Trump 2020?
Will Trump win the presidential election in 2020? Why? Why not? If he does win, what will happen in America regarding racial, gender, & class relations?GMW, According to how I interpret Revelation 13:5s forty two months in my hub "The U.S.A. In Bible Prophecy"
{ Because of having the world's most powerful weapon the U.S.A. was allowed to speak boastfully and even blaspheming God to continue for forty two months before the Messiah reigns to take the nation to its termination. The 42 months are presidential terms that began with George Washington from April 30, 1789 to March 4, 1797 to Donald J. Trump who was called the forty-fifth on January 20, 2018. However, the Presidents' History reveals the ninth, William Henry Harrison, nor one of Grover Cleveland's the non-successive elections as the twenty-second and twenty-fourth is counted in the prophecy. So when the messiah replaces Trump we will know the end is upon us, even at the door. } and the 2nd through 4th chapters of Daniel that types the USA
{ 2 implies Nebuchadnezzar dreamt he was giving birth to the end of the world that ends with a divided nation, the USA, in verses 41-44.
Chapter 3s Jews or chosen people surviving the overheated furnace, a type of the US' destruction as Mystery Babylon, since the king was ruler over historical Babylon.
And Chapter 4 shows how that last nation would be the first to travel in space, have (military) branches reaching the end of the earth, have birds and animals protected in zoos and it's stump would be protected by a band of iron (messiah) and brass (help meet) in Armageddon as the finial self-exalting dictator (Trump) is removed for the messiah and help meet to takeover before she is destroyed like Mystery Babylon in Rev. 18. } Trump is not supposed toast a complete term before he is expelled by an angel for the Messiah to replace him.
Since in writing the Constitution Washington said let us raise a standard only the wise and honest can repair; the event is in the hands of god once the messiah takes over there will no longer be an election. He will implement the constitution which allows all states to present a candidate for president and vice before the primary election. If, as I am sure they will, all states choose the messiah and his help meet in 2020 there will not be another election before this nation terminates as Mystery Babylon.I think the only reasonable hope for a win on the left is Bernie Sanders with Tulsi Gabbard as his running mate.
If not, Trump will take it again.
Why?
There are several 'wars' going on here.
1. Living standards have dropped as a result of laissez-faire capitalism (neo-liberalism). Previously the business model for pricing was was cost plus and it has now risen to what the market can bear. The former kept prices reasonable; the latter has made prices sky high. There have been several other changes which have, pretty much, decimated the middle classes in all countries that took on the laisses-faire model. People are struggling with financial stress. They don't always blame the right issue. Some will blame Jews, Latinos, people of colour, corporatists, etc. People will vote for the party that supports the issue that they believe is responsible for their difficulties.
2.The DNC is run by corporatists, and they are powerful and pretty corrupt. If they give the seat to a corporatist (Biden, for instance), progressives will not vote, and some will vote for Trump.
3. There are competitive people and there are cooperative people. People who are competitive believe there must be a dominant or winning people, i.e. white males, and people who are cooperative believe that everybody will benefit by sharing and helping each other. Competitive people tend to be more ruthless and more dominant. If there is a high voter turn out, and if the candidate if progressive, the Dems will take it. If the Dems have a corporatist, there will be a low voter turn out, and Trump will take it.
So now what happens if Trump wins?
1. The rest of the world will completely write off any further hope for America. Europe will begin looking after its own self-defence and America will be asked to leave all its military installations that it has in other countries. This will weaken American considerably.
2. Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) countries will form stronger financial ties, and this will severely affect the American economy in a negative fashion. In addition, America has held the Reserve currency since the end of WWII. This has already begun to weaken and more and more other currencies will become acceptable for international trade. This will weaken the American economy as well.
3. As America sinks into deeper depression, jobs will decrease, money will be hard, and there will be increased violence. There will be more shootings as those who support Trump ardently believe that it's Jews, Latinos, and others who are responsible for what is happening in the USA. They won't see the fact that America uses 60% of its taxes for the military and non-taxation of the super-wealthy as partial causes for diminishing facilties. With all the guns around, there will be violence. It won't be a pretty pictures.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabegle … ive-2019/?
