I put this here because I'm discussing the upcoming election more from a cultural point of view than a political one.

Even though it's still more than three years out, I'm getting a vibe that the 2020 presidential election is going to be a pivotal one from a cultural standpoint, perhaps on par with 1960, 1980, 1992 and 2008 before it.

For starters, 2020 will be the first election in which kids born in the 21st century will be eligible to vote. Those born in 2000, 2001 and up to November 2002 will cast their first ballot for President in 2020, meaning that the generation after the Millennials will begin to assert themselves in the political arena.

Shifts in the electoral map are also quite possible in 2020 as well, depending on what Donald Trump accomplishes and who the Democrats nominate. There is a scenario where Georgia and Arizona could go Democratic, while Pennsylvania and Wisconsin go Republican, something unheard of even in 2012.

First elections in decades tend to pivotal anyway. 1960 ushered in the era of JFK, 1972 gave us Watergate, 1980 marked the end of the New Deal coalition as a viable political force and the birth of Reaganism, 1992 ended the Reagan/Bush era and produced the first Baby Boomer President, and 2000 was the closest election ever, and marked the beginning of the GWB era. 2012 kind of broke things up a little bit, but the point still stands.

Also, we may be in for a major demographic shift at the presidential level in 2020. It's possible that somebody born in the 1970's may defeat Donald Trump, giving us our first Gen X President. It's even possible, if the talk of Mark Zuckerberg running for the Democratic nomination proved true, that we could even have our first Millennial President in 2020. Of course, if Bernie Sanders were to defeat Trump, we could also have our oldest President ever by far.

I'm kind of rooting for Jesse Ventura or Tulsi Gabbard. Cory Booker could be a great pick too but far too many may see him as Obama 2.0.
Jesse is a Baby Boomer, but Tulsi is 1980s-born AND a female. Great sell. She's also from Hawaii.
Yeah, 2020 can be a cultural game-changer. Out with the EDM and trap rap crap, and in with whatever new trend is on the horizon.

I don't think Trump or Pence can possibly win in 2020 because they only barely "won" last year and have already alienated a huge chunk of their support base. Personally, I think we're on the verge of electing a Sanders-esque President because not only is the left wing of the Democratic Party much more resonant with the general public after a Trump/Pence presidency than an Obama one, younger demographics are leaning much more towards that faction of the Democratic Party than the more moderate Clinton one. I would say Elizabeth Warren is the likeliest choice for President, but since she has stated she isn't running, I really have no idea who the leading voice of the liberal Democrats will be during the upcoming election season. I don't think Sanders has much of a chance because he would be in his mid-80s by the time he became President.

I don't think Trump or Pence can possibly win in 2020 because they only barely "won" last year and have already alienated a huge chunk of their support base. Personally, I think we're on the verge of electing a Sanders-esque President because not only is the left wing of the Democratic Party much more resonant with the general public after a Trump/Pence presidency than an Obama one, younger demographics are leaning much more towards that faction of the Democratic Party than the more moderate Clinton one. I would say Elizabeth Warren is the likeliest choice for President, but since she has stated she isn't running, I really have no idea who the leading voice of the liberal Democrats will be during the upcoming election season. I don't think Sanders has much of a chance because he would be in his mid-80s by the time he became President.

Bernie Sanders was born September 8, 1941....so he would be 79 years old on both Election Day 2020 (November 3, 2020) and Inauguration Day 2021 (January 20, 2021). He wouldn't be in mid 80s until September 8, 2025 ;D.....if he were to make it to that point he would already be in his second term. However, I wouldn't vote for Bernie in 2020....he'd be way too old. 79 years is almost a decade older than the age Trump was when he was inaugurated (70).

The 2020 Presidential Election will be the first Presidential Election that I'm eligible to vote in and I'm so excited for it :D.

If these people run for President in 2020 for the Democratic Party....I would vote for:

1. Jason Kander (he was born in 1981....can be considered the first Millennial President...if he's elected). Jason ran for one of Missouri's US Senate seats last year and gave long time Congressman & Republican Senator Roy Blunt a run for his money.

2. Steve Bullock, current Governor of Montana (I was actually shocked to see that Montana has a Democrat as Governor).

3. Eric Garcetti, current Mayor of Los Angeles.


Candidates I'm unsure about:

1. Tulsi Gabbard, don't know much about her.

2. Corey Booker, many people say that he's "Obama 2.0" but to me he's not as charismatic and intellectual as President Obama.


Now, lets get to the GOP:

Currently, I will NOT for any Republican candidate for President. However, I don't rule out the possibility 100%.

I'm not convinced that the 2020 Election will be as eventful as some people are suggesting. I still think a Baby Boomer will become the next President of the United States.

I'm not convinced that the 2020 Election will be as eventful as some people are suggesting. I still think a Baby Boomer will become the next President of the United States.

I don't think so at least on the Democratic side. All the candidates that I support are not Baby Boomers (2 are Gen X and 1 is a Millennial...maybe even also Gen X). So far only one serious potential Democratic candidate who's name has popped up is a Baby Boomer (Elizabeth Warren).

I'm not convinced that the 2020 Election will be as eventful as some people are suggesting. I still think a Baby Boomer will become the next President of the United States.


And that boomer will be Trump!  :-X

And that boomer will be Trump!  :-X


Please be trolling! Please be trolling!  8-P  8-P  8-P

Please be trolling! Please be trolling!  8-P  8-P  8-P


I think the DemocRATS will rig the 2020 primaries again and, along with the MSM, they'll try to force the candidate of the (((liberal elite))) on the real American people. That's why I'm voting TRUMP, the man who's for the little guy and on the side of real Americans! #MAGA

Bernie Sanders was born September 8, 1941....so he would be 79 years old on both Election Day 2020 (November 3, 2020) and Inauguration Day 2021 (January 20, 2021). He wouldn't be in mid 80s until September 8, 2025 ;D.....if he were to make it to that point he would already be in his second term. However, I wouldn't vote for Bernie in 2020....he'd be way too old. 79 years is almost a decade older than the age Trump was when he was inaugurated (70).


For some reason, I thought I read somewhere that he was born in the 1930s. I guess I'm mixing up his information with John McCain. Still, 79 is awfully old to take on the most stressful job in the world. There was constant talk about McCain being too old in 2008, even though he was younger at the time than Sanders was even in 2016.

I'm a conservative Republican, so I'm probably going to re-elect Trump, even though he wasn't my first choice (if I voted) for the 2016 election.

