I don't have a political party so I have no "guys" to "run" anything --- none of us do --- but AGAIN whether they win or lose has ZERO to do with your false characterizations. Whether an entity wins or loses depends on how many votes they get, or how many runs or points they score. Not whether you get to mischaracterize them. This is not rocket surgery.
You run the Commie, you will lose. At worst, Trump gets a real majority and wins. At best, Howard Schultz suddenly looks a lot more appealing, but can't overcome the Electoral College, it gets thrown into Congress, and Trump STILL wins.
Once
AGAIN ------
I don't "run"
anybody.
Political parties do that. And once again again, there is no "commie".
Perhaps your problem is simple illiteracy. Either that or you're too busy going
while worshiping your own posts.
And AGAIN you're deliberately misstating "Democratic Socialism" as " Socialism" and then false-equating your own strawman to "Commie", which has no meaning. Apparently because you can't deal with the starting point, so you bury your head in the sand and pretend it's something else, and that's (AGAIN) -- dishonest. Your false associations don't magically come to life like Frankenstein just because you post it on a message board.
Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron. Bernie is kind of like the Socialists who ran the USSR, he has three mansions, but thinks that Joe needs to pay more taxes to subsidize the dumb-ass who put himself $60,000 in debt for a degree in Art History or some such shit. No thank you.
The scariest thing after how many on the right are willing to embrace fascism is how many on the left are willing to embrace communism. It's like not a one of you ever read a history book.
Actually the scariest thing is those disconnected from reality who think they can just write their own fiction and it congeals into real stuff, as you just did. Sanders does not have "three mansions" and the rest of your drivel is, as has been the case from the beginning, wishful thinking characterizations, apparently because you can't deal with the real world.
Bernie was my congressman. I know him way better than you do but that's not saying much. As for Democratic Socialists, I believe I already schooled you on that ignorance, wasn't it this thread?
Post 54. Roll it.
Willy Brandt, Nelson Mandela, Jawaharlal Nehru, Jeremy Corbyn, David Ben-Gurion, François Mitterand, Bertrand Russell, Helen Keller, Roger Waters, MLK, George Orwell, Mahatma Ghandi, Albert Einstein, Christopher Hitchens, and the current PM of New Zealand in the news recently, Jacinda Ardern. Also notably Tommy Douglas, who got Canadian universal health care started.
Those look like "Stalinists" to you?
Here's a whole page on the "oxymoron" you insist on whining and stomping your feet about. Imagine that --- a whole page to not-read, ignore and go on with your imaginarium hissyfits as if it never happened. O lucky day.
Again ----- what does?
< 35 years old: Check. Natural born citizen: Check.
End of list.
There's another list?
Not taking it up the ass from another man... No Check.
Sorry, we aren't ready for a gay president. Especially one whose name sound like "Butt-plug".
You didn't even
touch the question. Actually you cut the question out so that (again) you wouldn't have to face it. Which is at this point a definite pattern.
The question was ---- AGAIN ----
what makes him "unqualified"?
You
do understand what the word "qualified" means? Or am I assuming too much?
What makes (any candidate) "qualified" beyond being <35 years old and a nat-born citizen? Your own emotional imaginarium detritus about what puns you can make with their name or what fantasies you have about their sex lives are
entirely irrelevant here. That is in fact unqualified to be an argument.
"Experience" at what?
Again, if this is supposed to be a wish-list of probabilities instead of the objective analysis it's disguised as, what "qualifications" did Big Orange ever have? The man has literally never held a job in his life.
Thing is, Trump spent 40 years self promoting... The image he had of this great businesman might not be accurate, but that's what existed in most people's minds.
Personally, I like Beto more than most of the clown car. But if you think that people will look at his thin resume and say, "Yup, that guys qualifies", it's a bit much.
Once AGAIN you can't touch the question. Why do you keep running away from it? Skeered?
"Unqualified" is YOUR term.
Defend it for once.