If Sanders wins, the damage to the US is so severe that it will still go into recession. Once China finds other markets, and it will (with the building of the Silk Road and the New African trade agreements), there won't be room for America, and they won't be so friendly. It's going to be a tough upward journey - two generations, and by that time, we should all be dying as a result of climate change.
I'm afraid, I genuinely do not see any happy-ever-afters.
This is poppycock.
It would cost them a cold TRILLION to develop their own EU military force to the level necessary to replace all of America's troops, tanks, etc.
It would be political suicide for the "left" opening the door for even more "right-wing" political take overs in EU nations, the 'Yellow Vests' of France would become a thing seen across most EU nations as taxes went up to pay for this military.
This was exactly what was happening BEFORE Trump. China has laid out its plans matter-of-factly. 2025,2035, 2049 its goal is to dominate the world, and if America's leadership stays as dumbed down as the EU's is, it is certain to happen.
Trump has been a pain in China's behind, putting their plans at risk, they want to be rid of him more than any Democrat in America.
What depression? Are you prophesizing?
This is a fact, and this is what Trump has been trying to fight back against, whether anyone agrees with how he is doing it, at least he is trying... something no Washington hack, or any of our previous presidents would do.
I hope the Dems come up with someone worth considering... dinosaurs from another era like Sanders and Biden aren't it. If either of them get the nod, its going to get ugly, as you said. Especially if they win.Not even interested in what you have to say so not interested. You are overestimating yourselves.
Umm....I read the article you posted. It didn't say anything like that. By the way, the author is a "contributor" which means she probably doesn't get paid. That's the Forbes model. Most people don't know that. The authors article is crap, by the way. It was absurdly broad. But she got one thing right. South Africa, where you come, from is a dangerous place to live. Duh.
But thanks for letting us know that Sanders is our only hope and that we will all die because of climate change.
The truth is that America has never been more prosperous. I wish more Americans would go live where you are for a time. Then they might have a renewed appreciation for the United States of America. FYI: You might want to lay off of all the negative talk about Jews. Conservatives support Israel and the Jewish nation. Just so you know."The truth is that America has never been more prosperous."
You're kidding, right? You certainly didn't live through the more prosperous days of my parents generation.I've been around (and old enough to understand) since the 60's. We are most definitely more prosperous.
Would you care to discuss modern house size vs that in the 60's? The quality and options of cars? The proliferation of name brand clothing, or even expensive coffee shops? The number of passenger miles, per capita, on airplanes? The growth of the amusement park industry in the past 60 years? Would you care to discuss the cost of telephone service via cell phones (voluntary) as opposed to the cost of a landline? How about the growth of the personal computer industry, or even such mundane things as microwave ovens? Even the health industry, maligned as it is, offers far, far more to the average citizen than it did back then.
There is no comparison to the wealth of Americans now and that which was common in earlier times.Isn't that the truth. I remember going to look at a house with a girl complaining it only had 2 bathrooms. My grandparents didn't have one.
Until I moved to the Texas in 53, age 8, I didn't have one either.
When I moved to central Virginia in '74 it was to a county where nearly half the population had no running water. A real shock to a young middle class college grad that thought that went out with the turn of the century. Nearly half our employees signed their check with an "X", and half could neither read nor write.
LOL My grandmother grew up in a log cabin built by her father - they were the only residents in the valley when they moved there and homesteaded. A valley that was a 3 day wagon trip from the nearest local "center of civilization" where they could can their fruits and vegetables. Needless to say they didn't have running water at all, (but did have a dirt floor) let alone a bathroom.
Needless to say, things changed - my earliest memory of them was in a tiny (perhaps 500 sq ft) house on a small farm. With water and bathroom.It can be argued that technology has become cheaper - not that all people have become more prosperous.
Nutritious food, excellent health care, and solid education - in other words, the more essential stuff - is now out of reach for most. Television sets, on the other hand, can be found in the landfills.That is untrue. Almost everything is cheaper now than it was in the 60's...in terms of hours worked to purchase.