I think the DemocRATS will rig the 2020 primaries again and, along with the MSM, they'll try to force the candidate of the (((liberal elite))) on the real American people. That's why I'm voting TRUMP, the man who's for the little guy and on the side of real Americans! #MAGA


I'm shivering in my boots. Uh oh.  :(  :(

On a serious note, it'll probably be pretty wild. Buckle your seat belts.  8)  8)

It's even possible, if the talk of Mark Zuckerberg running for the Democratic nomination proved true, that we could even have our first Millennial President in 2020.

Why are all these random celebrities talking about running for president now? It's getting really annoying. First Trump, then Kanye, and now Zuckerberg, and there will probably be even more. Having inexperienced people in politics is very dumb!

Bernie Sanders was born September 8, 1941....so he would be 79 years old on both Election Day 2020 (November 3, 2020) and Inauguration Day 2021 (January 20, 2021). He wouldn't be in mid 80s until September 8, 2025 ;D.....if he were to make it to that point he would already be in his second term. However, I wouldn't vote for Bernie in 2020....he'd be way too old. 79 years is almost a decade older than the age Trump was when he was inaugurated (70).

Bernie Sanders will not run in 2020.

For some reason, I thought I read somewhere that he was born in the 1930s. I guess I'm mixing up his information with John McCain. Still, 79 is awfully old to take on the most stressful job in the world. There was constant talk about McCain being too old in 2008, even though he was younger at the time than Sanders was even in 2016.

It's OK...we mix up things sometimes.

Yeah, I agree with you (the rest of your statement).

I'm a conservative Republican, so I'm probably going to re-elect Trump, even though he wasn't my first choice (if I voted) for the 2016 election.

C'mon bro....saying that you're a "conservative Republican" is no excuse to say that you'll vote for Trump. Vote for at least a decent person over voting for Trump...please. If I was a Republican..there'd be no way on this Earth I would EVER vote for Trump.

Why are all these random celebrities talking about running for president now? It's getting really annoying. First Trump, then Kanye, and now Zuckerberg, and there will probably be even more. Having inexperienced people in politics is very dumb!

This all speculative...Mark hasn't said that he will run. However, I would vote for Mark Zuckerberg EVERY SINGLE TIME over Donald Trump. I would never vote for Kanye West though.

Bernie Sanders will not run in 2020.

Never said that he will....I was just addressing #Infinity's post.

This all speculative...Mark hasn't said that he will run. However, I would vote for Mark Zuckerberg EVERY SINGLE TIME over Donald Trump. I would never vote for Kanye West though.

I wouldn't vote for neither if I were American. What happened to the days when people in politics became presidents and actual experience mattered? Before you know it, the White House will be the new Hollywood and the only criteria for having the most important job in the country is money and fame.

I wouldn't vote for neither if I were American. What happened to the days when people in politics became presidents and actual experience mattered? Before you know it, the White House will be the new Hollywood and the only criteria for having the most important job in the country is money and fame.

Unlike Donald Trump, there is much more to Mark Zuckerberg than money and fame. Also, voting for Mark Zuckerberg is not much different than it would have been voting for Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956. Eisenhower had absolutely no political experience (only experience as a soldier and general and also leader of the D-Day Invasion in WWII)...however he was primarily voted in office because he was so popular and beloved because of his war hero status. However, Dwight D. Eisenhower actually turned out to be a good President (he had his flaws of course but he is forever connected to 1950s America and it's prosperity). In the both the 1952 and 1956 Presidential Election.....Eisenhower (a Republican) faced Democrat Adlai Stevenson II. Adlai Stevenson II had political experience...he was the Governor of Illinois from 1949-1953, he was a lawyer, he spoke intellectually and eloquently. Also, Adlai's grandfather Adlai Stevenson I was Vice President of the United States under President Grover Cleveland from 1893 to 1897.

Unlike Donald Trump, there is much more to Mark Zuckerberg than money and fame. Also, voting for Mark Zuckerberg is not much different than it would have been voting for Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956. Eisenhower had absolutely no political experience (only experience as a soldier and general and also leader of the D-Day Invasion in WWII)...however he was primarily voted in office because he was so popular and beloved because of his war hero status. However, Dwight D. Eisenhower actually turned out to be a good President (he had his flaws of course but he is forever connected to 1950s America and it's prosperity). In the both the 1952 and 1956 Presidential Election.....Eisenhower (a Republican) faced Democrat Adlai Stevenson II. Adlai Stevenson II had political experience...he was the Governor of Illinois from 1949-1953, he was a lawyer, he spoke intellectually and eloquently. Also, Adlai's grandfather Adlai Stevenson I was Vice President of the United States under President Grover Cleveland from 1893 to 1897.

No Mark Zuckerberg would be an equally embarrassing United States president as Donald Trump. These people DO NOT belong in the white house.

No Mark Zuckerberg would be an equally embarrassing United States president as Donald Trump. These people DO NOT belong in the white house.

That is absolutely NOT true and did you even read all of my comment?

That is absolutely NOT true and did you even read all of my comment?

Yes it is true. Mark Zuckerberg would make an absolutely awful president. Get these famous, non-politicians out of the political landscape please.

Yes it is true. Mark Zuckerberg would make an absolutely awful president. Get these famous, non-politicians out of the political landscape please.


In all fairness, not all of our past presidents have had extensive political experience, yet were solid, charismatic leaders with inherent political instincts. Dwight D. Eisenhower is a primary example. He wasn't even affiliated with a major political party leading up to the 1952 election – he sided with the Republicans due to incumbent Harry S. Truman's severe unpopularity in the early 1950s – yet his experience as a war general, forced to deal with both the personal stakes of millions as well as the strategic maneuvers against two-faced enemies on every side, translated into enduring success as President of the United States.

Apparently, according to one poll, Trump would lose to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in a presidential race by 5%. I know the latter isn't a Democrat, but it's still pretty amusing that Trump is so reviled right now that people would rather vote for somebody whose most notable recent credential is singing "You're Welcome" than the person with actual presidential experience.

I'm a conservative Republican, so I'm probably going to re-elect Trump, even though he wasn't my first choice (if I voted) for the 2016 election.


I just hope you wouldn't do the same for Mike Pence, who still thinks, in 2017, that people like me should see gay conversion therapists instead of loving who we're biologically attracted to.

