• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Hmmm

Brocktoon said:
What I don't get about Sanders supporters... your candidate has never been part of the Democratic party yet you complain about not getting support of the Super Delegates who are party insiders.

What I don't get about Sanders opponents... Sanders has never been part of the Democratic Party yet you expect him to shut up and do what's best for the Party.
Click to expand...

Sanders made a mistake by running as a Dem. {emphasis on period} He could have grabbed a lot of soft Trump supporters along the way. Now we are back to the 90's pretending the other 99% are getting a fair shake with economic policy supporting voodoo economics. Only this time we get a chicken hawk in office and more wars.
 
I was watching the Last Week Tonight episode on primaries just a few minutes ago. I have to question why an open primary is even a thing. I'm registered as unaffiliated, and was able to vote in the primary for whatever party I wanted to. That hardly seems fair. I don't donate a dime to either party and have no participation with them, yet somehow because of my own personal distaste of party politics I'm able to, however small it may be, influence the ultimate candidate, especially in smaller local elections. Doesn't that seem insane?
 
AG74683 said:
Doesn't that seem insane?
Click to expand...

No that is much better. The idea that you have to be a member of a party to vote for their candidate is the primary reason our country is so screwed up. One vote should be able to be used to vote for whomever you choose. Whether that is for your candidate, or against someone else. If you feel strongly enough, you should be allowed to vote for someone just so someone else doesn't win.

Open primaries and easing the rules as to who can be on a ballot would help our third party candidates tremendously. I think this change alone would make a third party much more viable.
 
Bubba said:
Obama has been at war longer than any President in the history of the United States. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Really? How has this been classified and determined? Yes there has been continuous military action in some aspect in some location since 2001. But has it been officially classified as a "War"?

Now I have no confidence in Obama and the sooner he is out of office, the better, but in all reality, I don't blame him for the military conflicts that have been occurring any more than I blame previous administrations.

I do blame Clinton for Benghazi though...
 
Bubba said:
Obama has been at war longer than any President in the history of the United States. What's your point?

No.
Click to expand...

Hink said:
No that is much better. The idea that you have to be a member of a party to vote for their candidate is the primary reason our country is so screwed up. One vote should be able to be used to vote for whomever you choose. Whether that is for your candidate, or against someone else. If you feel strongly enough, you should be allowed to vote for someone just so someone else doesn't win.

Open primaries and easing the rules as to who can be on a ballot would help our third party candidates tremendously. I think this change alone would make a third party much more viable.
Click to expand...

Well then in states with open primaries, why does anyone bother to register for a party to begin with? That seems to put you at a pretty large disadvantage since you're locked in to one particular ballot for all elections during the primary.
 
AG74683 said:
Well then in states with open primaries, why does anyone bother to register for a party to begin with? That seems to put you at a pretty large disadvantage since you're locked in to one particular ballot for all elections during the primary.
Click to expand...

We don't have open primaries in Ohio, so I have no idea. All I know is that when you register to vote, you are stuck in the primaries, which is annoying. I should be able to vote for whomever I want with my one vote. Even if that person is in the Spaghetti Monster Party.
 
NH is open primary.

If you are undeclared (or Independent) at the primary, you must tell the ballot clerk which party's ballot you want.

After voting, you can either stay registered with the party who's ballot you took, or stop at the checklist clerk on the way out and state you want to return to undeclared/independent.
 
AG74683 said:
Well then in states with open primaries, why does anyone bother to register for a party to begin with? That seems to put you at a pretty large disadvantage since you're locked in to one particular ballot for all elections during the primary.
Click to expand...

I live in a state with an open primary and we do not have any party registration. However, when you vote in a primary you stick to one ballot because you are participating in that party's primary. You are not participating in a state or federal election with state or federal election rules. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have established the rule that if you are going to participate in a primary for one party, you may not participate in the primary for the other party. It seems reasonable to me that if I want to have a say in who a particular party decides to place on a ballot, I should adhere to their rules.
 
NHPlanner said:
NH is open primary.

If you are undeclared (or Independent) at the primary, you must tell the ballot clerk which party's ballot you want.

After voting, you can either stay registered with the party who's ballot you took, or stop at the checklist clerk on the way out and state you want to return to undeclared/independent.
Click to expand...

Same with NC... but I don't think it changes your affiliation. I hope not anyways.
 
AG74683 said:
Well then in states with open primaries, why does anyone bother to register for a party to begin with?
Click to expand...

