[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[TheAnimeDude]

I suspect a similar situation will occur with Bernie supporters.

Like what kind of situation exactly?

 

[Famine]

Or is it just more important to you to vote your personal convictions rather than voting in whatever way is most effectively anti-Democrat?

You can't cast a vote against a candidate, only a vote for one.

Unless you spoil the ballot - or have a none-of-the-above option, of course.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Like what kind of situation exactly?

Writing in Bernie's name instead of voting for Hilary or The Donald.

 

[Touring Mars]

It is rather amusing that the GOP can't even win their own Presidential nomination race...

 

[Johnnypenso]

Funny as heck:

 

[FoolKiller]

Yeah, but how likely is it? As far as I can remember (read as long as german media has been broadcasting news about the election) there only have been two parties, at least two that matter.

We have had multiple parties for the history of our country. Media has perpetrated this false dichotomy. I had 8 options on my last presidential ballot. I had three for governor this past year.

Due to an electoral system that requires an overwhelming majority the system won't tolerate more than two main front runners. That said, those two parties have not been the same parties from the beginning. Heck, Republicans and Democrats basically switched roles during the civil rights movement. The change happens when people become disenfranchised with their current party and move to another party.

Thus, if a third party wants to get serious this is the year to make their move. They won't necessarily become major party #3, although that would be nice if they did, they would become a new member of the two major parties while another falls aside.

Isn't it possible to vote invalid?

No. You can just leave it blank or not show up at all and not be counted in any way.

If you're not taking up your right to vote and don't visit your pole site, your vote could/will be distributed to the candidates and parties,

Voting is completely voluntary, requires registering, and you are only counted when you actually vote. It's why voter turnout is important here. You can be very popular, but if your supporters don't come to the polls no one gets their votes.

I suspect this is part of Bernie's problem.

 

[Biggles]

Interesting thoughts from a former Bush White House staffer:

While I disagree with many of Hillary Clinton’s policies, she is clearly qualified to be president. She possesses judgment and self-restraint. She does not have a track record of irrational, risky, and unsound business decisions and public comments. She has a long record of public service. She can be trusted with controlling our military and nuclear weapons. Mr. Trump cannot.

Any Republican who claims that it’s better to elect Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton either lacks proper judgment, or has become so blinded by partisan ideology that they have lost objectivity.

I'm not sure "partisan ideology" is the point. It's more a question of a learned, personalized, visceral hatred of the Clintons. When Bill was President, both the Clinton's were accused of having a radical left-wing agenda, out of touch with "mainstream" America. In hindsight, like most of the stuff spouted by Republicans, that perspective seems entirely ridiculous. Today Bill Clinton's Presidency is remembered fondly by most Americans simply because the economy in the second half of the '90's - in the first stages of the IT revolution & before globalization really took hold - was booming in the US.

Hillary's positions are not that far from where middle-of-the-road Republicans were a couple of decades ago. The personal attacks on her are wildly exaggerated & are largely irrelevant to her prospective performance as POTUS where she would seem to represent a more-or-less "status-quo" position.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Oh, I won't vote for either of them because I don't think either of them are competent to lead the country. Unfortunately though, third party candidates don't stand a chance winning in the US at this time, so even though I'm note voting for either of the two front runners, I know one of them will ultimately win.

Well yeah, but that's not your fault. Your comment just comes off to me as "well I wont vote for a fool, but even though I wont it doesn't change the fact a fool will be elected", which isn't the point of voting in the first place.

 

[mustafur]

Why does everyone think that Trump will cause WW3? All this talk that we have seen so far is to gain votes and popularity. If he is a true politician most of his promises will turn out to be hot air at best.

Corporate media funding Clintons and not Trump is probably the reason.

By putting your bets on a candidate that will keep the Status quo with the political finance system it's very profitable investment to make if you own a TV network to ensure this happens, can you Imagen how much money they stand to lose in election season if there is no Billionaire corporations funding the nominees, the amount of ad revenue lost will be massive.