In all fairness, not all of our past presidents have had extensive political experience, yet were solid, charismatic leaders with inherent political instincts. Dwight D. Eisenhower is a primary example. He wasn't even affiliated with a major political party leading up to the 1952 election – he sided with the Republicans due to incumbent Harry S. Truman's severe unpopularity in the early 1950s – yet his experience as a war general, forced to deal with both the personal stakes of millions as well as the strategic maneuvers against two-faced enemies on every side, translated into enduring success as President of the United States.

Apparently, according to one poll, Trump would lose to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in a presidential race by 5%. I know the latter isn't a Democrat, but it's still pretty amusing that Trump is so reviled right now that people would rather vote for somebody whose most notable recent credential is singing "You're Welcome" than the person with actual presidential experience.

Personally I don't care whether a celebrity the Rock is a democrat or republican, I do not non-politicians running for president. That would never fly in my country. Yes there were events in the past in the U.S., I still find it dumb though.

No Mark Zuckerberg would be an equally embarrassing United States president as Donald Trump. These people DO NOT belong in the white house.


Mark Zuckerberg graduated from Harvard though, and in Computer Science. He made a multi-billionaire company and the biggest content-sharing website on the planet, all from scratch! That's more than we can say for mister mister, whom I was going to write a large paragraph about but I think we can all agree that his intelligence or lack thereof is self-evident.

That's not to say Zuckerberg would make a good president, and political experience is definitely an asset if not essential, but I don't think he's in the same class of "money and fame" as the homeless one. Zuckerberg makes an honest living and is famous for a good reason. I don't think he'd be as "equally embarrassing"  as the guy who embodies practically every cartoonishly bad American stereotype you can think of.  :-X

Mark Zuckerberg graduated from Harvard though, and in Computer Science. He made a multi-billionaire company and the biggest content-sharing website on the planet, all from scratch! That's more than we can say for mister mister, whom I was going to write a large paragraph about but I think we can all agree that his intelligence or lack thereof is self-evident.

That's not to say Zuckerberg would make a good president, and political experience is definitely an asset if not essential, but I don't think he's in the same class of "money and fame" as the homeless one. Zuckerberg makes an honest living and is famous for a good reason. I don't think he'd be as "equally embarrassing"  as the guy who embodies practically every cartoonishly bad American stereotype you can think of.  :-X

So, he's not some special person who would make a good president. There are many people from Harvard with computer science degrees who do not belong in politics. Zuckerberg got lucky, I personally don't see him a genius just for making Facebook. I don't like the guy personally, but besides that, he just would not make a good president and no one without political experience would in my opinion.

Yes it is true. Mark Zuckerberg would make an absolutely awful president. Get these famous, non-politicians out of the political landscape please.

I only relatively agree with the last part of our statement. The beginning part I disagree with heavily.


In all fairness, not all of our past presidents have had extensive political experience, yet were solid, charismatic leaders with inherent political instincts. Dwight D. Eisenhower is a primary example. He wasn't even affiliated with a major political party leading up to the 1952 election – he sided with the Republicans due to incumbent Harry S. Truman's severe unpopularity in the early 1950s – yet his experience as a war general, forced to deal with both the personal stakes of millions as well as the strategic maneuvers against two-faced enemies on every side, translated into enduring success as President of the United States.

Apparently, according to one poll, Trump would lose to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in a presidential race by 5%. I know the latter isn't a Democrat, but it's still pretty amusing that Trump is so reviled right now that people would rather vote for somebody whose most notable recent credential is singing "You're Welcome" than the person with actual presidential experience.

Yeah, same thing I said...I even told him about Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I only relatively agree with the last part of our statement. The beginning part I disagree with heavily.

Why do you think he would make a good president? He's not a good person...

I just hope you wouldn't do the same for Mike Pence, who still thinks, in 2017, that people like me should see gay conversion therapists instead of loving who we're biologically attracted to.

I agree.


Personally I don't care whether a celebrity the Rock is a democrat or republican, I do not non-politicians running for president. That would never fly in my country. Yes there were events in the past in the U.S., I still find it dumb though.

Yes, Canada does have a better system of government and political atmosphere than us but NOTHING will ever fully prepare someone for the office of President of the United States. George H.W. Bush had a LIFETIME of political experience before he became President in 1989 and yet even he admitted that nothing he ever did before he became Prez fully prepared him for it.


Why do you think he would make a good president? He's not a good person...

He's not a good person...how?  ???

He's not a good person...how?  ???

Why do you think he is a good person? Why do you think he would make a good president? This I am genuinely curious to know. He would be an awful president, why do you disagree with this? Why exactly do you like Mark Zuckerberg?

Mark Zuckerberg DOESN'T CARE about your privacy. He DOESN'T CARE about people's safety. He cares about making money, JUST LIKE TRUMP. He is NOT a genius creator. He stole the entire idea of Facebook. Why in the world do you want this guy as your president???

So, he's not some special person who would make a good president. There are many people from Harvard with computer science degrees who do not belong in politics. Zuckerberg got lucky, I personally don't see him a genius just for making Facebook. I don't like the guy personally, but besides that, he just would not make a good president and no one without political experience would in my opinion.


Oh I'm not disagreeing with you when you say he wouldn't make a good president. But you said things like "he'd be equally as bad/embarrassing as Trump". Now you're using comparatives! Zuckerberg can be a disastrous president but I'd be shocked if it would be worse than Trump. ;D

But why do you not like Zuckerberg? :o I think he's a Republican (supported Rubio) iirc but I don't think he voted Trump at least.

Why do you think he is a good person? Why do you think he would make a good president? This I am genuinely curious to know. He would be an awful president, why do you disagree with this? Why exactly do you like Mark Zuckerberg?

Mark Zuckerberg DOESN'T CARE about your privacy. He DOESN'T CARE about people's safety. He cares about making money, JUST LIKE TRUMP. He is NOT a genius creator. He stole the entire idea of Facebook. Why in the world do you want this guy as your president???

Oh Ok, now I see.....I see that Mark Zuckerberg hurt you when you was younger and thus he haunts you in your sleep and thus you don't want him to become President of the US. Great, I got it and perfectly understand.


Oh I'm not disagreeing with you when you say he wouldn't make a good president. But you said things like "he'd be equally as bad/embarrassing as Trump". Now you're using comparatives! Zuckerberg can be a disastrous president but I'd be shocked if it would be worse than Trump. ;D

But why do you not like Zuckerberg? :o I think he's a Republican (supported Rubio) iirc but I don't think he voted Trump at least.