Georgia has open primaries, and the state got rid of registering with party affiliations at some point in the last 27 years.
 
michaelskis said:
Same with NC... but I don't think it changes your affiliation. I hope not anyways.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it does. It does matter though if you wish to change affiliation the day of. You get pushed to a provisional and they allow it based on your voting record. I'm registered as unaffiliated but my voter history tends heavily towards the Dems. If I tried to change to a GOP ticket my provisional would almost certainly be denied. Also be sure to register as unaffiliated and not independent. Independent voters are lumped into the Independent party and you get a ballot with like nothing on it.

I guess my biggest thing is, how does it benefit you to register for a party in a state with an open primary? You get to choose which ballot you take rather than be forced to take one from your party. I truly believe that primaries serve no real purpose other than to tell the party what states they need to work on in the general election, or how voters may trend later on. Candidates are basically decided ahead of time, and primary votes have no real weight to them. Seriously, check out how Washington state does their primary. The delegates are chosen during the party caucus and your vote almost doesn't matter one bit, especially when it comes to the Democrats who chose their delegates at the caucus which has already happened. Hell, North Dakota didn't even HAVE a primary this year. Look at the fiasco in Nevada. They tried to invalidate delegates because they failed to register by a deadline...THAT THEY SET AT THE CONVENTION AFTER THE DEADLINE :lmao:.

Donald Trump said it best *shudder* "It's a rigged system but I won so who cares". I knew there was a reason I despised primary season, but I found myself wrapped up in this one because the choices were just so mediocre.
 
michaelskis said:
Really? How has this been classified and determined? Yes there has been continuous military action in some aspect in some location since 2001. But has it been officially classified as a "War"?
Click to expand...

Saw it in The Week (as pulled from this NY Times article)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/u...d-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html?_r=0

President Obama came into office seven years ago pledging to end the wars of his predecessor, George W. Bush. On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.

If the United States remains in combat in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria until the end of Mr. Obama’s term — a near-certainty given the president’s recent announcement that he will send 250 additional Special Operations forces to Syria — he will leave behind an improbable legacy as the only president in American history to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.

Mr. Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 and spent his years in the White House trying to fulfill the promises he made as an antiwar candidate, would have a longer tour of duty as a wartime president than Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon or his hero Abraham Lincoln.

Granted, Mr. Obama is leaving far fewer soldiers in harm’s way — at least 4,087 in Iraq and 9,800 in Afghanistan — than the 200,000 troops he inherited from Mr. Bush in the two countries. But Mr. Obama has also approved strikes against terrorist groups in Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, for a total of seven countries where his administration has taken military action.

“No president wants to be a war president,” said Eliot A. Cohen, a military historian at Johns Hopkins University who backed the war in Iraq and whose son served there twice. “Obama thinks of war as an instrument he has to use very reluctantly. But we’re waging these long, rather strange wars. We’re killing lots of people. We’re taking casualties.”
Click to expand...
 
I'm registered 'unaffiliated' in NC. That means I can vote in either primary, but only one.
I tend to vote in the republican primary only because our county is red-ish in color so its really the only one that matters.

City elections are non-partisan; County, state & feds elections are (of course) party-centric.



michaelskis said:
I do blame Clinton for Benghazi though...
Click to expand...

...and I blame Bush & Cheney for Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Planit said:
...and I blame Bush & Cheney for Iraq.
Click to expand...

Ok... what is your point.:r:

They are not running for office are they? I agree, we should not have gone to war in Iraq, but even Clinton voted to go. Bush and Cheney are not relevant any more whereas Clinton is running for President.


In the words of Queen Elsa from Frozen..
Let it go... Let it go...
 
Only that.....

Bubba said:
Obama has been at war longer than any President in the history of the United States. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Obama is running for a third term by proxy....make no mistake about it. Only one major candidate isn't interested in oil wars from what I can tell and it ain't Oba.....er....ah....Clinton.
 
The One said:
Obama is running for a third term by proxy....make no mistake about it. Only one major candidate isn't interested in oil wars from what I can tell and it ain't Oba.....er....ah....Clinton.
Click to expand...

Just for clarification purposes, when Clinton was SOS, did our foreign relations get better or worse because of her actions. (I am being open minded about this question to prevent apocalyptic fears if she becomes President) Now, Obama opened the doors to Cuba, which I support. I think it was a smart move. But I think the Pope had more to do with that than anyone in the President's cabinet.
 
