Skip to main content

Time to move past 2016 and onto 2020

We're over two years removed from the 2016 presidential election and I still witness regular bickering between die-hard Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters. Not only that, I hear seemingly constant scapegoating on who's to blame for Donald Trump's election victory.

First off, no matter how oddly cathartic it might be to vilify one party as the sole reason for Donald Trump's election victory, it's simply not true and it does us no service to go this scapegoating-route when looking ahead to the future. Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, James Comey, the media, and Russia may have all played a part in Donald Trump being named president, but no single entity can realistically be fully blamed for it, and what good does it do us to obsess over what/whom we perceive to be said scapegoat? How will this clinging-onto-negative-history mentality help us defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election? Simple answer - it won't.

Like it or not, we have to finally accept what's come before us. Donald Trump is President of the United States of America. Nothing we can say or do, outside of a breaking story which proves that Russia tampering with voting machines decided the outcome, will change the fact he won the 2016 election. That's it. That's the end of one chapter, and no matter how much we may loathe this chapter, it's high past time we started another.

Look at how many great candidates have announced they're running to defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Julian Castro, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, with Joe Biden and Beto O'Rourke, among others, thinking about running as well. Whether we were/are big fans of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, one big and underreported reason for the Democrats' troubles in 2016 was the fact we really only two legitimate candidates from which to choose. This decreased viewers' interest, voters' enthusiasm, etc. The GOP debates, which included 346 Republican candidates last time I checked, generated higher interest and ratings, and with that, greater voter enthusiasm. That format is going to be turned on its head this time around. The Democratic Party will likely wind up with between 15 and 20 candidates. It is highly possible that, like with the GOP debates in 2016, there will be so many Democratic candidates, cable news networks will have to go to a back-to-back debate format in order to hear from all of them. Some Democrats may be fearful this will result in divisiveness, but I see it as generating excitement, interest, and enthusiasm.

No matter who winds up becoming the Democratic nominee, Democrats, progressives, moderates, and never-Trumpers alike need to come together and vote to oust Donald Trump from the Oval Office. We can't whine or cry about our #1 preference not receiving the party's nomination. In 2016, all our visions of a Donald Trump presidency were hypothetical. We hadn't yet seen nor felt the ultimate impact of this man being the leader in Washington. That's no longer the case. The hypothetical has now become the actual and there will be zero excuse to sit out this election. We've now seen first-hand how Donald Trump can, has, and will corrupt this country. He's everything wrong with the world wrapped into one obese orange blob and we can't take another 4 years of his greed, narcissism, corruption, and ass-backwards way of thinking. So no matter who the Democratic nominee is, fight with everything you've got to elect him/her in November of next year. I know I will. Let's Make America Reputable Again. Let's Make America Sane Again. Let's Make America America Again.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"