[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.
@Biggles
GW Bush Net worth: 20 Million

Clintons: 111 Million.

Clinton has raised more money in this election cycle then anyone else republican or Democrat as well, im not really sure you know what your talking about.

From pardoning terrorists(FALN Pardons), to Getting IRS to Audit Politicians she doesn't like and women who testified against bill Clintons affair, to taking documents from a recently deceased Staff members house who was murdered in front of the white house(Vince Foster).

Bribery, Conniving and sociopathic is what I would describe the Clintons.

Good thing she is from a Political side in the Left/Right spectrum, she can just write it all off as Right wing nutjobery, while her party loyalists kneel down at the thought of a female president.
 
Are they charming, selfless individuals? No. But they're certainly no worse than many other Presidential figures. More sneaky & conniving than Nixon? I don't think so. More philandering than JFK? Not even close.
A ringing endorsement if I've ever heard one.
 
Obama has now officially commuted more prisoners than the last ten presidents combined. This morning, he reportedly commuted the sentences of 111 more prisoners bringing his count to 673. A solid number of these prisoners, 232, were serving life sentences. A commutation is different than a full pardon here in the US as a crime being commuted still remains on a prisoners record.

You can read about the prisoners here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/08/30/president-obama-grants-commutations
 
Are they charming, selfless individuals? No. But they're certainly no worse than many other Presidential figures.

Really? Really.... srsly....

More sneaky & conniving than Nixon? I don't think so.

Yes. 100% Absolutely yes. Nixon covered up the actions of his subordinates once. Hillary orders stuff like that done over and over... and Bill?... wow. They each independently make Nixon look pretty honorable.

More philandering than JFK? Not even close.

Who cares about philandering? I'm talking about perjury, sexual harassment, financial fraud, selling government information and favors, cronyism, exposing military information, and just a fanatical consistency for lying and destroying evidence... and what about Foster's suicide? At best that was someone who was despondent over not being able to get away with what was eventually gotten away with. At worst... it's pretty bad.

These are people who are willing to launder money through their "charity" for their own purposes. She talks about going after fat cats and closing loopholes... she's talking about herself! She doesn't care, neither did Bill. They'll say anything.

Along with decades of successful "public service" come certain rewards. That's the way it works.

:lol: That's what we expect I guess. Scumbags running the country.
 
Last edited:
Thread doesn't fail to continually assert how asinine people's perspective on nominees are, what a great outlook for the future. I'm not talking about everyone, just the one in the many that comes along to tout how either Hillary or Trump is a justifiable answer to the need for a next President, not sure how the hell in any clear intellectual mind one can come to this, other than not being such.
 
Last edited:
Thread doesn't fail to continually assert how asinine people's perspective on nominees are, what a great outlook for the future. I'm not talking about everyone, just the one in the many that comes along to taught how either Hillary or Trump is a justifiable answer to the need for a next President, not sure how the hell in any clear intellectual mind one can come to this, other than not being such.
Having recently spent a couple of weeks in Switzerland and keen to get some feedback from a Euro perspective on the race for POTUS, the two most common words used in my limited survey to describe the race in general was, "crazy" and "unbelievable".:lol:
 
The way I see it, the Clintons - Bill & Hillary - rose from humble origins to power through grit, intelligence, determination, political smarts, & raw ambition. Very different from GW Bush, for instance, who had money & family connections to guide the way his entire career.

GW Bush Net worth: 20 Million

Clintons: 111 Million.

Swing and a miss.
 
The Clintons were always connected to power. Bill's stint in Arkansas politics proved that to be the case, lest not forget Hillary's connections to Watergate.

What does that have to do with where they started from?

W. came from generations of wealth and political connections. The Clintons did not. I'm baffled as to why anybody is trying to argue this.
 
What does that have to do with where they started from?

W. came from generations of wealth and political connections. The Clintons did not. I'm baffled as to why anybody is trying to argue this.

Agreed... though I don't think that the point counts for much. The fact that the Clintons are good at serving their self interest is kinda the big knock against them.
 
Thread doesn't fail to continually assert how asinine people's perspective on nominees are, what a great outlook for the future. I'm not talking about everyone, just the one in the many that comes along to tout how either Hillary or Trump is a justifiable answer to the need for a next President, not sure how the hell in any clear intellectual mind one can come to this, other than not being such.
It would be worth having Trump as president because he would immediately blab the contents of the Book of Secrets. Aliens, JFK, Aztec gold, the works.

And then the CIA would take him out.
 
LOL. Nothing like stirring up a hornet's nest!

A ringing endorsement if I've ever heard one.