Don't get me wrong Trump is an idiot, but Clinton gets away with a record that would make her completely unelectable in any other country.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm still confused on how a woman with her track record in political dealing in the past couple years to the past twenty years, still doesn't make people ask the question "and they're letting her run for President?"

I mean if someone can fill me in on why Hillary is as good as the figure heads say, then why does she still end up in some sort of hot mess every now and again? I mean so because she'd done the political thing for most of her life, that's the reason people (some) think she would be best for the job?

 

[mustafur]

I'm still confused on how a woman with her track record in political dealing in the past couple years to the past twenty years, still doesn't make people ask the question "and they're letting her run for President?"

American Mainstream media, that is all.

Just a cog in the Political Bribery Gravy train to keep the status quo, the stupid thing is they don't even try to hide it anyone who can use the internet can get this information for themselves.

I mean look at this:

In the 2016 Political Cycle alone:

Soros Fund Management $7,039,900

Then you get things such as this(look at Soros Fund Management on Wiki):
In July 2011, the fund announced plans to return just under $1 billion to investors by the end of 2011 to avoid reporting requirements under the Dodd-Frank reform act and to focus on family investments.[17] That month, the company's chief investment officer Keith Anderson, co-founder of BlackRock left the firm.[18]

Hillary Clinton was the one who helped put this Dodd Frank Reforms up to stop corporations from doing this, yet look.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

There is more to it then American mainstream media, there have been a few occasions where notable media personalities have put her feet to the fire. So I don't fully accept this, I mean it is a notable reason but there is clearly more to it. I mean the other point I make is when other politicians themselves back her and do so knowing well and good she's a viable candidate to win and one that may be a detriment to various leadership roles for the American people...that would have nothing to do with media.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm still confused on how a woman with her track record in political dealing in the past couple years to the past twenty years, still doesn't make people ask the question "and they're letting her run for President?"

I mean if someone can fill me in on why Hillary is as good as the figure heads say, then why does she still end up in some sort of hot mess every now and again? I mean so because she'd done the political thing for most of her life, that's the reason people (some) think she would be best for the job?

"Vast right wing conspiracy". I believe she coined that term and I'd guess that a lot of her devotees think that most of the accusations against her are nothing more than Trumped up charges from the vast right wing conspiracy folks, whoever they might be, that don't amount to a hill of beans relative to what they perceive as her ability to govern. Some of it is also probably related to Bill and the high regard that his presidency is given.

 

[squadops]

and they're letting her run for President?

She is a criminal in my mind first off however...

People look at the options available, her experience is valuable and so are her connections nationally as well as internationally. It's not to say I want to see her in office mind you but I can easily see why others do. She is better equipped than Bernie or Donald if for no other reason she is tough as nails and that is something needed in the POTUS.

Gary Johnson

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

"Vast right wing conspiracy". I believe she coined that term and I'd guess that a lot of her devotees think that most of the accusations against her are nothing more than Trumped up charges from the vast right wing conspiracy folks, whoever they might be, that don't amount to a hill of beans relative to what they perceive as her ability to govern. Some of it is also probably related to Bill and the high regard that his presidency is given.

Which is fine, if you believe that somehow the RNC has control over history books in circulation. Which last I checked various american political books that high school (AP) and college students read, detail the Clinton administration and various gate scandals she had a hand in. Along with the various Kosovo lies as well. Now her Senate run is less covered I'd imagine, and there probably doesn't exist a book on the Benghazi issues.

 

[mustafur]

There is more to it then American mainstream media, there have been a few occasions where notable media personalities have put her feet to the fire. So I don't fully accept this, I mean it is a notable reason but there is clearly more to it. I mean the other point I make is when other politicians themselves back her and do so knowing well and good she's a viable candidate to win and one that may be a detriment to various leadership roles for the American people...that would have nothing to do with media.

Judge this how you want, but there is enough track record to make you know this is entirely possible:

Dropped for not being ''Establishment Enough''.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

She is a criminal in my mind first off however...

People look at the options available, her experience is valuable and so are her connections nationally as well as internationally. It's not to say I want to see her in office mind you but I can easily see why others do. She is better equipped than Bernie or Donald if for no other reason she is tough as nails and that is something needed in the POTUS.

