From the article: If that works, it would represent a fundamental change in the way in which we elect presidents. Conventional wisdom has long dictated that people vote for someone they’d want to have a beer with.
Imagine that! Choosing a president based on whether you think he would be able to accomplish what you want to see done over the guy you’d like to have a beer with. What a concept!
I have never, ever considered voting on anyone based on having a beer with. I tend to start with whether I respect the person and then move onto the actions they plan on taking to fix what’s wrong.
I rejected Trump right out of the gate because I held no respect for him. While I was in favor of some of his plans, without that initial respect I couldn’t go with him. And my respect doesn’t include agreeing with him/her. I dislike Hillary very much but I did respect her.
Gets things done isn’t it. We know who votes for him and why
Have you ever heard of the “necessary” and “sufficient” conditions? In this case to have a gentleman is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a president. But someone who only hits under the belt, just because someone dared to disagree with him is definitely not someone who deserves trust and respect. Anyone who believes that he is smarter than the experts and is so self-conceited, that he considers himself a “very stable genius” should not be employed even as low level nincompoop.
Well, I have always been against choosing whom to vote for based on whether you would want to have a beer with the person; hence my comment, which was not intended to be partisan.
If being a gentleman is one of your criteria for choosing a candidate, that is fine, and possibly better than if you want to drink a beer with him.
Just don’t forget that it is an easy part to play. (Again, not partisan, and not referring to anyone in particular.)
I never liked Trump very much though I’ve supported most of his initiatives. I can’t imagine myself ever wanting to darken the door of his Trump Tower suite. But when I examined Mrs Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, I found a lot to be desired. As did a sufficient number of voters. We were tired of eight years of Bush foreign policy baloney followed by eight years of Obama/Clinton foreign policy baloney, and we wanted something different. Trump was very imperfect, we knew that, it was shoved in our faces every single day. But said shoving in our faces was accompanied by very little critical examination of Clinton’s shortcomings that caused her to fall short. Instead, she labelled us “deplorables” and blamed Russia; never once looking at herself. How tone deaf is that? We’re not stupid.
This is the deal: we know what we’re getting with Trump: a vain, insensitive, unpredictable man. On the bright side, one cannot even share a beer with him as he does not drink alcohol. Of course there is a total lack of comprehension on the part of die hard Democrats why their own candidates do not resonate with us. Biden has all the feel of an out of touch elitist. As did Mrs Clinton before him. We don’t want out of touch elitists. Trump has at least pretended not to be one of these and the Democrats do not have a good counter for that that.
Correction: “as did a sufficient number of states”. We don’t count voters in the Presidential election.
I have similar suspicion, but it is about Trump voters. I suspect they voted for him, not because of his anti-abortion platform or anti-gay-marriage platform, but because they really wanted lower taxes, less regulation, less immigration, and wanted to stop universal health care and weaken labor unions. But like your suspicion, mine is just an unfounded suspicion, because I have no way of knowing what is in the heart of a Trump voter. Now if you could just admit the same about leftists…
Correction: “as did a sufficient number of electors”. We don’t count States in the Presidential election.
You are correct.
However, the Electoral College functioned as designed. If you hate that, start up a new Amendment drive. The playbook is out there as the NPVIC has its own issues. They need people like you. Get off the couch, step away from the keyboard, hit the streets. But I can promise you I will vote against it because I don’t need California and New York to run (and ruin) my state. We can do without Newsom and Cuomo style governance here.
But … but … but you’re still deflecting your energies away from the poor qualities of your candidates to blame anything but that for Trump’s success. Not Trump’s fault he opposed one of the most singularly out of touch major party candidates ever to run for president. 2016 was a gimme and they ran her. Something to this day few Democrats can acknowledge other than to urge her not to run again. You’re always ready to find fault with Trump and indeed he has a lot as I just admitted, but I see no such critical self examination of your own candidates. In other words, we are not allowed to shoot left because Orange Man Very Bad.
Lower taxes are a good thing in my opinion. legitimate functions of govt should be paid for via taxation but the federal government does so much more that is not authorized by the Constitution.
While some regulations are necessary and good, less regulation is a good thing in in general my opinion. The Feds have so much regulation that its virtually impossible to anybody to know if you are or are not breaking the law sometimes. the Feds probably don’t even know if you are or are not breaking the law in some cases, that is until you are in their sights and they decide to go after you. they will find all those regulations you are “breaking” then
Less ILLEGAL immigration is a good thing in my opinion. Immigrants are welcome as long as they follow the laws.
If by “universal health care” you mean the federal government paying for it all then yes i am against it. I don’t see where the Constitution grants that power.
As for labor unions, i don’t care if someone wants to join one. that is their choice. I do take issue with people being forced to join and pay dues against their will. If you see people getting to make choices for themselves as weakening labor unions then that’s your choice.
One last point, i find it hilarious and incredibly sad at the same time that you see things like lower taxes and less regulation as any where even remotely on the same level as the murdering of unborn children.
And who thinks important men requires a servant to do dishes in case his wife isn’t there to do them. Nothing elitist there
Trump’s theory on using taxpayer paid servants to do dishes because his wife isn’t there: THATS NOT ELITIST?
I did not say a single word against the Electoral College in my post. I merely objected to the inaccurate characterization of the EC as a measure of a number of voters. If you’re cool with the EC, fine. Just don’t call it a popular vote when it isn’t.
Thank you for confirming that you have lots of reasons to vote for Trump, and none of them have to do with abortion. That is what I said.
Correction: I see them as on the same level as voting for someone who makes noises about abortion and appoints conservative judges, but as far as I know has not prevented one single abortion in 3 years.
You always make the mistake that people who don’t like Trump are Democrats. That’s not true for me. I was a Republican for decades and had my candidate(s) in the 2016 primary season.
I abandoned the party when Trumpsters took it over and real Republicans either resigned, didn’t seek re-election or stayed silent. That sounds more dramatic than it is, since in VA we don’t declare a party when we register to vote.
But, anyway, politics are not (is not?) binary. It isn’t either/or.
I voted for Trump because of the Supreme Court. I have been open about this from day one here on CAF. everything else mentioned above is “icing on the cake”
And I will vote against him for the reasons I listed, and not because I support abortion.
But you don’t care that murder of unborn children is perpetuated as long as you get your higher taxes? that does not seem to be much different than Dr Meinheimers suspicions