It's not intended to be a ringing endorsement! It's a statement of the situation as I see it.

Nixon covered up the actions of his subordinates once. Hillary orders stuff like that done over and over... and Bill?... wow. They each independently make Nixon look pretty honorable.

I know it was before your time, but might want to take a closer look at the entirety of Nixon's career.

The Clintons were always connected to power. Bill's stint in Arkansas politics proved that to be the case, lest not forget Hillary's connections to Watergate.

Always? Bill Clinton's father was a traveling salesman who died 3 months before Bill was born. His stepfather was a car salesman.

Thread doesn't fail to continually assert how asinine people's perspective on nominees are, what a great outlook for the future. I'm not talking about everyone, just the one in the many that comes along to tout how either Hillary or Trump is a justifiable answer to the need for a next President, not sure how the hell in any clear intellectual mind one can come to this, other than not being such.

I'm not sure what the hell this means? Sounds a bit like Palin-speech.

Bottom line: like it or not, one of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton WILL BE the next President of the US. Does it matter which? You betcha! Even though both candidates are seriously flawed, like Charles Fried, I'd rather trust the future of the US (& the world) to an informed, intelligent, albeit calculating, self-serving woman with long experience in politics & world affairs, than a delusional, narcissistic, loud-mouthed ignoramous.

I feel grateful to live in a country that, while having a political system that is oddly "irrational", regularly delivers more reasonable outcomes for its voting citizens.
 
I know it was before your time, but might want to take a closer look at the entirety of Nixon's career.

I'll take that as an apology. I do like that you're drawing parallels in the right places though - someone abusing their position in government for personal gain. It's just that Hillary is already better at it.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line: like it or not, one of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton WILL BE the next President of the US.
You're going to need a 'probably' in there. I mean, I know I'm only a foreigner who doesn't understand such things, but both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein can get enough Electoral College votes to be returned as POTUS.

So long as they are also possibilities, the Trump/Clinton outcome is merely probable, rather than inevitable.
 
Bottom line: like it or not, one of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton WILL BE the next President of the US. Does it matter which? You betcha! Even though both candidates are seriously flawed, like Charles Fried, I'd rather trust the future of the US (& the world) to an informed, intelligent, albeit calculating, self-serving woman with long experience in politics & world affairs, than a delusional, narcissistic, loud-mouthed ignoramous.
Considering the mess our previous "informed, intelligent, albeit calculating and self-serving" leaders have made of what was once a great country, I'm willing to take my chances with a "delusional, narcissistic, loudmouth ignoramous[sic]".
 
It would be worth having Trump as president because he would immediately blab the contents of the Book of Secrets. Aliens, JFK, Aztec gold, the works.

And then the CIA would take him out.

Seems like a too good to be true deal, maybe Melania

I'm not sure what the hell this means? Sounds a bit like Palin-speech.

What the hell are you even moaning on about, I actually make far more sense, you and a few others here seem to tout idiots that have no reason to be even 100ft of the presidential office. Yet you and a few others seem to not fail in trying to sway others to see it as so. If you want to debate context I'm all for it, if you want to have unregulated misgivings about people for a very serious position and then get huffed when challenged why bother speaking when you can keep it to you.

But don't come and give an unintelligent quip of "sounds a bit like Palin". I mean I could easily say you're coming off a bit like Farrakhan with your Hillary lip service. Also let's be very distinctive here, I say this about your near irrational standby of Clinton, and the same to those that do it with Trump. End of, they're both idiots, on a same level just different reasons and both are toxic for the role they wish to achieve. Now we can debate why, I have no issue with that.
 
Last edited:
I feel grateful to live in a country that, while having a political system that is oddly "irrational", regularly delivers more reasonable outcomes for its voting citizens.

I feel grateful to live in a country where if Hillary Clinton where to run for office doing the same thing as she has done for the senate bid and presidential bid, she would be arrested.

I blame the US Media, its all part of the bribery system and does it's job effectively by avoiding the issue and pretending there is a straight forward political process(in return they benefit massively by bloated political advertising spending), when it's clear to anyone who looks at it properly is deeply broken.
 
not sure how the hell in any clear intellectual mind one can come to this, other than not being such.

Can you explain what this means?

you and a few others here seem to tout idiots that have no reason to be even 100ft of the presidential office. Yet you and a few others seem to not fail in trying to sway others to see it as so.

What does this mean?

If you want to debate context I'm all for it, if you want to have unregulated misgivings about people for a very serious position and then get huffed when challenged why bother speaking when you can keep it to you.

What does this mean?

Also let's be very distinctive here, I say this about your near irrational standby of Clinton, and the same to those that do it with Trump.