Gary Johnson

Her experience is valuable how? See that's the question you've got to pose, if the guy at a big time firm were trying to get a nice manger spot or higher, and had the gremlins of past and present as she did he'd might as well stick to where he's at. That's granted if he hadn't been fired already. Now that scenario isn't fully acceptable for the situation at hand since you have a group of citizens voting for the next leader and delegates place said votes based on "citizen votes".

 

[Johnnypenso]

Which is fine, if you believe that somehow the RNC has control over history books in circulation. Which last I checked various american political books that high school (AP) and college students read, detail the Clinton administration and various gate scandals she had a hand in. Along with the various Kosovo lies as well. Now her Senate run is less covered I'd imagine, and there probably doesn't exist a book on the Benghazi issues.

That's the point though of the vast right wing conspiracy. If you are a Clinton fan, Bill or Hillary, you simply dismiss all those issues as right wingers just stirring up trouble. At the same time Americans will overlook a lot of real issues as well, if they believe you will do a good job. I mean look at The Donald. He's so politically incorrect he's said stuff that, if any other person in the history of American politics had said it, they'd be history instantly, yet somehow he gets away with it because people are willing to overlook those things as unimportant because they feel he'll do a good job as a whole.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Judge this how you want, but there is enough track record to make you know this is entirely possible:

Dropped for not being ''Establishment Enough''.

I mean this is a given though. Fox has always claimed Republicans and NBC/Universal has always claimed Democrats it's not something all that hidden. If people are actually tuning in and expecting impartial views, they've knowingly screwed themselves.

That's the point though of the vast right wing conspiracy. If you are a Clinton fan, Bill or Hillary, you simply dismiss all those issues as right wingers just stirring up trouble. At the same time Americans will overlook a lot of real issues as well, if they believe you will do a good job. I mean look at The Donald. He's so politically incorrect he's said stuff that, if any other person in the history of American politics had said it, they'd be history instantly, yet somehow he gets away with it because people are willing to overlook those things as unimportant because they feel he'll do a good job as a whole.

I get that, my comment just shows how silly it is, if people need a crutch on who they like rather than just living it...there is the problem

 

[squadops]

Her experience is valuable how?

She knows all the ins and outs of the u.s. government, this is always a debate when it comes to electing politicians especially career politicians. Joe Lieberman once said "of course I'm a career politician, who is better for the job?" Something like that he said. Like it or not a large chunk of our population agrees with that sentiment.

they feel he'll do a good job as a whole.

I'm not convinced that is true, what I see is a rebellious faction of the GOP who are more tired of the status quo than having a real concern for a proper leader.

 

[mustafur]

She knows all the ins and outs of the u.s. government, this is always a debate when it comes to electing politicians especially career politicians. Joe Lieberman once said "of course I'm a career politician, who is better for the job?" Something like that he said. Like it or not a large chunk of our population agree with that sentiment.

Hillary is someone who has had many titles but when it actually comes to doing things crickets aplenty, find me something she proposed as a senator or Secretary of State and it's either meaningless or disastrous.

Experience is a code for existing, the real thing that matters is what you do in that ''experience'''.

The only thing she has a proven record at being successful at is getting Donors, she got more donor money this cycle then any other nominee in any party.

 

[squadops]

I'm giving the reason why people think what they do, it's not my opinion it's theirs. LMS asked a question and I tried to answer, nothing more.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

She knows all the ins and outs of the u.s. government, this is always a debate when it comes to electing politicians especially career politicians. Joe Lieberman once said "of course I'm a career politician, who is better for the job?" Something like that he said. Like it or not a large chunk of our population agree with that sentiment.

So what she knows the ins and outs? I don't see how that makes her a great POTUS, I mean maintaining shop, yeah great, actually making critical changes...no. There are plenty of people with a background in law, history, major leadership, and politics or economics that don't have to be career politicians of any sort to lead. I don't think people necessarily agree, more so find it easier to vote based on that. Which is why things like say Whitewater or Private Server.

Hillary is someone who has had many titles but when it actually comes to doing things crickets aplenty, find me something she proposed as a senator or Secretary of State and it's either meaningless or disastrous.

