Who would have to run against Trump to get you to vote for Trump?

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

We have some guy (I can't remember his name at the moment) who will run against Trump in November. Of course I am voting for him... because he is running against Trump. Someone raised the obvious question... is there anyone who could run against Trump that I would not vote for?

That made me think... I think the answer is yes, there is a small list. To make this list a person needs to be eligible to be president (i.e. American, currently alive, not incarcerated and over 35).

- David Horowitz/ Bridgete Gabriel: Rabid anti-Islam fanatics.
- Richard Spencer: Alt-Right leader, racist pretty-boy.
- Louis Farrakhan: Nation of Islam leader... antisemite.

There are probably a few more. So, no, I am am not completely one-sided on this.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 977 • Replies: 25

@maxdancona,

Who would be so noxious and dreadful that I'd vote for Trump, instead?

Nobody.

I'd even have the country suffer under a disastrous season of NYC alleged progressive, alleged liberal, alleged Mayor Warren Wilhelm 'call me Billy Boy DeBlahzio". (a.k.a. DeBlasio).

Even Al Sharpton!

Heck, I might even venture out and vote for you!

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Nobody, Max.

Even if Martin Shkreli, a guy I thoroughly loathe, were running against Trump, I would simply withhold my vote.

NEVER WOULD I VOTE FOR TRUMP...UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Really? I think of Trump as 85% incompetent and 15% evil. His redeeming quality is that he is too stupid to be a despot (in spite of his cult-like following).

Imagine how dangerous it would be with someone who had Trump's autocratic tendencies and lack of self-control combined with basic intelligence?

Against a competent evil, I would vote for incompetence.

0 Replies

Oh look a whole thread devoted to people worse than Trump. It’s almost like Max doesn’t want us to think about all the terrible stuff he’s done.

1 Reply

To answer the topic question I don't know. The Bible says people get a leader they deserve.

I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton when she ran against Trump, because she was "the lesser of two evils", supposedly, but I'm glad I didn't. She was pro-choice and anti-Israel. She called African American male youths in an old email "super-predators".

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Hi Izzy.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

That’s what you always say when you’re unable to address the points raised.

You’re sounding more and more like Oralloy.

0 Replies

@JGoldman10,

Martin Luther King was pro-choice. USAmerican liberals were predominantly pro-Israel until the country was taken over by right-wing zealots (one of whom assassinated their prime minister). Hillary Clinton's comment wasn't exceptionally insightful but it wasn't racist the way you make it appear to be. At the time the crack epidemic, the increasing number of guns on the street and organized gang warfare were resulting in many black people being shot and killed by other black people. The "super-predators" were the African American male youths doing the shooting — the term didn't apply to every young black male. The whole country developed a fixation with crack and crime — the way "satanist cults" did in the '80s. This fixation was responsible for the '94 Crime Bill that Biden gets so much flack for.

To answer max's question, no, I can't think of anyone who could make me vote for Trump. There's no one who represents the deterioration of the US political system more than Trump; he's the face of the new Trump Party (the one they used to call "Republican"). No one else has power over forty per cent of the electorate the way Trump does. No one else scares politicians into submission the way Trump does. No one else has his influence. He's the one to beat.

1 Reply

This is the same rehashed garbage from the 2004 George W Bush campaign.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Martin Luther King was pro-choice.

No. Martin Luther King was not pro-choice.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Okay, max.

Martin Luther King wrote:

There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted. That which should be a blessing becomes a curse for parent and child. There is nothing inherent in the Negro mentality which creates this condition. Their poverty causes it. When Negroes have been able to ascend economically, statistics reveal they plan their families with even greater care than whites. Negroes of higher economic and educational status actually have fewer children than white families in the same circumstances.

And some people can be "pro-choice" even though they would never make that decision themselves. Remember, it's pro-"choice" not pro-abortion. Family planning is a good thing.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Martin Luther King was pro-choice.

No. Martin Luther King was not pro-choice.

So King wish to made women slaves to the state by forcing them to carry Fetuses to full terms.

King was in other word for slavery of women?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Martin Luther King was pro-choice.

No. Martin Luther King was not pro-choice.

So King wish to made women slaves to the state by forcing them to carry Fetuses to full terms.

King was in other word for slavery of women?

This is a silly response. By making these extreme statements either

1. King wished to "made[sic] women slave ... by forcing them to carry fetusus" or
2. King wished to create a genocide by killing unborn babies.

Dr. King didn't actually make any definitive statements either way. He died in 1968, which is before abortion became a major issue (there was political movement before this... but it was not an upfront issue).

He was a baptist minister, and many baptist ministers became pro-life. And, many people in the civil rights movement at the time became pro-life. We don't know what Martin Luther's opinion of abortion rights would have been, but history suggests that (in your stark terms) Dr. King certainly could have chosen slavery of women over genocide of black babies.

Personally, I think this extremist language is silly and unhelpful.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

I miss the halcyon days of George the Second...

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

I miss the halcyon days of George the Second...

So do I...even though I am astonished to say it.

Bush the Lesser has handled himself beautifully since he left the Oval Office.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yeah. I always thought Carter made a first class ex-president,too

1 Reply

@roger,

I have long said I wish we could have just jumped to Carter as ex-president without having to go through the Carter administration.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

BillRM wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Martin Luther King was pro-choice.

No. Martin Luther King was not pro-choice.

So King wish to made women slaves to the state by forcing them to carry Fetuses to full terms.

King was in other word for slavery of women?

This is a silly response. By making these extreme statements either

1. King wished to "made[sic] women slave ... by forcing them to carry fetusus" or
2. King wished to create a genocide by killing unborn babies.

Dr. King didn't actually make any definitive statements either way. He died in 1968, which is before abortion became a major issue (there was political movement before this... but it was not an upfront issue).

He was a baptist minister, and many baptist ministers became pro-life. And, many people in the civil rights movement at the time became pro-life. We don't know what Martin Luther's opinion of abortion rights would have been, but history suggests that (in your stark terms) Dr. King certainly could have chosen slavery of women over genocide of black babies.

Personally, I think this extremist language is silly and unhelpful.

Cute given that there is some indications that King was into spreading his seeds very widely to the point that Hoover got a kick at listening to sex tapes of his private life so if repeat if he was anti abortion somehow I can not see him taking any share of the pain and risk his females partners would be subject to.

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

Sturgis said:

Quote:

Who would be so noxious and dreadful that I'd vote for Trump, instead?

Nobody. ...Even Al Sharpton!

Frank Apisa said:

Quote:

Nobody, Max.

Even if Martin Shkreli, a guy I thoroughly loathe, were running against Trump, I would simply withhold my vote.

NEVER WOULD I VOTE FOR TRUMP...UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

This is the LITERAL definition of 'TDS', Trump Derangment Syndrome. This is not something to be proud of. This shows that your brains have been scrambled so hard and you're throwing a tempter tantrum so hard that your judgement and logic has been compromised to the point where people won't want to be around you, and they certainly won't put any stock into things you say.

Trump is just a guy, one guy! It is not healthy for grown adults to be so fixated on hating one person that they would forsake logic and common sense to do so.

This is incredibly sad.

4 Replies

Forums
» Who would have to run against Trump to get you to vote for Trump?

Read Question
Reply to All

Who would have to run against Trump to get you to vote for Trump?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know