[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?


  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
When your leading candidate is turning his act into a circus, there is definitely something to be worried about.

The problem is, they should have been worried years ago with all the Tea Party nonsense...
 
Trump is NOT what the party had in mind, nor the financiers on Wall Street, nor any media, academic or elite interest group.

The problem is with the damn voters. Periodically American politics has been afflicted with populist "prairie fires" which briefly but thoroughly stir and rile up the politics of the day. Eventually the air will go out of Trump's ballooning campaign sails, but not without his core supporters transferring their ardor away from him.
 
Trump's popularity is purely because he is speaking his mind (or purposely being antagonistic) in a time where politics and quotes need to be extremely sanitized to avoid being taken out of context. It always feels dishonest. Combine that with a population that loves reality TV and their politics just became another episode of their favorite show.
 
remember Bengahzi?

:lol:

---

Just wow, this woman it is clearly more economically clueless than Obama...if anything, every right-thinking economist will be having a field day with Clinton's cluelessness.

Since emerging from the depths of the Recession, unemployment has been nearly halved, job creation has steadily marched up, and the stock market has made a full recovery. Now, we could argue all day about how much credit Obama gets for that (or more to the point, how much credit presidents in general should get for economic growth), and I suspect we'd never see eye-to-eye on it.

No matter your view, it's hard to justify calling him "economically clueless." Would you care to try? Provide some specific examples of his "cluelessness?" Provide some ideas of your own that would be better?

Or are you unable to do anything beyond vomiting up the rhetoric that's been poured into your gullet by Fox News and the like?
 
...are you unable to do anything beyond vomiting up the rhetoric that's been poured into your gullet by Fox News and the like?

That's quite some image, but it works for me. I'd go on to hazard a guess at the answer being "yes".
 
Last edited:
@Sanji Himura

I came here to create a voting thread asking people who i should be voting for based on the highest choice from this forum.

Should i create such a thread ?
Or
Can i ask you if i can piggy back on yours? If so. Would you mind changing your OP and allow voting?

Essentially, members would be voting for me to vote...

What do you think?

Right now, i have no idea who i should and would vote for....
I am looking for to vote but i want to make the "right" choice.... And by that i mean the correct choice... Dont we alll?

Can you help?
The other reason i ask is because i really didnt feel like having two similar threads going on around here and didnt want to run against you.... ;)

Edit: Is that a good idea?
 
@Sanji Himura

I came here to create a voting thread asking people who i should be voting for based on the highest choice from this forum.

Should i create such a thread ?
Or
Can i ask you if i can piggy back on yours? If so. Would you mind changing your OP and allow voting?

Essentially, members would be voting for me to vote...

What do you think?

Right now, i have no idea who i should and would vote for....
I am looking for to vote but i want to make the "right" choice.... And by that i mean the correct choice... Dont we alll?

Can you help?
The other reason i ask is because i really didnt feel like having two similar threads going on around here and didnt want to run against you.... ;)

Edit: Is that a good idea?
I think that the ability to add polls to existing threads is a premium feature, otherwise I would have already done so.
 
Now its a certainty that Trump is doomed.The voters cannot be permitted to rule.
cantbebought.jpg
 
@CTznOfTime

The only reason to want to know who most people think you should vote for is if you just want to vote for the winner.

That isn't how elections should work. Take the time to look through the candidate's policy points, if they already have served in an office (most have for president) then look at their voting record, as what they say and what they do might be very different.

I make my decision after the sample ballots become available on my state Secretary of State's Web site. I look at my choices and research anyone I am not already familiar with.
 
@Sanji Himura

I came here to create a voting thread asking people who i should be voting for based on the highest choice from this forum.

Should i create such a thread ?
Or
Can i ask you if i can piggy back on yours? If so. Would you mind changing your OP and allow voting?

Essentially, members would be voting for me to vote...

What do you think?

Right now, i have no idea who i should and would vote for....
I am looking for to vote but i want to make the "right" choice.... And by that i mean the correct choice... Dont we alll?

Can you help?
The other reason i ask is because i really didnt feel like having two similar threads going on around here and didnt want to run against you.... ;)

Edit: Is that a good idea?
This might be a good place to start. http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
 
@CTznOfTime

The only reason to want to know who most people think you should vote for is if you just want to vote for the winner.

That isn't how elections should work. Take the time to look through the candidate's policy points, if they already have served in an office (most have for president) then look at their voting record, as what they say and what they do might be very different.

I make my decision after the sample ballots become available on my state Secretary of State's Web site. I look at my choices and research anyone I am not already familiar with.
I think that the only reason why a poll here might be necessary in the UK rather than the US is because Brits don't always vote for a candidate, they vote by what party would represent them in Parliament on a national level. The last election in GB had a 47% misrepresentation error on how parliament divided its seats. While the US has the House of Representatives that are elected on a local level, and the Electorial college (to be the ultimate check for fraud; divided up by how many representatives a state actually sends to DC,) Britain has no such check written into its system of government. Local elections send one MP to parliament and they elect the Prime Minister.
 
I think that the only reason why a poll here might be necessary in the UK rather than the US is because Brits don't always vote for a candidate, they vote by what party would represent them in Parliament on a national level. The last election in GB had a 47% misrepresentation error on how parliament divided its seats. While the US has the House of Representatives that are elected on a local level, and the Electorial college (to be the ultimate check for fraud; divided up by how many representatives a state actually sends to DC,) Britain has no such check written into its system of government. Local elections send one MP to parliament and they elect the Prime Minister.

Mostly wrong, I'm afraid. In the UK we vote for a local MP who goes to the house. The party with the greatest number of MPs forms a government or leads a coalition. The parties themselves decide their own leaders... we do not elect Prime Ministers or ruling parties, ever.

The misrepresentation error is due to different constituencies having wildly different numbers of voters.
 
The more layers, barriers and delays between the people and the rulers, the better it is. :rolleyes:

We always knew democracy was a dangerous problem; given the time, the people will elect fascists, despots and tyrants. So people have to be protected from themselves and democracy strictly limited to an appearance or semblance of itself.
 
I don't know if this was answered before, but if the GOP election turns ugly, and a candidate decides (after he/she loses the vote) he/she still wants to run, can said candidate run as an independent, and therefore (if candidate is popular) pretty much hand the victory to the Hilldog?
 
I don't know if this was answered before, but if the GOP election turns ugly, and a candidate decides (after he/she loses the vote) he/she still wants to run, can said candidate run as an independent, and therefore (if candidate is popular) pretty much hand the victory to the Hilldog?
Yes, or they can win as an independent because they draw votes from both parties.

Joe Lieberman did just that for his Senate seat in 2006.

During his re-election bid in 2006, he lost the Democratic Party primary election but won re-election in the general election as a third party candidate under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party label. Lieberman himself was never a member of that party, but instead remained a registered Democrat while he ran.
 
I don't know if this was answered before, but if the GOP election turns ugly, and a candidate decides (after he/she loses the vote) he/she still wants to run, can said candidate run as an independent, and therefore (if candidate is popular) pretty much hand the victory to the Hilldog?
In order to win, the Rs must gather all their warring factions under one tent.
 
Yeah, anytime there is a third party candidate that has large appeal to one party it spells doom for that party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back