What does this mean?

Perhaps English is not your native language, in which case I'm prepared to cut you some slack.

I'm not a Hillary supporter. I quoted, in full, the comments of a conservative - Charles Fried, who was Attorney General under Ronald Reagan. The gist of his argument is that while Clinton has her faults, she is preferable to Donald Trump. Thats about the long & the short of it.

I would encourage American GTPlanet contributors to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein ... but not if doing so led to electoral victory by Trump.
 
Can you explain what this means?



What does this mean?



What does this mean?



What does this mean?

Perhaps English is not your native language, in which case I'm prepared to cut you some slack.

I'm not a Hillary supporter. I quoted, in full, the comments of a conservative - Charles Fried, who was Attorney General under Ronald Reagan. The gist of his argument is that while Clinton has her faults, she is preferable to Donald Trump. Thats about the long & the short of it.

I would encourage American GTPlanet contributors to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein ... but not if doing so led to electoral victory by Trump.
Charles Fried, the "conservative", voted for Barack Obama and publicy supported Obamacare. Pretty sure there aren't a lot of conservatives who voted for Obama and supported Obamacare.
 
Can you explain what this means?

Yeah in other words it's double negative on purpose to basically say if you think either are viable, you're wrong to think such based on contrary evidence. Other than that the "one" shouldn't be there, it's a word that can be dropped, quick post happen all the time learn to realize grammatical errors happen.


What does this mean?

Similar to first response. Evidence that neither are viable, and simple typos due to quick response out of a number of reasons.


What does this mean?

Press repeat

What does this mean?

I'd hope you're not that ignorant.

Perhaps English is not your native language, in which case I'm prepared to cut you some slack.

No it's my first language, I mean I am learning another at the moment, and doing incompressible flows over various cross sections of a wing for homework and coding it up. However, in between I'm taking breaks to respond to this stuff. So you can see where a quick post that has a few typos comes in.

I'm not a Hillary supporter. I quoted, in full, the comments of a conservative - Charles Fried, who was Attorney General under Ronald Reagan. The gist of his argument is that while Clinton has her faults, she is preferable to Donald Trump. Thats about the long & the short of it.

That's great, one you could have fooled me, two who said it and your reasoning for posting it are of more interest. Typically a person who wants to post things with the idea of no bias does such, however, you over the course of this thread seem to show preference.

I would encourage American GTPlanet contributors to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein ... but not if doing so led to electoral victory by Trump.

Well I mean if you're taking over for Tallulah at the psychic hotline, I could see how the cards might spell this for you. Jokes aside, reality is quite different and the fear mongering that you're damned if you do or don't plays into the preference I was talking about. Especially after two pages of conversation on "well Hillary is bad, but not THAT bad", I paraphrase of course. Now sure you may not have it, but it does seem to read differently to me and others
 
... but not if doing so led to electoral victory by Trump.

...the lesser of the evils right? "You can vote for third party as long as the one I think is worse isn't going to win. If that one is going to win I want you to vote against them." Right? That's all I hear from everyone I talk to in the US (on both sides). I cannot believe that we are so entrenched in this position - that the lesser of the evils is worthy of your vote.

The ends do not justify the means. Keeping Trump out does not justify putting Hillary in. I've said it before in this thread, you don't vote for Hitler to keep Stalin from winning. Neither of them deserves your support. Neither of them deserves to be legitimized.

There is precisely one way to throw away your vote, and it's by voting for someone who does not represent you. Even a vote not cast is a better use than casting a vote for someone you know does not represent you.
 
Last edited:
What Fried means is that a Clinton presidency would be largely predictable & understandable.

That is the very problem. More wars, regime changes, corruption, debt and hollowing out of the middle class is the predictable outcome of continuing the status quo.

Our election must be decided on the basis of our national interest - and no one else's! In a nutshell, that means peace and prosperity and not war and debt.

Any thinking to the contrary must be held either unrealistic, misguided, aberrant or defective.
 
I wonder what would happen if either Hillary or Donald died or withdrew before the election? Could the election be postponed?
 
Gotta love Mike Rowe (taken from here)

Mike Rowe via Facebook
Off The Wall

Jeremy Schneider writes...

Hey Mike, I have nothing but respect for you. Your no-nonsense outlook and incredible eloquence have really had a profound impact in my life. Can you please encourage your huge following to go out and vote this election? I would never impose on you by asking you to advocate one politician over another, but I do feel this election could really use your help. I know that there are many people out there who feel like there is nothing they can do. Please try to use your gifts to make them see that they can do something - that their vote counts.