Zuckerberg is a Democrat...where'd you get him being a Repub? :o..............just kidding. Mark says that he's neither a Democrat or Repub.

Just kidding. Mark Zuckerberg says that he's neither a Democrat or Republican.

Oh Ok, now I see.....I see that Mark Zuckerberg hurt you when you was younger and thus he haunts you in your sleep and thus you don't want him to become President of the US. Great, I got it and perfectly understand.

That's not even a funny comeback, or necessary and doesn't add anything intelligent whatsoever to the discussion.

Zuckerberg is a Democrat...where'd you get him being a Repub? :o

It doesn't matter what he is, he would still be a bad president. But go ahead and vote for him if you want. Not sure why you like him so much.

That's not even a funny comeback, or necessary and doesn't add anything intelligent to the discussion.
Zuckerberg is a Democrat...where'd you get him being a Repub? :o

It doesn't matter what he is, he would still be a bad president.

It wasn't meant to be funny and you haven't added anything relevant to this discussion but "Waaaaah, I hate Mark Zuckerberg and thus he shouldn't be President of the the US".

Also, in case you didn't see...Mark is neither a Democrat or Republican. I was just joking.

It wasn't meant to be funny and you haven't added anything relevant to this discussion but "Waaaaah, I hate Mark Zuckerberg and thus he shouldn't be President of the the US".

Also, in case you didn't see...Mark is neither a Democrat or Republican. I was just joking.

Yes I did, I talked about him not caring about people's privacy, safety, and caring only about money. Also him being a fraud. You on the other hand are throwing around unfunny statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

Yes I did, I talked about him not caring about people's privacy, safety, and caring only about money. Also him being a fraud. You on the other hand are throwing around unfunny statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

Just because your feelings are hurt doesn't mean that you have to try to seem of some higher intellectual than me. You haven't added anything beside your conspiracies and your snarky comments (telling me that my statements aren't funny...when they weren't meant to be...doesn't make you cool or smarter).

Just because your feelings are hurt doesn't mean that you have to try to seem of some higher intellectual than me. You haven't added anything beside your conspiracies and your snarky comments (telling me that my statements aren't funny...when they weren't meant to be...doesn't make you cool or smarter).

My feelings were never even the discussion, the discussion was Mark Zuckerberg not being a good president and being comparable to Trump, you're the one who turned it around and made it about me... I feel like you're the one who really likes Mark Zuckerberg and are offended over someone not liking them. And who mentioned conspiracies? Do some research and you will have your proven facts, no conspiracy is even mentioned here. Not sure what your problem is with what I'm saying and why you care so much...

Oh and you never answered my question on WHY you think Mark Zuckerberg would make a good president. Please explain.

So, he's not some special person who would make a good president. There are many people from Harvard with computer science degrees who do not belong in politics. Zuckerberg got lucky, I personally don't see him a genius just for making Facebook. I don't like the guy personally, but besides that, he just would not make a good president and no one without political experience would in my opinion.


Well I agree with you, as much as I like him, he probably wouldn't make a good president. ;D

My feelings were never even the discussion, the discussion was Mark Zuckerberg not being a good president and being comparable to Trump, you're the one who turned it around and made it about me... I feel like you're the one who really likes Mark Zuckerberg and are offended over someone not liking them. And who mentioned conspiracies? Do some research and you will have your proven facts, no conspiracy is even mentioned here. Not sure what your problem is with what I'm saying and why you care so much...

Oh and you never answered my question on WHY you think Mark Zuckerberg would make a good president. Please explain.

1. I can tell your feelings are hurt by the way you angrily respond to me.
2. I never said that I really like Mark Zuckerberg (I don't) and I just said that I would take him as President over Trump.
3. Futurepoke (aka Slowpoke) already explained some reasons he would be decent (not necessarily good). Just reread his post.
4. Don't worry...your nightmare won't happen. Mark himself just said that he won't run for Prez (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/mark-zuckerberg-running-public-office-47560247)

1. I can tell your feelings are hurt by the way you angrily respond to me.
2. I never said that I really like Mark Zuckerberg (I don't) and I just said that I would take him as President over Trump.
3. Futurepoke (aka Slowpoke) already explained some reasons he would be decent (not necessarily good). Just reread his post.
4. Don't worry...your nightmare won't happen. Mark himself just said that he won't run for Prez (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/mark-zuckerberg-running-public-office-47560247)

I never angrily responded... I use capitals when trying to get my point across. It doesn't mean I'm angry, it's a debate not a petty argument. And my original point was that NO celebrities/innovators/non-politician people should run for president, it's not just about Mark Zuckerberg so I don't have a nightmare about him. It is a nightmare hearing all these non-experienced people wanting to run though. That is getting annoying. I want politics to be like it was before, traditional with politicians who actually have experience, and I'm also getting tired of this populist crap. I want it to end already because it's not accomplishing anything and just further dividing people.

I never angrily responded... I use capitals when trying to get my point across. It doesn't mean I'm angry, it's a debate not a petty argument. And my original point was that NO celebrities/innovators/non-politician people should run for president, it's not just about Mark Zuckerberg so I don't have a nightmare about him. It is a nightmare hearing all these non-experienced people wanting to run though. That is getting annoying. I want politics to be like it was before, traditional with politicians who actually have experience, and I'm also getting tired of this populist crap. I want it to end already because it's not accomplishing anything and just further dividing people.

Well, a politician can also be a populist there many examples of this in US history (William Jennings Bryan, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Harry Truman, President Richard Nixon, President Ronald Reagan, President Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama, etc). I also agree with you that I MUCH prefer traditional politicians with experience over people who don't have any but I'm just saying that I won't rule out Mark. Simple...:).

Well, a politician can also be a populist there many examples of this in US history (William Jennings Bryan, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Harry Truman, President Richard Nixon, President Ronald Reagan, President Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama, etc).

I know they can, but most of the ones you listed I wouldn't consider populists. Take Barack Obama for example, he promised lots of change but he really didn't change much.

I know they can, but most of the ones you listed I wouldn't consider populists. Take Barack Obama for example, he promised lots of change but he really didn't change much.

They were populists by how they ran their Presidential campaigns. Also, President Obama changed a lot of things and he would of changed more if he had a Democratic controlled Congress throughout out his entire 8 years. I feel like a lot of people forgot the state the US was in 2008 and also many people had too high expectations for President Obama. Obviously, President Obama wasn't perfect and didn't do some things that he promised (but that's normal).