Bubba said:
The primaries in Georgia for the non-Presidential races are tomorrow. The down-ticket impact of the Trump campaign is something the local fish-wrapper is trying to play up in relation to our Senate race; however, my mildly educated guess is that our incumbent moderate Republican gets through the primary without a runoff and, as usual, beats the stiff-of-the-month the state's Dems trot out in November.
Click to expand...

...and Senator Isakson cruises through the primary with 77% of the vote (and all of the incumbent Congressmen won their primaries as well) - so there was zero down-ticket impact from Trump in Georgia.
 
michaelskis said:
Just for clarification purposes, when Clinton was SOS, did our foreign relations get better or worse because of her actions. (I am being open minded about this question to prevent apocalyptic fears if she becomes President) Now, Obama opened the doors to Cuba, which I support. I think it was a smart move. But I think the Pope had more to do with that than anyone in the President's cabinet.
Click to expand...

I think the Cuba deal was Obama, but I think he worked very closely with the Vatican as an ally in that effort and that the Pope was critical to public acceptance of the change. Without papal support, I'm not sure he succeeds with normalizing relations.

As to the question of foreign relations, I don't think foreign relations particularly improved or degraded under Clinton. We got friendlier with a few countries, less friendly with a few countries. H. Clinton has always struck me as someone prone to "paralysis by analysis." I think that would carry over to a presidency, making it relatively unlikely that major changes, reforms, etc. are accomplished under her. Personally, I think she was more effective as a Senator than as SOS, and the role suited her skillset better. I don't think she is especially comfortable overseeing an administrative apparatus (executive branch position) compared to being in a policy apparatus (legislative branch). Just for the sake of comparison, I think this is why you didn't see Elizabeth Warren enter the Presidential race--Warren is exceptionally skilled at working the Senate & quite effective.

Basically, I think Trump will accomplish little primarily due to congressional resistance & his own stupidity, and I think Clinton will accomplish little primarily because of her approach to policy analysis & potentially congressional resistance depending on how down-ballot races are affected in November.
 
Bubba said:
...and Senator Isakson cruises through the primary with 77% of the vote (and all of the incumbent Congressmen won their primaries as well) - so there was zero down-ticket impact from Trump in Georgia.
Click to expand...

Since most states have their presidential primaries on different dates than the rest of their primaries, I wouldn't expect to see much down-ticket impact anywhere until November 8th. Even then, I don't think the impact will be as much as some folks are predicting (or hoping for?) but that there will be certain states/regions where it will be more pronounced than others.
 
michaelskis said:
Ok... what is your point.:r:

They are not running for office are they? I agree, we should not have gone to war in Iraq, but even Clinton voted to go. Bush and Cheney are not relevant any more whereas Clinton is running for President.


In the words of Queen Elsa from Frozen..
Let it go... Let it go...
Click to expand...

4 vs. ?thousands dead americans - that's my point
A bunch of the same people in congress at that time are still in congress and running for reelection (and some that have an itchy trigger) and we're still dealing with the aftermath. That is why its relevant.

I say this because the "Benghazi Scandal" was primarily drummed up as a Republican talking point because the congress didn't get instant real time access to top secret classified material.

I will take your Disney advice and let it go...after all, politics are an "E-ticket ride"
 
Planit said:
4 vs. ?thousands dead americans - that's my point
A bunch of the same people in congress at that time are still in congress and running for reelection (and some that have an itchy trigger) and we're still dealing with the aftermath. That is why its relevant.

I say this because the "Benghazi Scandal" was primarily drummed up as a Republican talking point because the congress didn't get instant real time access to top secret classified material.

I will take your Disney advice and let it go...after all, politics are an "E-ticket ride"
Click to expand...

Benghazi was Clinton's choice to do the opposite of that U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens for quite some time, including the night of his execution by terrorists. Then she tried to spin it to say it was in response to a video? What next, will she take a page from her husband and start questioning what the definition of "is" is?

Iraq on the other hand had a bit more input... H.J.Res. 114 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002... oh look, Clinton voted for that too.


So put down the Clinton Kool-Aid and see her for what she really is. Not saying that Trump is much, if any, better. Just be cause she internally associates her self with being a President, does not mean that she should. :lmao:
 
At the same time Congress needs to stop overstepping their bounds. Mistake or not, she was Secretary of State so the decision was hers, not theirs. That office is under the purview of the President so the buck stops there, not with Congress. If a penalty must be decided it is up to the President to handle his own cabinet. Congress should stick to making laws, not trying to interfere with the Presidents realm of foreign affairs. Yes I know Congress has some authority there, but not much. Instead of arguing about what genitals are required in what bathroom (I know, not Congress, yet.) let's balance a budget or something. Not that I'm a Clinton supporter either, I just get pissed at Congress.