A (very liberal) friend and I debated this and to find out constructed a spread sheet. Using several sites for prices in the 60's and current prices from the largest retailer in the world (walmart) we compared prices, using average family income from the 60's and today (all US figures).
There were some glitches - it's difficult to compare housing because of the vast difference in quality and size, and the same applied to cars. Many big ticket items fell into this area, but we did the best we could.
And the net result was that food, cars, housing, basic household appliances. - almost everything we looked at was cheaper today. It was a most interesting study, fun to do, and was a real eye opener. There was a difference for those at the very bottom of the wage scale as minimum wage has not increased with inflation, but few people in the US earn minimum wage. Less than 2%, and most of those are either elderly wanting a few bucks extra or kids still living with parents.What you have said is true. Since the 1980s, the cost of living is steadily rising. It is now extremely difficult to attain & live a modicum middle class lifestyle. Also in America, social mobility is decreasing. Poor children in America in the 21st century will in all likelihood be as impoverished/poor as their parents. If you read articles on successful people for the past 3 decades, at the minimum they were solidly middle class. Poor children born in the last 3 decades seldom, if ever, become successful educationally & socioeconomically. The poor are now consigned to a permanent underclass.
As the population grows, there is a growing number of all classes.
We have a system where Middle Class kids fall back through to poor as much as there are those who maintain or advance their economic stature.
It is much harder for poor of any color or creed to advance to higher economic stature, if only because they do not have the resources available to them (Parents with money, friends with money)… but in a free market merit based system, those with the intelligence, ambition, and ability can and will find a way to achieve.
But you can't teach common sense, intelligence or ambition... that is more about the individual than anything else. There are avenues this day that can set anyone up for success in the Middle Class if they are smart and work at it when young.
There is the Air Force, Coast Guard, Army, Navy & Marines. They teach you a trade, they pay you, give you a place to live, and free college education when you get out (as well as while you are in). Very little equates to a Military Career put on a Resume, other than an Ivory College.
There's the Merchant Marines, Truck Driving, after a year or two of driving one can make a six figure salary. There are trade schools galore, even in the most impoverished neighborhoods access to High School level certificates in HVAC, Plumbing, etc. are available.
Maybe when you say Middle Class... you mean, raised in a decent home with someone who gives a crap about them. Any kid that comes up in a solid home environment, rich, middle class, or poor has a much better chance at succeeding as an individual.
Rich kids fail in life just like poor kids do, they die from drug overdose, they can be incredibly stupid and lose everything, there is no one thing.
When you have kids of your own, you see they have their own personalities, they are motivated to succeed, they are inquisitive, they are confident... these things are hardwired into them... or not... you can help them or hurt them along the way... but you can't make a imbecile become Einstein just because you are rich.Poor children aren't going to be successful in the 21st century. Poor children in America are doomed, even damned. They are born into environments where there are scant or no educational, intellectual, &/or socioeconomic opportunities to thrive. Even lower middle class children have the same success rate now as poor children to succeed. Such children unfortunately are consigned to the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. The only children who will SUCCEED in the 21st century are upper middle class & upper class children. They have all the tools to succeed.
The middle or middling class is SHRINKING. Those with specialized education & skill sets will remain in the middle class w/some advancing into the upper middle class or even upper class. Those with general education & skill sets will devolve in the lower classes, even into poverty.You have your mind made up so I won't waste any further time debating it.
China alone has added half a billion people into the "Middle Class" or above in the last quarter century.
The American Middle Class may shrink, but the global one is expanding, multiplying at a rate far in excess to how the American model is shrinking.
"but in a free market merit based system, those with the intelligence, ambition, and ability can and will find a way to achieve."
Except that a free market system is biased in favour of the rich. And there is no such thing as a meritocracy.
Increasing research (and if you are genuinely objective, you will go and find the research shows).
1. The proportion of intelligent, gifted, hardworking people in the poor classes is the same as in the middle and upper classes. It is not a lack of intelligence, talent, and hardwork that keeps them down. It is a rigged system.
2. "As the population grows, there is a growing number of all classes." Run that by me again?