Unlike Donald Trump, there is much more to Mark Zuckerberg than money and fame. Also, voting for Mark Zuckerberg is not much different than it would have been voting for Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956. Eisenhower had absolutely no political experience (only experience as a soldier and general and also leader of the D-Day Invasion in WWII)...however he was primarily voted in office because he was so popular and beloved because of his war hero status. However, Dwight D. Eisenhower actually turned out to be a good President (he had his flaws of course but he is forever connected to 1950s America and it's prosperity). In the both the 1952 and 1956 Presidential Election.....Eisenhower (a Republican) faced Democrat Adlai Stevenson II. Adlai Stevenson II had political experience...he was the Governor of Illinois from 1949-1953, he was a lawyer, he spoke intellectually and eloquently. Also, Adlai's grandfather Adlai Stevenson I was Vice President of the United States under President Grover Cleveland from 1893 to 1897.


Good history! Eisenhower did indeed get elected in 1952 with no political experience. In fact, he wasn't even registered as a Republican until 1952. He'd actually been considered a possible contender for the Democratic nomination in 1948, if the party had decided to kick the unpopular Truman off the ticket.

There have been a few other Presidents without political experience as well. Zachary Taylor was elected in 1848 due to his heroics in the Mexican-American War, despite the fact that he had never actually cast a vote in his entire life before that point. Ulysses S. Grant was elected in 1868 without any political experience either. Others haven't had very much experience. I've already mentioned Obama and Bush who, compared to others, didn't have very much experience.


Mark Zuckerberg graduated from Harvard though, and in Computer Science. He made a multi-billionaire company and the biggest content-sharing website on the planet, all from scratch! That's more than we can say for mister mister, whom I was going to write a large paragraph about but I think we can all agree that his intelligence or lack thereof is self-evident.

That's not to say Zuckerberg would make a good president, and political experience is definitely an asset if not essential, but I don't think he's in the same class of "money and fame" as the homeless one. Zuckerberg makes an honest living and is famous for a good reason. I don't think he'd be as "equally embarrassing"  as the guy who embodies practically every cartoonishly bad American stereotype you can think of.  :-X


I agree with you. The reason I didn't support Trump for the presidency had nothing to do with the fact that he didn't have any political experience. It was because he was transparently a buffoon who lacked even the most basic of knowledge of American government and how it works, to say nothing of foreign policy. I'm not necessarily saying I would support Zuckerberg for President. I would have to know his positions first. But I wouldn't have any questions about whether or not he had the knowledge to run the executive branch.

Besides, our last several Presidents haven't had much experience, really. Obama only served four years in the U.S. Senate, and George W. Bush was only the Governor of Texas for five years. Even FDR only had four years as Governor of New York and a few as Assistant Secretary of the Navy.


I just hope you wouldn't do the same for Mike Pence, who still thinks, in 2017, that people like me should see gay conversion therapists instead of loving who we're biologically attracted to.


If it ever got to that point, would you not support the impeachment of Trump if it would mean that Pence would become President? I have heard some Democrats say that they are actually more worried about Pence becoming President since they feel he would be a much more effective leader than Trump.

If it ever got to that point, would you not support the impeachment of Trump if it would mean that Pence would become President? I have heard some Democrats say that they are actually more worried about Pence becoming President since they feel he would be a much more effective leader than Trump.


I highly doubt Pence would really be any more positive on the majority of policy issues, and yes, he would be worse if he were more effective in pushing through backwards-arse Christian Right laws through Congress. Trump at least considers gay marriage a "settled" issue, but Pence would probably take any possible opportunity to deny LGBT people joy and happiness in the Land of the Free.

Good history! Eisenhower did indeed get elected in 1952 with no political experience. In fact, he wasn't even registered as a Republican until 1952. He'd actually been considered a possible contender for the Democratic nomination in 1948, if the party had decided to kick the unpopular Truman off the ticket.

There have been a few other Presidents without political experience as well. Zachary Taylor was elected in 1848 due to his heroics in the Mexican-American War, despite the fact that he had never actually cast a vote in his entire life before that point. Ulysses S. Grant was elected in 1868 without any political experience either. Others haven't had very much experience. I've already mentioned Obama and Bush who, compared to others, didn't have very much experience.
Thanks bro. I totally agree, solid post (woth great history ;)).


I agree with you. The reason I didn't support Trump for the presidency had nothing to do with the fact that he didn't have any political experience. It was because he was transparently a buffoon who lacked even the most basic of knowledge of American government and how it works, to say nothing of foreign policy. I'm not necessarily saying I would support Zuckerberg for President. I would have to know his positions first. But I wouldn't have any questions about whether or not he had the knowledge to run the executive branch.
I totally agree...that's I was trying to tell Slim95.


Besides, our last several Presidents haven't had much experience, really. Obama only served four years in the U.S. Senate, and George W. Bush was only the Governor of Texas for five years. Even FDR only had four years as Governor of New York and a few as Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

If it ever got to that point, would you not support the impeachment of Trump if it would mean that Pence would become President? I have heard some Democrats say that they are actually more worried about Pence becoming President since they feel he would be a much more effective leader than Trump.

Honestly, I would prefer Mike Pence as President over Donald Trump. Yes, I know how Pence feels on the LGBT community but he would be your standard Republican President in the brand of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. In essence, he wouldn't be a total disaster to this country like how Trump is. Also, if Congress turns Democratic in 2018 then that would severely hinder what a President Pence would/could do....he would either have to work with a Democratic controlled Congress like Reagan or not.

I never angrily responded... I use capitals when trying to get my point across. It doesn't mean I'm angry, it's a debate not a petty argument. And my original point was that NO celebrities/innovators/non-politician people should run for president, it's not just about Mark Zuckerberg so I don't have a nightmare about him. It is a nightmare hearing all these non-experienced people wanting to run though. That is getting annoying. I want politics to be like it was before, traditional with politicians who actually have experience, and I'm also getting tired of this populist crap. I want it to end already because it's not accomplishing anything and just further dividing people.


But those "traditional politicians" don't serve the majority. Neither does faux-populist BS. Traditional politicians are bound to the system and will bend/break the rules if it benefits them to do so. This is not a right-wing meme. This is fact. Most progressives acknowledge this.

Good history! Eisenhower did indeed get elected in 1952 with no political experience. In fact, he wasn't even registered as a Republican until 1952. He'd actually been considered a possible contender for the Democratic nomination in 1948, if the party had decided to kick the unpopular Truman off the ticket.

