[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.
Do most people have a candidate that represents all of their positions? I don't think so. Most people vote along party lines because they are willing to take the good with the bad with whom they support so that their party prevails, I am increasingly unwilling to do that.

Good. So vote for someone who represents your positions.

If I write in a candidate it will be mostly to not leave the space blank to help prevent election fraud, it won't be because I think whom ever I write in has a chance of winning.

If you're just trying to occupy the space, vote for Johnson or Stein. It will make a bigger statement.

He's probably referring to the Aleppo comment.

No way he's referring to that, because that would be absurdly hypercritical.
 
I'd gladly take two replacement candidates over the trash we have right now, even Biden/Ryan would be a step up from this and I'm not a fan of either dirty Uncle Joe or P-90x Austerity boy. As a nation we have gone from electing our best and brightest to nominating Elitist idiots who simply just have more money than anyone else, even though there are far more qualified folks for the job. When you allow corporations and banks to buy candidates then what you get is corporate shills running for president, which also means you no longer have representation.

Really? HRC is both bright & qualified, but ... seriously "compromised" in other ways. Obama was perhaps not very "qualified", but he was definitely an example of the "brightest & best" & certainly not an elitist idiot with more money than anyone else. Regardless, he was hated by 40% of the electorate. The polarization in US politics has created a situation where 40% of the population automatically loathes the political stance of the opposite 40%. This is quite irrespective of the personal qualities of the individual candidates for President.

Gary Johnson seems like a decent guy, but it would be hard to make a case for him being qualified ... or even among the "best & brightest". Unfortunately, the GOP has ended up with someone who is intellectually, morally, & ideologically so far from being among the "brightest & best" that he is considered a standing joke in the rest of the world & even by a significant proportion of the Republican party.
 
Citation needed. I'd rather have someone who left other countries to themselves than someone who believes in intervening in everyone else's affairs.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/gary-johnson-aleppo-227873

What's a leppo? :lol:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/gary-johnson-north-korea-229221

https://www.johnsonweld.com/issues

I don't care if people use marijuana but I just don't see why it's such a big deal to legalize it.

I'm more of a right wing libertarian, while Johnson is a left wing libertarian. I'm not saying he's not good enough, I'm just saying his lack of knowledge on world events right now is kind of dangerous as to how the U.S. will be able to help solve these issues if he gets elected. The US has already made an impact with its intervention, it's impossible to just not help. Again, I'm not saying dur bomb every country that's a threat. Some countries like Assad's Syria need to stay in power, the Middle East needs secular dictatorships to deal with Islamism. Look at Iraq today.
 
Where is the evidence of that?


Which President hasn't been?

It was at this point that I stopped reading.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/9585/...on-threatened-smeared-or-amanda-prestigiacomo

There's that^ And also, Hillary hasn't been president yet, and most presidents are having soldiers die, men and women who put their life on the line as a sacrifice for our freedom, innocent citizens is a much different story.


Edit: I respect your opinion though prisoner 👍
 
Hillary hasn't been president yet, and most presidents are having soldiers die, men and women who put their life on the line as a sacrifice for our freedom, innocent citizens is a much different story.
First of all, saying that those deaths happened before or after being President is a mere technicality. Secondly, you say that she is responsible for the deaths of thousands of citizens, which is definitely something that you need to substantiate with evidence.

There's that^
Which just shows that she spoke out against his accusers. You accused her of covering them up, which is to say deliberately concealing, obscuring or destroying evidence; it's perverting the course of justice, which is very different to verbally attacking the accusers. The article contains no evidence of that.
 
No evidence doesn't mean she isn't guilty, but again, I respect your opinion. But, disrespectfully speaking to her husbands accusers makes her seem very uninterested in the way women are treated in this country.
 
http://www.dailywire.com/news/9585/...on-threatened-smeared-or-amanda-prestigiacomo

There's that^ And also, Hillary hasn't been president yet, and most presidents are having soldiers die, men and women who put their life on the line as a sacrifice for our freedom, innocent citizens is a much different story.


Edit: I respect your opinion though prisoner 👍

Protect your freedom how? Have the soldiers been deployed in USA to defend the borders of your country from an invading force?
Shouldn't the Saudi Arabia be the country that should be invaded and not Irak and the rest in the middle east?

All I see is just a fast way of making money which is war and have nothing to do with protecting sombodies (or is it anybodies?) freedom. After all 9/11 did happen and your freedom got more restricted by your own Government. If it is someone you want to blame for all the deaths then blame Bush and co.
 
Protect your freedom how? Have the soldiers been deployed in USA to defend the borders of your country?
Shouldnt the Saudi be the country that would be attacked and not Irak and the rest in the middle east?