Hi Jeremy

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. I also share your concern for our country, and agree wholeheartedly that every vote counts. However, I’m afraid I can’t encourage millions of people whom I’ve never met to just run out and cast a ballot, simply because they have the right to vote. That would be like encouraging everyone to buy an AR-15, simply because they have the right to bear arms. I would need to know a few things about them before offering that kind of encouragement. For instance, do they know how to care for a weapon? Can they afford the cost of the weapon? Do they have a history of violence? Are they mentally stable? In short, are they responsible citizens?

Casting a ballot is not so different. It’s an important right that we all share, and one that impacts our society in dramatic fashion. But it’s one thing to respect and acknowledge our collective rights, and quite another thing to affirmatively encourage people I've never met to exercise them. And yet, my friends in Hollywood do that very thing, and they're at it again.

Every four years, celebrities and movie stars look earnestly into the camera and tell the country to “get out and vote.” They tell us it’s our “most important civic duty,” and they speak as if the very act of casting a ballot is more important than the outcome of the election. This strikes me as somewhat hysterical. Does anyone actually believe that Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen DeGeneres, and Ed Norton would encourage the “masses” to vote, if they believed the “masses” would elect Donald Trump?

Regardless of their political agenda, my celebrity pals are fundamentally mistaken about our “civic duty” to vote. There is simply no such thing. Voting is a right, not a duty, and not a moral obligation. Like all rights, the right to vote comes with some responsibilities, but lets face it - the bar is not set very high. If you believe aliens from another planet walk among us, you are welcome at the polls. If you believe the world is flat, and the moon landing was completely staged, you are invited to cast a ballot. Astrologists, racists, ghost-hunters, sexists, and people who rely upon a Magic 8 Ball to determine their daily wardrobe are all allowed to participate. In fact, and to your point, they’re encouraged.

The undeniable reality is this: our right to vote does not require any understanding of current events, or any awareness of how our government works. So, when a celebrity reminds the country that “everybody’s vote counts,” they are absolutely correct. But when they tell us that “everybody in the country should get out there and vote,” regardless of what they think or believe, I gotta wonder what they’re smoking.

Look at our current candidates. No one appears to like either one of them. Their approval ratings are at record lows. It's not about who you like more, it's about who you hate less. Sure, we can blame the media, the system, and the candidates themselves, but let’s be honest - Donald and Hillary are there because we put them there. The electorate has tolerated the intolerable. We've treated this entire process like the final episode of American Idol. What did we expect?

So no, Jeremy - I can’t personally encourage everyone in the country to run out and vote. I wouldn't do it, even if I thought it would benefit my personal choice. Because the truth is, the country doesn't need voters who have to be cajoled, enticed, or persuaded to cast a ballot. We need voters who wish to participate in the process. So if you really want me to say something political, how about this - read more.

Spend a few hours every week studying American history, human nature, and economic theory. Start with "Economics in One Lesson." Then try Keynes. Then Hayek. Then Marx. Then Hegel. Develop a worldview that you can articulate as well as defend. Test your theory with people who disagree with you. Debate. Argue. Adjust your philosophy as necessary. Then, when the next election comes around, cast a vote for the candidate whose worldview seems most in line with your own.

Or, don’t. None of the freedoms spelled out in our Constitution were put there so people could cast uninformed ballots out of some misplaced sense of civic duty brought on by a celebrity guilt-trip. The right to assemble, to protest, to speak freely - these rights were included to help assure that the best ideas and the best candidates would emerge from the most transparent process possible.

Remember - there’s nothing virtuous or patriotic about voting just for the sake of voting, and the next time someone tells you otherwise, do me a favor - ask them who they’re voting for. Then tell them you’re voting for their opponent. Then, see if they’ll give you a ride to the polls.

In the meantime, dig into “Economics in One Lesson,” by Henry Hazlitt. It sounds like a snooze but it really is a page turner, and you can download it for free.

Mike

PS. If you do vote, or if you don’t, you’ll almost certainly feel better about the future of our country wearing the latest "Freddy and The BiPed” 2016 Campaign Tee Shirt. This version reads, somewhat prophetically, “A Doghouse Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.” It can all be yours for $24.99. Slightly more for the hoodie. Proceeds, as always, go to The mikeroweWORKS Foundation, and pay for work-ethic scholarships.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what would happen if either Hillary or Donald died or withdrew before the election? Could the election be postponed?
Wouldn't the parties then just nominate a replacement candidate by following their own rules and procedures?
 
I wonder what would happen if either Hillary or Donald died or withdrew before the election? Could the election be postponed?
Interesting question but I have to ask, which election? The popular vote in November, or the real election in December?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back