6 ms·

I remember reading in a reputable publication quoting sources that Trump is considering him as the most serious candidate. If anything Trump would be afraid of

I remember reading in a reputable publication quoting sources that Trump is considering him as the most serious candidate. If anything Trump would be afraid of non-politicians, given the anti-establishment sentiments prevalent recently and fueled by Sanders. In my opinion, Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks. The DNC conceded nothing to the Sanders side during the nomination, turning off lights on their side. That's the votes that swung in Trump's favor. Rather than reforming themselves, they diverted attention by concocting Russia collusion story, something that fell completely flat. With Zuckerberg/Sanders/xyz-not-establishment running, I think we may have a chance at beating Trump for the second term.

659087 9y ago
> With Zuckerberg/Sanders/xyz-not-establishment running, I think we may have a chance at beating Trump for the second term. If the democrats nominate Zuckerberg, they can count me out. I might even vote for Trump to keep Zuckerberg out. He's the only possible candidate I can think of who makes me even more nauseous than Trump does. Even among friends of mine who have been life-long democrat voters, I know for a fact that I'm not alone on this.
- akhilcacharya 9y ago
  Republicans said the same thing when Trump first started running. As it turns out, birtherism and his comments on Mexicans brought him a wide base in the Republican party that quite a few pundits didn't see coming. I'm sure if Zuckerberg played his cards right he could pull something off as well (albeit likely without the racism).
akhilcacharya 9y ago
> The DNC conceded nothing to the Sanders side during the nomination, turning https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-progressive-democratic-platform-ever/2016/07/12/82525ab0-479b-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html?utm_term=.340450ecbbc8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-progressive...
nickthemagicman 9y ago
I would love Zuckerberg presidency. Get these old dinosaurs out of office and put some new blood actually in touch with modern times in office. Zuckerberg has spoken positively about basic income, about socialized education, healthcare etc. All of the things that will move our country towards the actual modern post-industrial era we live in where 'jobs' are a legacy idea being slowly phased out by technology. I think the boomers are still stuck in a post-ww2 mentality and are steering the country in a misguided direction.
- Retra 9y ago
  How is a 33-year-old multi-billionaire in touch with anything you (or most people) care about?
  - nickthemagicman 9y ago
    How is a baby boomer that can barely attach an image to an e-mail in touch with anything in the modern world?
mc32 9y ago
I saw some of Hillary's ex team putting ideas out now that _Sanders_ was under Russian influence. They just can't get over the idea that she was "the senator's daughter" to turn a phrase and all but won. The Dems abandoned their working class and decided to go for identity politics which in turn turned off lots of people such that white women voters, Hillary's wheelhouse, voted for her opposition, and some commentators even called this a whitelash, implicitly implicating identity politics as having turned a cruel mistress.
- jackblack8989 9y ago
  The "Sanders is soviet" propaganda was very widely spread when he was giving her a hard time. Sanders going to USSR for honeymoon decades earlier was the "basis" for that Hillary is scum. And honestly, when I want to feel less bad about the Trump presidency, I remind myself that it's at least not Hillary. I wish Sanders had attacked her hard during the primaries. He would have beaten Trump afterwards Her name should be Hillary not-my-fault Clinton.
- akhilcacharya 9y ago
  > The Dems abandoned their working class and decided to go for identity politics Sounds like a rationalization made backwards from a premise, even though the issues raised in 2016 were basically identical to the issues raised in 2012. The only difference was, ironically, the introduction of "white identity politics" by Trump.
jswizzy 9y ago
I would vote for Trump to prevent Sanders or Zuckerberg from being President. As far as I'm concerned the Democratic party died sometime during Obama's second term when they decided that they didn't need working class people anymore.
- krapp 9y ago
  You realize Trump is just leading working class people around by the nose though, right?
- scriptkiddy 9y ago
  I can understand your disdain for the Democratic party. I share it. However, if I may offer up some counter points on Sanders specifically. First, let's be clear that the republican party does not have the interest of the working man at heart either. Let's not forget that the first actions of almost any republican candidate in recent times almost always involve tax cuts for higher income brackets and budget cuts on education, infrastructure, health care, and environmental programs. These budget cuts adversely effect the working class. Second, Sanders wasn't really aligned with the democratic party. In fact, the system was purposefully rigged against him. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Many high ranking officials of the DNC have admitted to it. Third, Sanders was the working class' best hope. He was in favor of raising taxes in all brackets in order to raise money for public works programs, universal healthcare and no-cost tuition for higher education. As you might imagine, these platforms definitely rustled some feathers. Not only was his platform based around dismantling the racketeering industries that are higher education and medical insurance, his platform also seemed somewhat gasp socialist. Socialism is a dirty word in the U.S. no doubt because of the cold war. However, these programs were shown to be successful in other nations in Europe and also in Canada. Fourth, Sanders was the most honest and squeaky clean candidate that has ever run for the office. He legitimately believed in his ideas, he wasn't in the pockets of large corporations, he had a voting record consistent with his platform, and there is historical evidence of him supporting strikes and equality protests. All I'm asking is that you understand that Sanders wasn't a Dem candidate. He wasn't running on party platforms. He was purposefully ousted by the party because they knew he wouldn't listen to them and their corporate backers. Sanders used the Dem as a way to gain legitimacy. He really had no choice considering that most people in the U.S. consider third party candidates to be a joke.
Joeri 9y ago
Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks. As a non-american I honestly can't tell democrats and republicans apart when it comes to corruption. For me trump's win was because he was the only candidate left who promised a genuine change. The thing americans seem to want most of all is a real change away from the traditional washington politics, with it being almost irrelevant whether that change comes from the left or the right. It's why both obama and trump could sway the same electorate, despite having no politics in common.
krapp 9y ago
> they diverted attention by concocting Russia collusion story, something that fell completely flat. I mean, other than Trump Jr. admitting that it happened, yeah, completely flat. We're well past the point where it's reasonable to pretend that the Clinton campaign "concocted" the story entirely, or to dismiss the mountains of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to undermine the Clinton campaign. That seems to be passing from the realm of conspiracy theory to likely fact.
- anotherbrownguy 9y ago
  >I mean, other than Trump Jr. admitting that it happened, yeah, completely flat. Yeah, the meeting where a British tabloid journalist baited Trump Jr. with a lure to give out some damaging information about the Clintons and nothing came out of it. The British journalist in question posted this photo (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/rob-goldstone-trump-jr-meeting-russian-lawyer#img-2 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/rob-goldston...) on his intagram page and has allegedly been to Russia several times. He could have easily been a Clinton plant to have something to show for when they decided to push the Russia collusion narrative if Trump happened to win (they had already been planning to "slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin": https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651)
  - akhilcacharya 9y ago
    What do you think Bob Mueller is investigating exactly?
    - anotherbrownguy 9y ago
      Some dirt they can fabricate to threaten Trump, and then get him to go to more wars so that the military industry can keep profiting?
      - akhilcacharya 9y ago
        Fantastic conspiracy theory, A+ job.
gist 9y ago
> I remember reading in a reputable publication quoting sources that Trump is considering him as the most serious candidate. Strategy wise there are plenty of reasons to make a candidate that you think you can beat appear to be a threat to you. Let's take a business example. Say you have 5 competitors. Do you want your customers comparing you to the strong competitor Or one with weaknesses that you think you can beat? Saying he is a serious candidate makes it likely that that will get bandied about instead of someone is actually stands a better chance of winning. (Doesn't matter if this is actually the case here I am using it to illustrate a point of how things that are said have to be taken with a grain of salt..)
yahna 9y ago
> Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks Trump won because people like you think that, because of a massive smear campaign.