All I see is just a fast way of making money which is war and have nothing to do with protecting sombodys freedom. After all 9/11 did happen and your freedom got more restricted by your own Government. If it is someone you want to blame for all the deaths then blame Bush and co.


I agree, I was just saying it like they would the same old "everyone's a hero" nonsense. Sorry for the confusion.
 
...because a write-in has a chance of winning? Why would the chance of a candidate winning affect whether or not that candidate represented your positions?
If the name is Bernie Sanders, it might for once have a chance.*


*Just throwing it out there since I've been seeing a lot of his die hard supporters lately talking that he is eligible as a write in for nearly every state, that his followers don't have to give Hillary their vote. Interesting to see if any significant turnout actually writes him in after the election.
 
Really wish Ron Paul was running :(. The best person at this point is Gary Johnson even though he seems to be ignorant on geopolitical issues and gives off a hippy vibe.
Why? Cause some back water hole in the middle of a desert full of mortar scorch marks, defines his ignorance? Or better yet defines the mass media as a shrill institute no longer founded in part on objective news telling but rather deciding for you through news what you want? I mean when you perpetuate something it's obvious what the answer is.
 
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/gary-johnson-aleppo-227873

What's a leppo? :lol:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/gary-johnson-north-korea-229221

https://www.johnsonweld.com/issues

I don't care if people use marijuana but I just don't see why it's such a big deal to legalize it.

I'm more of a right wing libertarian, while Johnson is a left wing libertarian. I'm not saying he's not good enough, I'm just saying his lack of knowledge on world events right now is kind of dangerous as to how the U.S. will be able to help solve these issues if he gets elected. The US has already made an impact with its intervention, it's impossible to just not help. Again, I'm not saying dur bomb every country that's a threat. Some countries like Assad's Syria need to stay in power, the Middle East needs secular dictatorships to deal with Islamism. Look at Iraq today.

Yea, like I said, hypercritical. "Help solve these issues" is the problem isn't it. I get that most people like the dynamic where the US meddles in whatever world events we want to meddle in, but you'd think we'd have learned our lesson at this point - it's not a good idea, it doesn't solve anything, and we can't afford it.

As for the presidential race, my hat is off to the democrats for winning the election.

slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif


So masterful, I'm literally angry with myself for not being able to see it. Release the tape of Trump joking with his buddy about groping women, which I thought was no big deal. How did I not see that the next step is to bring people forward coached to line their story up with the video. At this point whether or not their claims actually happened is irrelevant. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't... but to drop that in october... unverifiable claims that stick to the video. It's so over.

Hillary and the Democrats have been playing a chess game they knew they'd win. It has been a brilliant piece of manipulation. I don't care if the allegations are true, I don't care that Bill is guilty of similar crimes as what Trump is merely accused of... Trump is sunk.

Hillary and Bill are each, separately, huge liabilities politically, and yet they are about to move into the White House once again after the Republicans crapped the bed with a ridiculous candidate and a horrible campaign. It is terrifying that we're going to have this manipulative person as president, but no more terrifying than Trump would have been.

Cast your votes for Johnson folks, he has a better chance of winning (not that that should matter), and is certainly more qualified than Trump.
 
Last edited:
I saw it coming last year Danoff, I have consistently said that Hillary Clinton will be our next president long before Trump was ever the nominee, the only things that surprised me about this election were the rise of Bernie Sanders and the subsequent fall (thanks to the DNC and Hillary rigging the primary) and the Donald overcoming Jeb Bush to be the party's nominee, those two things I did not see coming.

One other thing to add, Bernie Sanders is still an eligible write in candidate in just about all 50 states. The Podesta emails and DNC hack have laid bare the careful process of stripping the nomination from Bernie. That isn't democracy folks that is anti-everything our country is about and if you are willing to take part in that, then shame on you. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the morally bankrupt and corrupt and it says a lot about the person willing to ignore that fact. Honestly people willing to do that (and say so publicly), should be publicly shamed.

I can't be the only one who isn't willing to morally degrade myself into voting for one of these clowns, I can't allow myself to sink down to that level. So it will either be a write-in for me for the Bern or I may just change my mind and vote for Gary after all. I can live with either of those choices.
 
Anyone heard of the transhumanist party? I'm definitely voting Zoltan this election. #allhailzoltan
 
Actually, under the law, that's exactly what it means. Everyone is presumed innocent until their guilt is proven, and a lack of evidence is not in itself evidence.
Just so that we're on the same page, are we discussing Hillary and her involvement in Bill's sex scandal? While you are right in that no evidence is not evidence itself, you have to remember that there was plenty of talk about Hillary intimating witnesses in Bill's impeachment trial, and that's still a crime.
 
