If not Trump, who would republicans like to see be the president in 2020, and who would democrats like to see?
The US 2020 campaign is going to start out as possibly the most predictable ever. In all of US history, the only (living) President failing to be nominated by his Party was a Democrat Franklin Pierce:When Has A President Been Denied His Party's Nomination?To make a long story short, and “this is how the Republican party came about”. Then there are a few more failing the living clause (also see the link above), but that happens more often. As you might have guessed, it would be a very very bold move for the GOP to nominate somebody other then the incumbent POTUS and it would be their firstest first time to do so.What could entice them? Drawing from the analogy above, it got to be a candidate that will allow them to (re)capture the popular vote in the direct sense. Isn’t it strange that it usually the Democrats who actually have the direct majority of the popular vote specifically by rallying the minorities. Yet it is the Republicans who had a strong abolitionist stance from the get-go. Did any minorities ever vote for them, or were they always considered to be the party for rednecks? I actually checked if there was a Martin Luther King III by an odd chance (they all have to be at least a IIIrd, right?) Turns out there is, but he is a Democrat. Duh. Then Trump it is.Now the democrats will have a little conundrum of their own. Will they have the nerve to nominate a total establishment tool, like Hillary is one, after what happened this time? I figure they’d have the best chance with one of them “Progressives”, like that Bernie Sanders fella. What a sneaky name. I am telling ya, godless damn Commies they really are. To paraphrase Gore Vidal, the land ruled by but a single party with both of its wings on the right may be ready for some actual left-wing politics. Or not. Then Trump it is.Maybe it will help to stop thinking about Trump in terms of partisan politics? He is no Republican at heart. It’s better to think of him as still being primarily in the entertainment business. Now put your hand on your heart. If you had to chose between still Trump and more Trump anyway, would you prefer him to develop more into chill PG-13 direction or go after primetime quotes all the way? He will oblige. That’s your choices, ‘merican :)
How exactly DID Russian hacking "rig" the election?
As far as I can tell, all anyone is even CLAIMING they did (and I'm still not sure I buy that it was Russians) was to hack the DNC server, steal some emails, and release those emails via wiki-leaks (a former Liberal darling) to the public. Now, all that is ILLEGAL whoever did it, no question. But how did it "rig" an election? As far as I can tell, all they did was ... and I can't believe we're accusing the Russians of this ... was TELL THE TRUTH. Seriously!! Is this what we mean by "rig the election"?!?! The Russians (or whoever hacked the DNC server) simply told THE TRUTH about what was in those emails. And THIS, evidently, "rigged" an election? THE TRUTH ... RIGGED and election?!?! If the TRUTH about you causes people to not vote for you, then you don't deserve to win. It's not about "fairness" or any of that crap. If people find out the TRUTH about you, and that Truth HURTS you ... then it's YOUR OWN FAULT!!! How are Libs blaming the RUSSIANS (or whoever hacked the server) for this and not the MORONS who sent these emails in the first place? Basic rule of potentially embarrassing communications: DO NOT SEND BY EMAIL or any other electronically recorded means. Even if the Russians did EXACTLY what the Libs are claiming, how can you call that "Rigging an election"?