659087 9y ago

> With Zuckerberg/Sanders/xyz-not-establishment running, I think we may have a chance at beating Trump for the second term. If the democrats nominate Zuckerberg, they can count me out. I might even vote for Trump to keep Zuckerberg out. He's the only possible candidate I can think of who makes me even more nauseous than Trump does. Even among friends of mine who have been life-long democrat voters, I know for a fact that I'm not alone on this.

akhilcacharya 9y ago
Republicans said the same thing when Trump first started running. As it turns out, birtherism and his comments on Mexicans brought him a wide base in the Republican party that quite a few pundits didn't see coming. I'm sure if Zuckerberg played his cards right he could pull something off as well (albeit likely without the racism).

akhilcacharya 9y ago

> The DNC conceded nothing to the Sanders side during the nomination, turning https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-progressive-democratic-platform-ever/2016/07/12/82525ab0-479b-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html?utm_term=.340450ecbbc8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-most-progressive...

nickthemagicman 9y ago

I would love Zuckerberg presidency. Get these old dinosaurs out of office and put some new blood actually in touch with modern times in office. Zuckerberg has spoken positively about basic income, about socialized education, healthcare etc. All of the things that will move our country towards the actual modern post-industrial era we live in where 'jobs' are a legacy idea being slowly phased out by technology. I think the boomers are still stuck in a post-ww2 mentality and are steering the country in a misguided direction.

Retra 9y ago
How is a 33-year-old multi-billionaire in touch with anything you (or most people) care about?
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  How is a baby boomer that can barely attach an image to an e-mail in touch with anything in the modern world?

mc32 9y ago

I saw some of Hillary's ex team putting ideas out now that _Sanders_ was under Russian influence. They just can't get over the idea that she was "the senator's daughter" to turn a phrase and all but won. The Dems abandoned their working class and decided to go for identity politics which in turn turned off lots of people such that white women voters, Hillary's wheelhouse, voted for her opposition, and some commentators even called this a whitelash, implicitly implicating identity politics as having turned a cruel mistress.