She covered up Bill's rapes

As @prisonermonkeys has already pointed out, this old rumor has never been substantiated at all.

It also isn't very "liberal" of her to want to raise taxes on the middle class and not explain why she'd like to do so.

That's exactly the opposite of what her tax plan will do.

Something he said 11 years ago is, coming from her, pretty hilarious that she would even think that going there was necessary.

What's actually hilarious is that you're trying to label Trump's words from 11 years ago as irrelevant while simultaneously digging up the 20+ year-old rumors about Hillary covering up Bill's assaults, and you're utterly oblivious to the double-standard you're displaying.

One thing, he is definitely getting ganged up on during debates from Hillary and the moderators

:lol:

His tax plan is truly brilliant and... would help low/middle class people live much better.

Trump's "brilliant" plan will reduce revenue by trillions of dollars - Brookings calls for a $10t or more shortfall, while the more conservative Tax Foundation is estimating closer to $5t - either way, that loss of revenue will have to be made up by spending cuts elsewhere.

Considering that he'd be a GOP President with a GOP House (possibly Senate too), it's not hard to figure out where those cuts will happen: government programs that benefit the working and lower-middle classes. Somehow, I doubt that will allow them to "live much better."

I am very well informed

You're certainly well-versed in Fox News talking points. I'm not sure that's the same as being "informed."
 
If Trump did become president, and this wont happen, but if he were to.... Maybe his meetings with all the social conservative people like tony perkins, etc would need rolling back. I'd be interested if this sexual episode has 'changed' him :embarrassed: or if he will just continue down the same old path.

I think killary will win election with the infamous 47% mitt lost by in 2012. Trump may get 40% but its all unknown now... killary might get less, like 44 but thats all she needs. Of course over in euro town you only need what, 33% to win he he he.
 
I retract my previous statement about Bernie Sanders being a viable write-in option, he is not because he did not file the proper registration paperwork with each state to be eligible. You may vote for him but your vote will not count and it will be thrown out. So basically, it's either Jill or Gary now
 
Well I was able to hear Trump's speech today, if what he said about the interview, were she claimed he groped her, is true this story won't stick. The whole family was there and in the open. And if it's true about first class airlines not having adjustable arm rests back in the day, the other lady's story is BS also.

The Clinton camp is trying to hope any stupid story they can come up with sticks. If all this is really set up shame on all of them for misleading the most important vote in this country.
 
Well I was able to hear Trump's speech today, if what he said about the interview, were she claimed he groped her, is true this story won't stick. The whole family was there and in the open. And if it's true about first class airlines not having adjustable arm rests back in the day, the other lady's story is BS also.

The Clinton camp is trying to hope any stupid story they can come up with sticks. If all this is really set up shame on all of them for misleading the most important vote in this country.

It's possible that the stories are nonsense... but what about the chick in the elevator from the 80s? In at least that case this is an unverifiable claim. Coupled with the video and his statements in general toward women, there's no way this doesn't stick. I agree it's totally manufactured (not at all coincidence that it comes out in Oct), but this is going to stick to him like crazy.
 
It's possible that the stories are nonsense... but what about the chick in the elevator from the 80s? In at least that case this is an unverifiable claim. Coupled with the video and his statements in general toward women, there's no way this doesn't stick. I agree it's totally manufactured (not at all coincidence that it comes out in Oct), but this is going to stick to him like crazy.
It all boils down to what the majority of the people, represented by their states, think is most important - stuff from the past or the stuff that is going on now and in the future.
 
It's possible that the stories are nonsense... but what about the chick in the elevator from the 80s? In at least that case this is an unverifiable claim. Coupled with the video and his statements in general toward women, there's no way this doesn't stick. I agree it's totally manufactured (not at all coincidence that it comes out in Oct), but this is going to stick to him like crazy.

Maybe not though, a lot of people seem to have given up on MSM lately, can't say I blame them either, the lopsided coverage is ridiculous. Plus Trump seems to have weathered most of these controversies up until now.
 
It all boils down to what the majority of the people, represented by their states, think is most important - stuff from the past or the stuff that is going on now and in the future.

Nope!

It boils down to a complete and total character assassination that will prevent most people from even holding their nose to vote for him. He's done. There's a huge list of transgressions, some of them Trump has even admitted to (walking in on girls backstage at beauty pageants). He's toast. You can't couple that behavior with his rhetoric toward women.

Put a fork in him. Hillary is the next president.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back