[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Johnnypenso]

Well do you call Canada a raging Socialist Country?

Why would that make any difference to my opinion of Bernie Sanders and his socialist leanings? If Canada was communist how would that make any difference to this discussion of Bernie Sanders?

 

[mustafur]

Why would that make any difference to my opinion of Bernie Sanders and his socialist leanings? If Canada was communist how would that make any difference to this discussion of Bernie Sanders?

If your going to have an opinion on someone being socialist don't claim the men ning of Socialist is your opinion.

Also as stated it's relevant given his positions and where your country sits as an economy.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Seriously? I hope you're not old enough to vote.

That would be a poor reason to vote on its own. So it's a good thing he had another reason:

I mean some of his ideas are ok, but others I just dislike.

Is he allowed to vote now?

 

[TenEightyOne]

What is riskier than the UK leaving the EU or armed clashes in the South Pacific? Trump.

 

[Dotini]

What is riskier than the UK leaving the EU or armed clashes in the South Pacific? Trump.

Alas for the world outside the US, I reckon this is quite so. The gist of Trump's support is ending the US paying for all the world's shortcomings and problems by sacrificing its middle and working classes. Or so they dream. It's a good thing I'm already retired and wealthy. It's a sad state of affairs when you're young, impoverished and dependent upon the whims of foreigners for your luxuries, let alone the most basic of your needs.

 

[squadops]

The young will be in power soon imo, they have some numbers atm and seem pretty sharp. We've dug some financial holes without a doubt so, we'll just have to see what they do.

I'm convinced that this younger people I speak of will not buy into the healthcare dealie for instance, but I could be wrong.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If your going to have an opinion on someone being socialist don't claim the men ning of Socialist is your opinion.

Also as stated it's relevant given his positions and where your country sits as an economy.

I don't have an opinion on Bernie being a socialist, Bernie says he's a socialist, I thought that was clear. The second part doesn't make any sense and doesn't answer my question as to why my opinions on Bernie have anything to do with where I'm from. I don't think I'll get a straightforward answer from you so let's just drop it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You've never heard of China, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Finland....

China isn't socialist in economics...capitalist economics and communist domestics...

Heh, and what proportion of voters are responsible people? Like I said above, all the gun owners I know I'm fine with them having their guns, but the gun issue is another example of broken politics in America. The whole divisive right vs left (I'm in the middle if you didn't catch that) in my opinion is a ploy to disenfranchise people, so special interests can have their way while we fight each other over unimportant issues, and the 2nd Amendment is one of the big wedges they use to separate us middle Americans, who otherwise have so much in common (we're all poor, right?). Nobody's trying to take recreational guns away from anybody, but some of us would like to see assault rifles and fully automatic handguns taken out of circulation for safety's sake. If you think you need your assault rifle and automatic handgun to defend yourself from the feds... well you've just bought into the propaganda meant to divide us. Abortion, unions, and immigration as well. Middle of the road is the best path. Unless you want another civil war? Because that's where this push to extremes will lead. Already there's violence by Trump supporters, and Trump himself has declared "there will be riots" if there is a contested Convention. And if he delivers on his promises, there will be a coup d'etat, as I cannot imagine the military acting on illegal orders from the "Commander in Chief." And yet, apparently Trump speaks for a large portion of America. Given that troubling (to me) fact, where are we heading? Civil War? Where do you want to go?

Each bold point I've created has wrong info

1. Just no, the Guns thread would give you several in depth pages on this matter and why what you've just said shows more of you buying into the propaganda than any staunch critical minded gun owner/advocate.

2. How are any of these going to lead to a civil war? Unions have by and large been warn down to the point Union heads seem to be more worried about keeping the ship alive rather than workers in the clear. Also if this were a civil war causing issue...then it should of went down 20 years ago with the passing of NAFTA or any other globalization law that saw a transition of American jobs overseas. Abortion...is not such a black and white conversation and thus the human rights thread would help out with that.

Overall I'm confused...what is middle of the road, cause you say certain things in this post that seem to more leaning of one side than the other. I doubt it's impossible to be truly middle of the road, I'd even say a true middle would be one that plays devil's advocate or friend to both sides equally and at the same time. Or being just neutral and not bothering.

I highly doubt a civil war would happen as well, it'd take a true act of the gov't over a large part of the U.S. against the people to get such differing demographics to join up in the same cause. The issue Blacks have with gov't and police against them in inner cities, isn't a plight a upper class white family is going to care about. Just like the those same blacks don't care about the plight of immigrants.

Also democratic republic isn't the same as full on democracy

 

[GTPorsche]

 

[mustafur]

I don't have an opinion on Bernie being a socialist, Bernie says he's a socialist, I thought that was clear. The second part doesn't make any sense and doesn't answer my question as to why my opinions on Bernie have anything to do with where I'm from. I don't think I'll get a straightforward answer from you so let's just drop it.

All you do is ask questions after another how is it possible?
I answered that question last page, but you wanted to ask another question.

