. But the comparison with Barr can only go so far.
I think what’s instructive to remember is back [in the spring] of this year, when Trump made some waves by delegating to Barr declassification authorities vis-a-vis his inquiry into the intelligence community’s Russia analysis. Were John Ratcliffe to be confirmed to this position, that proactive step wouldn’t be necessary because Ratcliffe would have both classification and declassification authority when it comes to our most sensitive national assets. That is, sources of intelligence, methods of intelligence, programs, priorities: the keys to our intelligence kingdom. And in Ratcliffe, he would find someone, I think as we’ve seen from his appearance during last week’s Mueller hearing, his Fox News interviews—he would find someone who seems be willing to put Trump’s interests over those of the American people. We all take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I think my concern is Ratcliffe would see this job as protecting and defending Donald Trump, the Constitution be damned. And I think the tools at his disposal, chiefly, classification and declassification, along with ready access to the president on a near daily basis, could be a very dangerous combination when it comes to someone like this as director of national intelligence.
People should vote 3rd party if that is who they like the most. Short term it could help Trump, unless their next option is Trump. Not all 3rd parties are stealing votes from Democrats.
Plus in the long term, who cares if Trump wins. It really wont change things in the USA that much. The world will go on and your personal life will probably be the same. Getting a viable third party would do wonders for the USA and be a bigger impact long term than 4 years of Trump.
Besides, its dumb to vote for someone you dont like. The idea of voting for the lesser evil is terrible. If everyone started voting for who they cared for then we would get better candidates and our parties would better serve us.
Also for someone like me who is voting in Utah, my vote does not matter. It would be better served voting 3rd party anyways. Unless you are in a swing state its almost pointless.
Plus in the long term, who cares if Trump wins. It really wont change things in the USA that much. The world will go on and your personal life will probably be the same. Getting a viable third party would do wonders for the USA and be a bigger impact long term than 4 years of Trump.
Besides, its dumb to vote for someone you dont like. The idea of voting for the lesser evil is terrible. If everyone started voting for who they cared for then we would get better candidates and our parties would better serve us.
Also for someone like me who is voting in Utah, my vote does not matter. It would be better served voting 3rd party anyways. Unless you are in a swing state its almost pointless.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I’m sorry, but this is a woefully poorly informed view.