3. "But you can't teach common sense, intelligence or ambition." Wow. No, you can't teach intelligence, and only .001% (from about IQ 160) are truly intelligent (Einstein and up). Business owners are a mere 115. Of course, business owners are not the most intelligent - the professions and the artists are. Fortunately, the things that make one successful in life can be taught, and it's not intelligence, common sense, and ambition. It's skillsets.
4. Yes, certain traits are hardwired into kids. You are quite correct. And it's virtually impossible to change that hardwiring. However, in countries where most people earn a decent living (northern and western Europe), it has nothing to do with hardwiring, but rather a solid education system, and a solid safety net for people who are out of work.The level of skill sets are correlated to success levels. Also, it is the art of networking. It is more WHO you know, not WHAT you know. Everything is politics, including success levels. People who interface w/the correct people are those who will attain success. Furthermore, one has to have THE CORRECT/ PROPER background to succeed. Why do some people fail to realize this!
A person can be a genius but if h/she don't interface w/the right people, what good is his/her genius? Success also depends upon likeability i.e. the more powerful person must like you in order to succeed. People who are unlikeable won't attain a high level of success. In summation, in order to succeed, one must: (1) have the proper/correct family background, (2) interface w/the right people, & (3) be likeable.I would agree with most of that. And yet if you study billionaires, a great many of them are extremely unlikeable. In fact, 20% of them are psychopaths.
https://worthly.com/richest/hated-billionaires-world/
Tess, My observation is high IQ people don't desire much monetary wealth, they see how most life on earth live minimally and seek to follow that pattern. Few of them even want riches.
I was only 2 points short of 160 when I took the test and have never desired riches. At 7 years old I said in my mind that "I want to be as free as a deer" and except for my shorts have lived that free.
Food for thought.Most highly intelligent people want to live a cultivated lifestyle. They realize that the more money they have, the happier & less stress-free their lives are. No one wants to live at a minimum level- that is uncivilized.
How can they be highly intelligent and haven't experienced living ecologically? To be highly intelligent they have to have experienced both halves of the situation, otherwise they are not making an intelligent decision.
"They realize that the more money they have, the happier & less stress-free their lives are."
There's been many studies that point out money only buys happiness to a point. https://purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/20 … mount.html
I think it's all BS. Happiness is in the heart. Some of the happiest, carefree people I know have very little--of course they do have enough food--but not much at all beyond that. And, some of the wealthiest I know are stressed and angry all the time.
Happiness is a state of mind. That is one cliche that's 100% true and not dependent upon income.When Leo DiCaprio came back from Africa after filming Blood Diamonds, he said that he would never feel sorry for an American again.
Why?
Because he had seen these happy African children with absolutely nothing, and he realized that money had nothing to do with being happy.
What does have to do with happiness is a lack of stress, and a modern lifestyle that insists one must measure up to this and that, and where one cannot meet the obligations that society puts on one, does mean that one will become unhappy.
Most people are unhappy because they cannot live up to the standards they want to (put there by society) or because the struggle to put bread on the table is so intense.
There is a point where one has enough. And that is all one needs to be happy.I could not agree more. Blood Diamond is an excellent movie. The practice of kidnapping children and training them to be ruthless killers is horrific. No matter what I was going through, imprisonment, etc., I always remembered that there were others going through much worse.
On the contrary, most highly intelligent people do not want to live a 'cultivated lifestyle.' They want everybody to live a good life. They realize the costs of inequality.
There was a book written about 15 years ago that showed that there was a direct correlation between high intelligence and ethics. In fact, there is also a correlation between high intelligence and atheism. Atheists not only have the highest intelligence and the highest education, but the least crime.
The people who have the most 'cultivated lifestyle' have little to do with intelligence. They tend to be on the psychopathic spectrum.
Of course, this really depends on what you mean by 'intelligence.' There isn't a single degree that cannot be attained with an IQ of 119. Average is 100.
If you think of intelligence as around 119/125, yes, I know many people of that intelligence level who think that life is all about good living, comfort, etc. but to my mind, that is not intelligent.
You are perfectly correct. My IQ was measured at 165 (one in 100,000) when I was a kid, and off-the-graph at 45 years old. I have also never desired a 'high status' lifestyle.