Also:

Everyone is a possible criminal. Truth be told I'd vote for a popsicle stick (orange preferably) before I'd vote for a raging socialist, borderline Marxist.

You said he was a raging socialist and borderline Marxist, at no point has Bernie said he was this, All I have been doing is trying to get you to clarify your comments.

 

[DK]

Ah, I wasn't following this thread, just DYSAGT, where I always look forward to his posts. Yeah, the ban-hammer comes down, on me, too (don't drunk post...)

But to be thread appropriate, Nader!! Was the first time I voted, then the Green in 2004, David Cobb, and not since. I'm an Ohioan, can't understand how freedom-individualists think they can turn around and tell a woman she can't have an abortion, but other than that, Kasich has been good to Ohio. And when I lived in Cali the Governator was good, too. That's the Green thing, progressive on social, but local is better, so in between Dems and Reps. Hillary would do okay. But, how is it that these candidates are the best America has to choose from? All pretty much suck, how do we fix what is broken here?

Yeah, I have the answer, instant runoff voting, or ranked choice if you prefer. No primaries, everybody in the general, and ballots that let you put the candidates in the order of your choosing. Nobody gets a majority? Eliminate the lowest 1st place vote getter and assign those votes to the 2nd place choices on those ballots. Rinse and repeat if necessary until there are only 2 candidates left, one will have a majority. The main advantage of instant runoff? Everybody wants to be everybody else's 2nd choice, so candidates are nice to each other. And there's no silly primary where only the hardcore extremist voters come out, so extremist candidates aren't bumping out moderate candidates before the general election (stupid Tea Party.) And at the end of the process, we have moderates in office who can work together and who better reflect the views of most voters. The main reason why people are radical/extreme today against government, and voting for Bernie or Trump, is because for decades now the primary system has favored extremists and now they hold our legislatures hostage in order to make their idealistic points, and so our government has essentially ceased to function. Instant runoff voting would correct that problem.

Oh, and it might also break the two-party system, which has failed us so miserably. Throw in a dissolution of the Senate and its replacement with a proportionally elected body (Parliament...), keep the House as it is, and America would be a profoundly more functional place to live.

Funnily enough, Sanders is the only candidate still in the running for the Dems'/GOP's presidential nomination who backs IRV. For a system like the USA's, where it's often one field of candidates going for just one seat, be it at a State-level or federal congress, governor or President, I think it's a good idea and would help break the stranglehold the Dems & GOP have over US politics.

 

[A2K78]

Look to me like Trump is scaring the crap out of liberals:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/democrats-donald-trump-alarm-220910

One can only imagine if Ron had been nominated he would've scared them even more..

 

[samurai8juice]

Seriously? I hope you're not old enough to vote.

Ok.

I know I'm not the only one.

He's probably losing many votes in the caucuses and primaries because of the fact that he looks like a crazy old man. (Even though he looks the part and Hillary plays the part).

If I truly liked him...I wouldn't care about his appearance.

But the fact that I really don't care for Bernie gives me another reason as to why I shouldn't like him.

Edit: I liked Bernie for awhile, but I feel like a large part of his voter base (and I'm just generalizing here) are people who just want free stuff, and don't like Bernie for who he actually is. I mean, he does have some good ideas, but I dunno.

 

[Dotini]

Fox Business Network (FBNHD) is probably the most pro-Trump of the all TV channels I've seen.

 

[squadops]

I know I'm not the only one.

He's probably losing many votes in the caucuses and primaries because of the fact that he looks like a crazy old man. (Even though he looks the part and Hillary plays the part).

If I truly liked him...I wouldn't care about his appearance.

But the fact that I really don't care for Bernie gives me another reason as to why I shouldn't like him.

The left used to enjoy calling Ron Paul a crazy old man, and they didn't mean just his appearance, that was worse imo. At least Sanders does look like a crazy old man.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I know I'm not the only one.

He's probably losing many votes in the caucuses and primaries because of the fact that he looks like a crazy old man. (Even though he looks the part and Hillary plays the part).

If I truly liked him...I wouldn't care about his appearance.

But the fact that I really don't care for Bernie gives me another reason as to why I shouldn't like him.

Edit: I liked Bernie for awhile, but I feel like a large part of his voter base (and I'm just generalizing here) are people who just want free stuff, and don't like Bernie for who he actually is. I mean, he does have some good ideas, but I dunno.

You missed the point by a country mile, if people voted on appearance (a very shallow and pedantic reasoning) then many of the worst and sinister leaders of the past century would get elected several times over just for dressing well. If you care about true policy like people should when they vote and not on material silly things, then you wouldn't say any of what you just said.

In reality you've shown a major issue of voting in America to begin with, as you keep going you don't help the matter or that may very well be your point, only you know.

 

[squadops]

It's unfortunate that appearances do matter in the U.S. Not only in politics but in most avenues, attractive people are more likely to succeed. Sure we should only look at his background, record, character, etc, but we don't always do that.