There have been a few other Presidents without political experience as well. Zachary Taylor was elected in 1848 due to his heroics in the Mexican-American War, despite the fact that he had never actually cast a vote in his entire life before that point. Ulysses S. Grant was elected in 1868 without any political experience either. Others haven't had very much experience. I've already mentioned Obama and Bush who, compared to others, didn't have very much experience.

I agree with you. The reason I didn't support Trump for the presidency had nothing to do with the fact that he didn't have any political experience. It was because he was transparently a buffoon who lacked even the most basic of knowledge of American government and how it works, to say nothing of foreign policy. I'm not necessarily saying I would support Zuckerberg for President. I would have to know his positions first. But I wouldn't have any questions about whether or not he had the knowledge to run the executive branch.

Besides, our last several Presidents haven't had much experience, really. Obama only served four years in the U.S. Senate, and George W. Bush was only the Governor of Texas for five years. Even FDR only had four years as Governor of New York and a few as Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

If it ever got to that point, would you not support the impeachment of Trump if it would mean that Pence would become President? I have heard some Democrats say that they are actually more worried about Pence becoming President since they feel he would be a much more effective leader than Trump.


To me, it was more the fact that Trump relied on exploiting underlying xenophobic/racist "sentiment" to further his "populist" agenda that sealed the deal for me. His rhetoric was authoritarian in nature, the opposite of what most true populists fight for, and emboldened bigoted pricks of the Alt-Right variety. Also the Christian Right influence... I don't want the Duggars running my country.

Honestly, I would prefer Mike Pence as President over Donald Trump. Yes, I know how Pence feels on the LGBT community but he would be your standard Republican President in the brand of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. In essence, he wouldn't be a total disaster to this country like how Trump is. Also, if Congress turns Democratic in 2018 then that would severely hinder what a President Pence would/could do....he would either have to work with a Democratic controlled Congress like Reagan or not.


The thing is that Trump and Pence really aren't that different ideologically, in fact Pence is slightly worse. Heck minus Trump's more protectionist stance on trade and immigration, he's pretty much your standard Republican president, the only thing is that (so far) he hasn't really been able to make much substantial policy decisions. It irritates the hell out of me how anybody could consider Trump the worst president of all time!!! when we had 8 years of W. Bush, a man who was able to effectively pass his Extreme-Right Wing agenda. He singed the Patriot Act, The Tax Cuts, He got us out of the Kyoto Protocol, authorized the Invasion of Iraq, Signed No Child Left Behind, among other disastrous policies.

The same could be applied with other Republican presidents since Nixon. Everybody's b!tching and moaning about Trump being president, but because he's an incompetent buffoon he hasn't gotten anything passed. IMHO, I'd rather take 4 more years of constant tweeting, bombastic personal attacks, and lack of governmental legislative mobility over someone like Pence who would be able to fully rally support for his (arguably) worse policies. You know, the same guy who believes in Gay Conversion Therapy....

To me, it was more the fact that Trump relied on exploiting underlying xenophobic/racist "sentiment" to further his "populist" agenda that sealed the deal for me. His rhetoric was authoritarian in nature, the opposite of what most true populists fight for, and emboldened bigoted pricks of the Alt-Right variety. Also the Christian Right influence... I don't want the Duggars running my country.


I hate the Duggars, money helps keep mouths shut, even if there is molestation, or whatever.  ::)

He singed the Patriot Act, The Tax Cuts, He got us out of the Kyoto Protocol, authorized the Invasion of Iraq, Signed No Child Left Behind, among other disastrous policies.


I think all the stuff you listed here Trump has already done (at least some mild version of) and it's only been 4 months.

Patriot Act = deregulated the FCC so that your ISP can give away your browsing history to any interested buyers (which can include government)

Tax cuts = big tax cuts for the wealthy are coming up, funded by huge cuts to social programmes. The Bush cuts will look like a slice of ham next to this meatloaf.

Invasion of Iraq = okay nothing like this yet, but Trump is undeniably a huge war hawk given what we've seen of his diplomacy or lack thereof with regards to Syria and North Korea.

No Child Left Behind = the whole voucher stuff which imo is just backdoor way to publicly fund religious schools.

Honestly, I would prefer Mike Pence as President over Donald Trump. Yes, I know how Pence feels on the LGBT community but he would be your standard Republican President in the brand of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. In essence, he wouldn't be a total disaster to this country like how Trump is. Also, if Congress turns Democratic in 2018 then that would severely hinder what a President Pence would/could do....he would either have to work with a Democratic controlled Congress like Reagan or not.

I kinda agree. If anything they are both equally bad.

So who will be in the 2020 Election? ???

This is fact. Most progressives acknowledge this.

I don't. I prefer someone with experience in politics but to each his own.

People are overestimating the power Trump has. Sure he can draft a couple executive orders here and there but ultimately someone else is controlling him. He himself is not the ruler of the U.S.A., even though he probably wishes to be.

People are overestimating the power Trump has. Sure he can draft a couple executive orders here and there but ultimately someone else is controlling him. He himself is not the ruler of the U.S.A., even though he probably wishes to be.


He has way too much power TBH, way more than any single person should have. I didn't know a president could simply proclaim decrees and have it become the law of the land. In any other democratic country, you have to debate this stuff in a parliament or assembly and put it to vote before it becomes law. A North Korea tea.  :-X

He has way too much power TBH, way more than any single person should have. I didn't know a president could simply proclaim decrees and have it become the law of the land. In any other democratic country, you have to debate this stuff in a parliament or assembly and put it to vote before it becomes law. A North Korea tea.  :-X

He doesn't have any more power than what the previous presidents had.

He doesn't have any more power than what the previous presidents had.