In fact, most of my followers on Google Plus were in the same range, and we all had the similar values. It wasn't about high status - but about good character, living environmentally, equality, etc.You get a Thumbs Up from me, Tess, and also what you said when talking about Leo DiCaprio.
++ It's even more serious than that. For the past 30 years, internationally, the numbers of the middles classes have been sinking.
Also, it's been a fairytale for a very long time that one one can move from one class to another. It rarely happens.
Less so in America than in any other country - or so the studies say.
You are correct. The only people who are more prosperous are wealthy high-income people.
"The wages of middle-wage workers were totally flat or in decline over the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, except for the late 1990s. The wages of low-wage workers fared even worse, falling 5 percent from 1979 to 2013. In contrast, the hourly wages of high-wage workers rose 41 percent."
These are the same people who just got a massive tax cut.
https://www.epi.org/publication/chartin … tagnation/
Wow, you've got some good points here, but people see Bernie as a grouchy old socialist and they don't like that. Tulsi is so low in the polls that I don't see her as being an asset. It's obvious you don't like Biden, but he is the only Dem who keeps his head on his shoulders. I just worry about his memory.
Trump is a disappointment for the working classes that thought he was some sort of messiah.
All he does is what all republicans do, feed the military and pet the wealthy.
Warren got the stones, track record, to challenge Trump and show him for the fraud he is.
Dems can lose only if there is a continued conflict between candidates on the forefront for change and dish rag status quo moderates and conservatives of the party.
An exciting candidate is needed not more of same bromides, Trump watered down.He won't with a 38% approval rating unless Putin helps him again. He also won't if we have a recession by then.
If the economy miraculously turns around and regains momentum, he has a better chance.I don't think so far there is anyone that is in the race has the ability to beat Trump. However, one never knows what will happen between now and the election.
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago
0I'm about 70% confident that Trump will not win re-election. Remember, he barely won the electoral college the first time around. He is bleeding support from one important core demographic, suburban white women, and is doing nothing to reverse that. His family separation policy, and his recent policy to deport kids with cancer and other life-threatening diseases are abhorrent to most women who can easily imagine how horrifying it would be for their kids to be ripped from their parents, or for their children to be removed from life-saving medical treatment.
Add to that his inability to respond humanely to any crisis, whether it be mass shootings or hurricanes. Add to that his economic policy which is harming farmers and manufacturing workers, another part of his base. Add to that the negative signs for the economy.
The only reason I leave some hefty doubt that he will lose is his unpredictability and the fact that many Americans just don't pay close attention to what is happening. Trump will lie his way through anything and a certain percentage of the population will not have the ability or the motivation to see the lies.
As for his opponent, I'm starting to believe it will be Elizabeth Warren, and I think she will beat him. She is remarkably good at personally connecting with people on the campaign trail. She can speak clearly and passionately about taking on special interests because she has been doing it her entire career. She doesn't take any guff from anyone and I can see her standing next to Trump and making him look like the ignorant, lying fool that he is.Damn! It's tough on me to have to agree with you Sandy, but, although I disagree with the details, I agree with your 70% prediction.
It is looking like the Dems will come down to a Biden or Warren choice.
Until she began pandering with her own 'free stuff' ideas I could have been a Warren supporter. She has a history I respect and I think she has the best interests of the nation in mind. But, I have qualms, (and they can be assuaged), about her pandering for the vote.
But, and it is a big one, I understand her position. She must get the nomination in order to do anything she thinks is right, so . . . I will give her some rope. If she gets the nomination, and then gets real about her freebie programs, I won't hold her pandering against her and would probably vote for her.
And a last but . . . if she continues her 'freebies' platform after the nomination it would be completely opposite of the pre-election Warren and I would not vote for her.
GAI could see myself voting for a Warren and Gabbard ticket. Gabbard would really sell me because she is hard core about wanting to end the cycle of wars to overthrow other nations. Something I have been pleased with Trump about... I will not vote for Biden, who would go right back to letting the people who want wars spanning the globe to do what they want. He is a D.C. hack like no other.