Experience is a code for existing, the real thing that matters is what you do in that ''experience'''.

The only thing she has a proven record at being successful at is getting Donors, she got more donor money this cycle then any other nominee in any party.

This was more of my point about how her track record doesn't show anything special so why continually hail her as such? (not claiming anyone here just a general thing) I mean I guess it plays toward the media, but then what do political figure heads see in her winning POTUS over Trump. I mean is this a case of birds of a feather, and since Trump isn't one he isn't invited?

 

[squadops]

So what she knows the ins and outs? I don't see how that makes her a great POTUS, I mean maintaining shop, yeah great, actually making critical changes...no. There are plenty of people with a background in law, history, major leadership, and politics or economics that don't have to be career politicians of any sort to lead. I don't think people necessarily agree, more so find it easier to vote based on that. Which is why things like say Whitewater or Private Server.

You know that she is very popular and most likely will be the next president right? So if what I'm saying is wrong than there has to be another reason, I don't think I'm wrong however as I've seen quite a few elections in my days.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You know that she is very popular and most likely will be the next president right? So if what I'm saying is wrong than there has to be another reason, I don't think I'm wrong however as I've seen quite a few elections in my days.

So have I, where though do I say you're wrong? Also obviously I'm aware of her popularity or I wouldn't be making the posts I've been making, I even talk about the popularity. I mean I'm just having a general conversation in why that to me really doesn't matter from a rational point of view on her tenure in politics. The rhetorical questions you've posed I'm not so sure of.

 

[mustafur]

I wish someone here was a Hillary supporter, I would love a debate.

 

[squadops]

@LMSCorvetteGT2

I see, well we both see the phenomenon then. It's a legitimate question of course and one I answered the best I could.
Experience and brass, that is what I think. Also as r1600 has pointed out, older women, a large voter base.

I wish someone here was a Hillary supporter, I would love a debate.

If you want to put her up against Trump I could probably give it a good shot

 

[Johnnypenso]

I wish someone here was a Hillary supporter, I would love a debate.

You don't have to be a Hillary supporter to support Hillary. She was the shoe-in nominee before the process began and Bernie was a surprisingly able challenger. If you're an American Democrat, you have no choice but to support Hillary, she's your candidate whether you like it or not and has been for some time. Same goes for Trump. He's more divisive at this point, but if you're a Republican you have no choice but to vote for him if you want your side to win. Sometimes you vote for the lesser of two evils.

Once you figure out Hillary or The Donald is your only option, sometimes you go with the flow. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox:

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...resident-fox-apologizes-invites-trump-mexico/

Earlier this year, Fox said that he would not pay for Trump’s “****ing wall,” and called Trump “Ignorant … crazy … egocentric … nasty … [a] false prophet.” Trump then called on Fox to apologize. On Wednesday, he did so — in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News — and added that he wanted Trump to come to Mexico to see the border from the other side.

“I apologize. Forgiveness is one of the greatest qualities that human beings have, is the quality of a compassionate leader. You have to be humble. You have to be compassionate. You have to love thy neighbor,” Fox explained to Breitbart News while sitting in the hotel of the J.W. Marriott in Santa Monica, California on Wednesday afternoon.“Love your nation. Love the world,” he added. “Yes, I’m humble enough as leadership be, [a] compassionate leader. If I offended you, I’m sorry. But what about the other way around?”

 

[Danoff]

You don't have to be a Hillary supporter to support Hillary.

It's kindof impossible not to be a Hillary supporter if you support Hillary.

If you're an American Democrat, you have no choice but to support Hillary,

...lest any of us think we can vote for whomever we choose.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's kindof impossible not to be a Hillary supporter if you support Hillary.

...lest any of us think we can vote for whomever we choose.

I don't have to like or support Hillary to be a Democrat and simply go along with, and go through the motions of supporting her simply because I see Trump as an unacceptable alternative. Of course you can vote for whomever you choose, but I don't think most people feel or act that way. I think they vote along party lines and love or hate the person on your side, they are going to get your vote either way.