Speaking of which, donald is a pretty silly looking guy if you ask me

 

[samurai8juice]

You missed the point by a country mile, if people voted on appearance (a very shallow and pedantic reasoning) then many of the worst and sinister leaders of the past century would get elected several times over just for dressing well. If you care about true policy like people should when they vote and not on material silly things, then you wouldn't say any of what you just said.

In reality you've shown a major issue of voting in America to begin with, as you keep going you don't help the matter or that may very well be your point, only you know.

And you missed my point.

The #1 reason why I don't care for Bernie isn't his looks, it's some of his policy.

His looks just give me another (albeit terrible in your opinion) reason as to why I don't.

If I liked his policy I wouldn't care about his looks.

Like yeah, looks can be deceiving, but I'm not judging his abilities as a president solely based on his looks.

It's unfortunate that appearances do matter in the U.S. Not only in politics but in most avenues, attractive people are more likely to succeed. Sure we should only look at his background, record, character, etc, but we don't always do that.

Speaking of which, donald is a pretty silly looking guy if you ask me

This is very true.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And you missed my point.

No I didn't that was your main talking point, you've just changed the goal post in your last post prior to this.

The #1 reason why I don't care for Bernie isn't his looks, it's some of his policy.

It's now due to that. However, what exact policy is at issue here?

His looks just give me another (terrible in your opinion) reason as to why I don't.

Terrible in any logical persons view, read my comments again. Just cause a person dresses in a Million Dollar suit and uses a dictionary for a cover page to their speech hardly means they have the merits to run a nation already struggling in various areas. The fact that you think it is a merit after I've said what I said tells me enough to about where this conversation will go.

If I liked his policy I wouldn't care about his looks.

No it just gives you a reason to justify a prejudicial reasoning, considering you didn't say it in the first place but no are.

Like yeah, looks can be deceiving, but I'm not judging his abilities as a president solely based on his looks.
.

Except for that time you were...

 

[squadops]

Why won't you vote for the burn? "because he looks like a crazy old man" you have to admit that was pretty funny, not only that, I'm sure it is happening here and there.

Just as I am sure some women voted for Bill over Bush. It doesn't exactly make it right but if we are going to give out voting cards to everyone, that is what we will get. My younger kid said the other day "I think we need voters to prove they are competent in basic knowledge of the law and government systems"(this will be the kids first national voting cycle)

Stupid kids

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Why won't you vote for the burn? "because he looks like a crazy old man" you have to admit that was pretty funny, not only that, I'm sure it is happening here and there.

Just as I am sure some women voted for Bill over Bush. It doesn't exactly make it right but if we are going to give out voting cards to everyone, that is what we will get. My younger kid said the other day "I think we need voters to prove they are competent in basic knowledge of the law and government systems"

Stupid kids

Well in a perfect world...

 

[squadops]

I'm such a bad guy I'd like to see it go back to property owners lol, or how about on the federal level those who actually pay federal taxes?

Of course none of that will ever happen. It's probably why there is such a powerful lobby system, yeesh that's no good.

 

[CodeRedR51]

...people who just want free stuff....

A lot of people that don't understand what he is trying to do believe this is all that it is, which is definitely not the case. You might want to read up on his "policies" a bit more.

My younger kid said the other day "I think we need voters to prove they are competent in basic knowledge of the law and government systems"(this will be the kids first national voting cycle)

I'd say nearly the same thing about people getting a drivers license needing to have basic knowledge in car control and maintenance.

 

[squadops]

That is because driving is a privilege and not a right, voting is a right.

 

[CodeRedR51]

That is because driving is a privilege and not a right, voting is a right.

Driving a car should be a right. And only available to those that aren't incompetent behind the wheel.

 

[squadops]

But it's not a right, at least on public roads it is a privilege. Now if you want to rip it up on your property well then have at it, because that is a right. 👍

 

[Johnnypenso]

A lot of people that don't understand what he is trying to do believe this is all that it is, which is definitely not the case. You might want to read up on his "policies" a bit more.

I'd say nearly the same thing about people getting a drivers license needing to have basic knowledge in car control and maintenance.

He wants to transfer nearly $20 Trillion out of the hands of the MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES and BIG WALL STREET CORPORATIONS and into the pockets of everyone else. Sounds a lot like getting stuff for free to me.

 

[Com Fox]

Driving a car should be a right. And only available to those that aren't incompetent behind the wheel.

Just because it "should" doesn't mean that it is .

 

[mustafur]

He wants to transfer nearly $20 Trillion out of the hands of the MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES and BIG WALL STREET CORPORATIONS and into the pockets of everyone else. Sounds a lot like getting stuff for free to me.

Like the 16 Trillion the banks got for giving out worthless bonds?

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/sanders-concedes-missouri-to-clinton/index.html

Hillary Clinton has narrowly won the Missouri Democratic primary, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says he won't request a recount. Clinton led Sanders by 1,531 votes, though some absentee votes still need to be counted. The announcement means Clinton swept all five states that voted in Tuesday night's primaries.

Time to put a fork in Bernie, he's done.

Like the 16 Trillion the banks got for giving out worthless bonds?