The system is designed so that the House/Senate/SC keeps the president's wild powers in check. But now the president has a cult of personality built around him, and Congress wouldn't dare lift a finger against him lest they lose their jobs. The Supreme Court is stacked with partisan appointments, I'm not sure if it was meant to be like that, but that's how it is, and they're not going to keep a check on him. The only thing left is lower/state courts, but you can appeal your way out of those. He's basically dictator for at least two years.  :-X

I mean he can't do something too crazy, but no democratic country let's a single man become so powerful. The whole point of democracy is to power share and to hear things from different perspectives to maximize the quality of laws. That's absolutely not what's happening here. Hair mouse calls the shots ;D

The system is designed so that the House/Senate/SC keeps the president's wild powers in check. But now the president has a cult of personality built around him, and Congress wouldn't dare lift a finger against him lest they lose their jobs. The Supreme Court is stacked with partisan appointments, I'm not sure if it was meant to be like that, but that's how it is, and they're not going to keep a check on him. The only thing left is lower/state courts, but you can appeal your way out of those. He's basically dictator for at least two years.  :-X

I mean he can't do something too crazy, but no democratic country let's a single man become so powerful. The whole point of democracy is to power share and to hear things from different perspectives to maximize the quality of laws. That's absolutely not what's happening here. Hair mouse calls the shots ;D


It used to not be that way. In the early years of the USA, Congress and the President were two totally different entities that functioned completely independent of each other, the way the Founding Fathers envisioned. Congress wrote the laws, and the President enforced them. Instead of waiting around for the President to propose a law, Congress worked independently and passed it's own laws on it's own time, leaving the President with the option to veto it or not if he chose, though Congress could still override him. Back in the old days, it wasn't uncommon for President's to veto large amounts of legislation and have it overridden. This happened to Andrew Johnson hundreds of times.

Sadly, it's hasn't really been that way since FDR. Congress now typically defers to the President and his administration on legislation, at times even when the opposition party is in power. With Donald Trump in power, we need a legislative branch with some guts.

The system is designed so that the House/Senate/SC keeps the president's wild powers in check. But now the president has a cult of personality built around him, and Congress wouldn't dare lift a finger against him lest they lose their jobs. The Supreme Court is stacked with partisan appointments, I'm not sure if it was meant to be like that, but that's how it is, and they're not going to keep a check on him. The only thing left is lower/state courts, but you can appeal your way out of those. He's basically dictator for at least two years.  :-X

I mean he can't do something too crazy, but no democratic country let's a single man become so powerful. The whole point of democracy is to power share and to hear things from different perspectives to maximize the quality of laws. That's absolutely not what's happening here. Hair mouse calls the shots ;D


I lied to my boss that her haircut was good. And that's how you keep a job.  :-X  :-X

It's like a totem pole. I was in the middle, but I smiled and endorsed her awful haircut.  :o

I honestly cannot believe how lenient some of you guys are being towards Mike Pence. If Trump is phony and all bark and no real game, Pence is a sincerely hateful, vile, repugnant subhuman scourge to society. The fact that somebody famous primarily for being the #1 post-Obergefell v. Hodges enemy of the LGBTQ community is now just a heartbeat away from the highest office in the United States of America is the type of horror that threatens my faith in humanity itself. Every single time I see that frightful monstrosity on my TV or computer screen, I fill up with disgust and misery.

I honestly cannot believe how lenient some of you guys are being towards Mike Pence. If Trump is phony and all bark and no real game, Pence is a sincerely hateful, vile, repugnant subhuman scourge to society. The fact that somebody famous primarily for being the #1 post-Obergefell v. Hodges enemy of the LGBTQ community is now just a heartbeat away from the highest office in the United States of America is the type of horror that threatens my faith in humanity itself. Every single time I see that frightful monstrosity on my TV or computer screen, I fill up with disgust and misery.

I guess because I am not a member of the LGBT community...my view on Mike Pence is a bit different. However, make no mistake....I don't like either Trump or Pence but a President Pence (I feel) would be a one term George W. Bush and whatever he does can potentially be mitigated in 2018 (if he becomes President by or before then) by the midterm elections. I would be absolutely surprised if a President Pence is able to get a bill supporting electroshock therapy for LGBT people through Congress (even if it remains controlled by the GOP) nor could I see it not being shot down by the courts if he tried to do it through an executive order.

Yeah, Mike Pence really is a terrible human being. Who the f*ck can still look at themselves in the mirror while thinking "oh yeah, shock therapy is a totally a great thing to do to people."

The thing is that Trump and Pence really aren't that different ideologically, in fact Pence is slightly worse. Heck minus Trump's more protectionist stance on trade and immigration, he's pretty much your standard Republican president, the only thing is that (so far) he hasn't really been able to make much substantial policy decisions. It irritates the hell out of me how anybody could consider Trump the worst president of all time!!! when we had 8 years of W. Bush, a man who was able to effectively pass his Extreme-Right Wing agenda. He singed the Patriot Act, The Tax Cuts, He got us out of the Kyoto Protocol, authorized the Invasion of Iraq, Signed No Child Left Behind, among other disastrous policies.

The same could be applied with other Republican presidents since Nixon. Everybody's b!tching and moaning about Trump being president, but because he's an incompetent buffoon he hasn't gotten anything passed. IMHO, I'd rather take 4 more years of constant tweeting, bombastic personal attacks, and lack of governmental legislative mobility over someone like Pence who would be able to fully rally support for his (arguably) worse policies. You know, the same guy who believes in Gay Conversion Therapy....

Trump and Pence are completely different ideologically. Trump is an strongman/authoritarian-like "right leaning populist"....meanwhile Pence is an ideologue Christian Conservative (aka the typical Republican politician since 1981).

My dislike of Trump is more than just because he's a moron but because he is potentially working for a foreign nation (Russia) and Russia is not our friend. Not only do I not like Trump because he is potentially (probably) a traitor but also because he committed obstruction of justice (in my opinion). Those things...heavily outweigh his behavior....I can deal with a fool being President but not a fool who is essentially compromised by another country, especially one who is not an ally.

All republicans don't care for LGBT rights, it's not just Pence. I agree with Reign in that Pence would just be like Bush 2.0 or any other republican, still very bad but nothing out of the ordinary for a republican. I highly doubt he would have the power to mandate shock therapy because that goes against the constitution I believe. I don't like Pence at all and I think he's a dinosaur of a politician, but really not that different from other republicans.

The thing is that Trump and Pence really aren't that different ideologically, in fact Pence is slightly worse. Heck minus Trump's more protectionist stance on trade and immigration, he's pretty much your standard Republican president, the only thing is that (so far) he hasn't really been able to make much substantial policy decisions. It irritates the hell out of me how anybody could consider Trump the worst president of all time!!! when we had 8 years of W. Bush, a man who was able to effectively pass his Extreme-Right Wing agenda. He singed the Patriot Act, The Tax Cuts, He got us out of the Kyoto Protocol, authorized the Invasion of Iraq, Signed No Child Left Behind, among other disastrous policies.