On the election front, why can't the parties give us someone to be excited about? This is really the best you can offer for us to vote on.
 
dvdneal said:
At the same time Congress needs to stop overstepping their bounds. Mistake or not, she was Secretary of State so the decision was hers, not theirs. That office is under the purview of the President so the buck stops there, not with Congress. If a penalty must be decided it is up to the President to handle his own cabinet. Congress should stick to making laws, not trying to interfere with the Presidents realm of foreign affairs. Yes I know Congress has some authority there, but not much. Instead of arguing about what genitals are required in what bathroom (I know, not Congress, yet.) let's balance a budget or something. Not that I'm a Clinton supporter either, I just get pissed at Congress.

On the election front, why can't the parties give us someone to be excited about? This is really the best you can offer for us to vote on.
Click to expand...

I am excited because it seems the US is coming together to look at the options and say "WTF, one of these people will be President?"
 
michaelskis said:
I am excited because it seems the US is coming together to look at the options and say "WTF, one of these people will be President?"
Click to expand...

Yes, but we as a nation are only angry now. We won't remember that our choice was Dumb or Dumber. Dumb will get elected and their party will declare it a win and a mandate. The other party I hope is smart enough to see that they lost because they had a crap candidate, but history shows they blame it on policy or a failure to get the (pick a minority) vote. We all need to be angry next June and tell the parties to do better in four years.
 
I don't like that flavor kool-aid either dude. What tastes worse is the way the obstruction-flavored republicans scream loud and often anything anti-administration so much people think it's true. There's so much more to it than "Benghazi was Clinton fault". There's no way I would ever say that it's the planners fault the he denied my plans, although many people do. It's too simplistic of a response/excuse.

I don't like the two probable presidential choices either.

Yep Clinton voted for Iraq,as did a lot of people, based on bad intelligence that Bush & Cheny pushed. We still have many Americans, including my nephew, in harms way. It's still relevant.
 
Planit said:
I don't like that flavor kool-aid either dude. What tastes worse is the way the obstruction-flavored republicans scream loud and often anything anti-administration so much people think it's true. There's so much more to it than "Benghazi was Clinton fault". There's no way I would ever say that it's the planners fault the he denied my plans, although many people do. It's too simplistic of a response/excuse.

I don't like the two probable presidential choices either.

Yep Clinton voted for Iraq,as did a lot of people, based on bad intelligence that Bush & Cheny pushed. We still have many Americans, including my nephew, in harms way. It's still relevant.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said. I am just pointing out that Bush and his people are not running for President. Clinton is.
 
Benghazi was a culmination of many issues, but Clinton had the lead to at least prevent the worst from happening and she didn't. I don't solely blame her for it, but she's a root cause for sure. Even ISIS can in a small part be traced back to her actions as SoS. There is strong evidence that her department helped fund the rebel cause in Libya to help them fight Gadhafi (and NATO did no favors either). Embassy attacks happen ALL the time though, and people die. It's a risk you take with the job. Hell, Reagan had the Lebanon attack occur during his presidency that killed 241 Marines and no one seems to talk about that anymore and it was easily preventable. The damn gate was left wide open and they didn't even carry loaded weapons.

The thing that bothers me about HRC is her complete lack of care to the whole thing. I've said it before, but the Secretary of State is a dirty freaking job. Backdoor deals get made, people do things that on the face of it look atrocious and even borderline treason because they HAVE to be done. These things should never come to light and should be buried from the public forever. It's a side effect of being the most powerful country in the world. HRC blew that shroud of secrecy wide open and showed it to the world, and that's something she shouldn't be forgiven for.

And bad intelligence or not, I can hardly fault any congressman/woman who voted in favor of the Iraq war. You can try all you want to chastise our electeds for voting for it now, but as a country, we were still reeling from 9/11. I can sit here and argue that those politicians should have voted against it because of blah blah blah but I know damn well if I was in their seat I would have punched the YES button a thousand times over if I felt even remotely confident of WMD's and that we could have a little vengeance for 9/11. That's probably why I'm not sitting there though. I can stand up and clap for Bernie Sanders because he saw what many couldn't or flat out refused to see, but I can't be pissed at Hillary for her vote either.