jackblack8989 9y ago
The "Sanders is soviet" propaganda was very widely spread when he was giving her a hard time. Sanders going to USSR for honeymoon decades earlier was the "basis" for that Hillary is scum. And honestly, when I want to feel less bad about the Trump presidency, I remind myself that it's at least not Hillary. I wish Sanders had attacked her hard during the primaries. He would have beaten Trump afterwards Her name should be Hillary not-my-fault Clinton.
akhilcacharya 9y ago
> The Dems abandoned their working class and decided to go for identity politics Sounds like a rationalization made backwards from a premise, even though the issues raised in 2016 were basically identical to the issues raised in 2012. The only difference was, ironically, the introduction of "white identity politics" by Trump.

jswizzy 9y ago

I would vote for Trump to prevent Sanders or Zuckerberg from being President. As far as I'm concerned the Democratic party died sometime during Obama's second term when they decided that they didn't need working class people anymore.

krapp 9y ago
You realize Trump is just leading working class people around by the nose though, right?
scriptkiddy 9y ago
I can understand your disdain for the Democratic party. I share it. However, if I may offer up some counter points on Sanders specifically. First, let's be clear that the republican party does not have the interest of the working man at heart either. Let's not forget that the first actions of almost any republican candidate in recent times almost always involve tax cuts for higher income brackets and budget cuts on education, infrastructure, health care, and environmental programs. These budget cuts adversely effect the working class. Second, Sanders wasn't really aligned with the democratic party. In fact, the system was purposefully rigged against him. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Many high ranking officials of the DNC have admitted to it. Third, Sanders was the working class' best hope. He was in favor of raising taxes in all brackets in order to raise money for public works programs, universal healthcare and no-cost tuition for higher education. As you might imagine, these platforms definitely rustled some feathers. Not only was his platform based around dismantling the racketeering industries that are higher education and medical insurance, his platform also seemed somewhat gasp socialist. Socialism is a dirty word in the U.S. no doubt because of the cold war. However, these programs were shown to be successful in other nations in Europe and also in Canada. Fourth, Sanders was the most honest and squeaky clean candidate that has ever run for the office. He legitimately believed in his ideas, he wasn't in the pockets of large corporations, he had a voting record consistent with his platform, and there is historical evidence of him supporting strikes and equality protests. All I'm asking is that you understand that Sanders wasn't a Dem candidate. He wasn't running on party platforms. He was purposefully ousted by the party because they knew he wouldn't listen to them and their corporate backers. Sanders used the Dem as a way to gain legitimacy. He really had no choice considering that most people in the U.S. consider third party candidates to be a joke.

Joeri 9y ago

Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks. As a non-american I honestly can't tell democrats and republicans apart when it comes to corruption. For me trump's win was because he was the only candidate left who promised a genuine change. The thing americans seem to want most of all is a real change away from the traditional washington politics, with it being almost irrelevant whether that change comes from the left or the right. It's why both obama and trump could sway the same electorate, despite having no politics in common.

krapp 9y ago

> they diverted attention by concocting Russia collusion story, something that fell completely flat. I mean, other than Trump Jr. admitting that it happened, yeah, completely flat. We're well past the point where it's reasonable to pretend that the Clinton campaign "concocted" the story entirely, or to dismiss the mountains of (admittedly circumstantial) evidence that Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to undermine the Clinton campaign. That seems to be passing from the realm of conspiracy theory to likely fact.

anotherbrownguy 9y ago
>I mean, other than Trump Jr. admitting that it happened, yeah, completely flat. Yeah, the meeting where a British tabloid journalist baited Trump Jr. with a lure to give out some damaging information about the Clintons and nothing came out of it. The British journalist in question posted this photo (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/rob-goldstone-trump-jr-meeting-russian-lawyer#img-2 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/11/rob-goldston...) on his intagram page and has allegedly been to Russia several times. He could have easily been a Clinton plant to have something to show for when they decided to push the Russia collusion narrative if Trump happened to win (they had already been planning to "slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin": https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651)
- akhilcacharya 9y ago
  What do you think Bob Mueller is investigating exactly?
  - anotherbrownguy 9y ago
    Some dirt they can fabricate to threaten Trump, and then get him to go to more wars so that the military industry can keep profiting?
    - akhilcacharya 9y ago
      Fantastic conspiracy theory, A+ job.

gist 9y ago

> I remember reading in a reputable publication quoting sources that Trump is considering him as the most serious candidate. Strategy wise there are plenty of reasons to make a candidate that you think you can beat appear to be a threat to you. Let's take a business example. Say you have 5 competitors. Do you want your customers comparing you to the strong competitor Or one with weaknesses that you think you can beat? Saying he is a serious candidate makes it likely that that will get bandied about instead of someone is actually stands a better chance of winning. (Doesn't matter if this is actually the case here I am using it to illustrate a point of how things that are said have to be taken with a grain of salt..)

yahna 9y ago

> Trump won because Hillary and the DNC in general is full of corrupt crooks Trump won because people like you think that, because of a massive smear campaign.