Not only did Obama keep Iraq going, he spread it to Syria, took out Libya, and fostered the overthrow of our ally in Egypt. Oh, and then there was the CIA sponsored coup in the Ukraine and the positioning of tens of thousands of troops along the Russian border just prior to the election... Obama & Clinton were bad news for those who would prefer us not to be in the world destabilization business.
Warren is as legit about the issues that matter to 'working Americans' as they have in the Democratic Party, and Tulsi is a vet who strongly believes in how our military should NOT be used. They make an acceptable pair I would have faith in."Warren is as legit about the issues that matter to 'working Americans' as they have in the Democratic Party, and Tulsi is a vet who strongly believes in how our military should NOT be used. They make an acceptable pair I would have faith in."
Pleasant surprise, Ken, for a conservative like yourself to see legitimacy In Warren's message and campaign.You haven't been paying attention to my articles Credence.
Elizabeth Warren: The Only Good Option
Tulsi Gabbard a Patriot for PresidentLots of great articles out there, Ken, can't read them all. But I will check out one you wrote on Warren.
Great article, regarding Liz Warren. As I from left support her for the same reasons. But your question about her ability to make such sweeping changes and the amount of support she will get from Congress toward this end is of concern.
Naw, you wouldn't want to vote for a panderer. I mean, promoting policies that include freebies is way worse than promising Mexico will pay for a wall, Hillary will be locked up, and there "will be insurance for everybody" after Obamacare is repealed. That's just minor pandering that can easily be overlooked, unlike Warren's outrageous promises. I get it.
I'm with you on Warren all the way. She's changed since becoming a candidate, and I wonder if anyone who changes their philosophies can be trusted.
I think you have a good sane answer. I think it will be either Elizabeth Warren, or if she's too socialist for the majority, Biden. I prefer Biden's sensible approach to most policies, but I worry about his memory. I would like to see a woman president, but I'm not sure any of them are moderate enough to win.
My husband likes Amy Klobuchar. She seems pretty moderate.
The moderates will lose to Trump.
History (and research) shows that when low numbers vote, Republicans win.
When high numbers vote, Democrats win.
If a moderate is nominated by the DNC, progressives won't vote.
Trump will win.I don't think so. He barely squeaked out his electoral college victory against unlikeable moderate Hillary Clinton.
I hope you're right.
I think the anger of progressives is underestimated. The fact that they won four seats in a by-election tells just how powerful the un-moderates are becoming.
How can people vote between the lesser of the two evils? A Titanic aim for total destruction.
At least the Green party has the greatest protection plan for the worst threat toward humanity, the soul purpose of a public servant. . Trump is an natural environmentist worst nightmare and threatens other world leaders to join the nuclear arms race.Just posted a Hub on this topic
https://hubpages.com/politics/Why-Donal … lection-In
Related Discussions
- 21
If Trump loses the election, then would you vote for him in 2024?
by Stevennix2001 3 years ago
I know the election isn't closed yet, but assuming Biden wins as it seems likely at this point, would you be opposed to Donald Trump running for president again in 2024, and if so, then would you vote for him? Please discuss.
- 49
Democrats who won't accept Presidential election results
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
- 29
Do we need a recount of the presidential election? What is driving that idea?
by Marcy Goodfleisch 6 years ago
Do we need a recount of the presidential election? What is driving that idea?What do you think it behind the push for a recount on the election?
- 22
Trump said that he would be a dictator only on “day one” of election!
by Mike Russo 5 months ago
Trump also said, "he would close the border with Mexico and expand oil drilling".What are your thoughts on this?
- 17
What will happen if a majority votes blank in a presidential election?
by Deforest 7 years ago
I am not saying that none of the candidates gathered the 207 electorate votes. I am just stating that a majority of the US citizens vote blank. Will the majority rule?
- 41
Does Donald Trump Have a Mandate?
by Sychophantastic 7 years ago
I've seen and heard this idea tossed about. It seems that several Republican officials have claimed that Donald Trump has a mandate.Do you think that Donald Trump has a mandate? What is a mandate? Does every politician have one just by the process of winning an election?If you believe Trump has a...