The same could be applied with other Republican presidents since Nixon. Everybody's b!tching and moaning about Trump being president, but because he's an incompetent buffoon he hasn't gotten anything passed. IMHO, I'd rather take 4 more years of constant tweeting, bombastic personal attacks, and lack of governmental legislative mobility over someone like Pence who would be able to fully rally support for his (arguably) worse policies. You know, the same guy who believes in Gay Conversion Therapy....


The problem with Trump is more his mouth, behavior, and temperament, which is unacceptable for the president. He's radicalized a bunch of crazies too with his conspiracy theories. The right is getting more radical and vicious and a lot of it is thanks to Trump's crazy talk. You saw what this guy did a few weeks ago he blabbed secrets to Russians. I wonder what he's told Erdogan and Sisi too, I mean who knows... Trump is a loose cannon I mean you don't know what this guy is going to say or do. What is he going to tell/blab to Putin when he meets him? He wants to meet with Kim Jong-Un (probably won't happen), can you imagine what he could tell him? Pence is worse in some ways (more of an ideologue) so tbh it's a tough call between the two, though Trump is probably more of a threat to national security at least. How would Trump respond to a terrorist attack? He's talked loose about nuclear weapons in the past, would he start a nuclear war? It's true that the some on the left have overreacted to the situation in a lot of ways, the United States is no where near fascism or Nazism despite Trump being a buffoon. He does present a unique kind of risk though.

All republicans don't care for LGBT rights, it's not just Pence. I agree with Reign in that Pence would just be like Bush 2.0 or any other republican, still very bad but nothing out of the ordinary for a republican. I highly doubt he would have the power to mandate shock therapy because that goes against the constitution I believe. I don't like Pence at all and I think he's a dinosaur of a politician, but really not that different from other republicans.

Well not all, just the majority. However, thanks for agreeing with me and I agree with you :).


The problem with Trump is more his mouth, behavior, and temperament, which is unacceptable for the president. He's radicalized a bunch of crazies too with his conspiracy theories. The right is getting more radical and vicious and a lot of it is thanks to Trump's crazy talk. You saw what this guy did a few weeks ago he blabbed secrets to Russians. I wonder what he's told Erdogan and Sisi too, I mean who knows... Trump is a loose cannon I mean you don't know what this guy is going to say or do. What is he going to tell/blab to Putin when he meets him? He wants to meet with Kim Jong-Un (probably won't happen), can you imagine what he could tell him? Pence is worse in some ways (more of an ideologue) so tbh it's a tough call between the two, though Trump is probably more of a threat to national security at least. How would Trump respond to a terrorist attack? He's talked loose about nuclear weapons in the past, would he start a nuclear war? It's true that the some on the left has overreacted to the situation in a lot of ways, the United States is no where near fascism or Nazism despite Trump being a buffoon. He does present a unique kind of risk though.

Nice post, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Trump is not a fascist or Nazi (that is one thing that I have never gotten why some on the left say that).

All republicans don't care for LGBT rights, it's not just Pence.

It's not that black and white. Pence is among the worst faction of the Republican Party when it comes to LGBT rights, which even Trump isn't anywhere near.

I agree with Reign in that Pence would just be like Bush 2.0 or any other republican, still very bad but nothing out of the ordinary for a republican. I highly doubt he would have the power to mandate shock therapy because that goes against the constitution I believe. I don't like Pence at all and I think he's a dinosaur of a politician, but really not that different from other republicans.


I guess Pence just looks so much more rotten to me in 2017, after several preceding years of LGBT rights victories, than George W. Bush did at a time when public understanding of LGBT issues wasn't nearly as refined or informed and "that's so gay" and "f****t" insults spread like wildfire. Today, George W. Bush doesn't even want to take a public stance on gay rights, which at the very least is better than actively promising to undo all the gains made during the Obama years.

I think all the stuff you listed here Trump has already done (at least some mild version of) and it's only been 4 months.

Patriot Act = deregulated the FCC so that your ISP can give away your browsing history to any interested buyers (which can include government)

Tax cuts = big tax cuts for the wealthy are coming up, funded by huge cuts to social programmes. The Bush cuts will look like a slice of ham next to this meatloaf.

Invasion of Iraq = okay nothing like this yet, but Trump is undeniably a huge war hawk given what we've seen of his diplomacy or lack thereof with regards to Syria and North Korea.

No Child Left Behind = the whole voucher stuff which imo is just backdoor way to publicly fund religious schools.


Good points. I'm certainly not underestimating Trump's power and the policies he has already ratified (or are set to ratify), but I still think its too early to be grading his overall job in office. So far though as a Liberal I detest the executive orders his cabinet has signed, but I like the fact that the legislative branch and the executive branch haven't reached a speedy process for legislation for the admin's sh!tty ideas. Its a double edge sword


The problem with Trump is more his mouth, behavior, and temperament, which is unacceptable for the president. He's radicalized a bunch of crazies too with his conspiracy theories. The right is getting more radical and vicious and a lot of it is thanks to Trump's crazy talk. You saw what this guy did a few weeks ago he blabbed secrets to Russians. I wonder what he's told Erdogan and Sisi too, I mean who knows... Trump is a loose cannon I mean you don't know what this guy is going to say or do. What is he going to tell/blab to Putin when he meets him? He wants to meet with Kim Jong-Un (probably won't happen), can you imagine what he could tell him? Pence is worse in some ways (more of an ideologue) so tbh it's a tough call between the two, though Trump is probably more of a threat to national security at least. How would Trump respond to a terrorist attack? He's talked loose about nuclear weapons in the past, would he start a nuclear war? It's true that the some on the left have overreacted to the situation in a lot of ways, the United States is no where near fascism or Nazism despite Trump being a buffoon. He does present a unique kind of risk though.


I agree 100%. That seems to be my biggest gripe with Trump, his unstable temperament. Although FWIW, he seems to have calmed down a bit since the start of his 10 day visit to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and The Vatican. However, I doubt that'll last ::)


It's not that black and white. Pence is among the worst faction of the Republican Party when it comes to LGBT rights, which even Trump isn't anywhere near.

I guess Pence just looks so much more rotten to me in 2017, after several preceding years of LGBT rights victories, than George W. Bush did at a time when public understanding of LGBT issues wasn't nearly as refined or informed and "that's so gay" and "f****t" insults spread like wildfire. Today, George W. Bush doesn't even want to take a public stance on gay rights, which at the very least is better than actively promising to undo all the gains made during the Obama years.


Yeah I 100% agree. Pence is basically one the worst Republicans in the country. On top of that, since he's a darling of the establishment many people unfortunately turn a blind eye to the despicable political views he holds.