Did the Iraq war completely destabilize the region and by default give ISIS their current power? Yup it did, there is no denying that. During that time I don't think the majority of the country was looking to the future, we wanted results and we wanted them immediately. There is a reason why Bush's post 9/11 approval ratings were maybe the highest a President had/has ever seen.
 
AG74683 said:
Benghazi was a culmination of many issues, but Clinton had the lead to at least prevent the worst from happening and she didn't. I don't solely blame her for it, but she's a root cause for sure. Even ISIS can in a small part be traced back to her actions as SoS. There is strong evidence that her department helped fund the rebel cause in Libya to help them fight Gadhafi (and NATO did no favors either). Embassy attacks happen ALL the time though, and people die. It's a risk you take with the job. Hell, Reagan had the Lebanon attack occur during his presidency that killed 241 Marines and no one seems to talk about that anymore and it was easily preventable. The damn gate was left wide open and they didn't even carry loaded weapons.

The thing that bothers me about HRC is her complete lack of care to the whole thing. I've said it before, but the Secretary of State is a dirty freaking job. Backdoor deals get made, people do things that on the face of it look atrocious and even borderline treason because they HAVE to be done. These things should never come to light and should be buried from the public forever. It's a side effect of being the most powerful country in the world. HRC blew that shroud of secrecy wide open and showed it to the world, and that's something she shouldn't be forgiven for.

And bad intelligence or not, I can hardly fault any congressman/woman who voted in favor of the Iraq war. You can try all you want to chastise our electeds for voting for it now, but as a country, we were still reeling from 9/11. I can sit here and argue that those politicians should have voted against it because of blah blah blah but I know damn well if I was in their seat I would have punched the YES button a thousand times over if I felt even remotely confident of WMD's and that we could have a little vengeance for 9/11. That's probably why I'm not sitting there though. I can stand up and clap for Bernie Sanders because he saw what many couldn't or flat out refused to see, but I can't be pissed at Hillary for her vote either.

Did the Iraq war completely destabilize the region and by default give ISIS their current power? Yup it did, there is no denying that. During that time I don't think the majority of the country was looking to the future, we wanted results and we wanted them immediately. There is a reason why Bush's post 9/11 approval ratings were maybe the highest a President had/has ever seen.
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone isn't blaming Bush and his people for Iraq, and I do partly Blame those who did vote for it... and you will note that not everyone did. Bernie for example, noted no. (LINK) There is even some minor evidence that Trump was not in support of the Iraq War, but there is not a lot in terms of him being on record about it one way or another. But what there is, leads to concern and opposition of the war in a very minor way. (LINK) However, I still don't trust him much more than I do Clinton.

The point is if Bush runs for office again, hold it against him. I would. However, Clinton IS running for president. I DO hold her accountable for Benghazi. Is it 100% her fault? No. When it comes to the federal government, it is never 100% one person's fault. However she had the authority, information, and requests to do something to save them, even months before the event, and she made a deliberate decision not to. (LINK)
 
michaelskis said:
The point is if Bush runs for office again, hold it against him. I would. However, Clinton IS running for president. I DO hold her accountable for Benghazi. Is it 100% her fault? No. When it comes to the federal government, it is never 100% one person's fault. However she had the authority, information, and requests to do something to save them, even months before the event, and she made a deliberate decision not to. (LINK)
Click to expand...

"Those conclusions could cause political problems for former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — though the main report doesn’t mention her and instead places blame for the security lapses on those further down the chain of command." Benghazi was preventable because ambassador Stevens refused extra security, ignored recommendations to stay at the embassy in and around the Sept-11 anniversary. It has been widely proven that no "stand down" order was even given. For a group of people that espouse personal responsibility but never question the actions of the Ambassador but blame Sec Clinton is more than hyper political and self serving.

If you read your link it is clear that how Benghazi could have been prevented by the staff if they would have heeded warnings or taken proper security measures.

What has never made sense to me in the whole Benghazi hearings is why no one has investigated Rep Darrell Issa revealed classified information during the early information but no one complained.

Last year a C-130 crashed due to pilot error (LINK) resulting in 11 deaths...6 of which were US military. Should the joint chiefs be held accountable or the DoD secretary for this mistake. If you are going to blame Sec Clinton for Benghazi then why not blame the top of the chain of command for this incident that result in more loss of American life?
 
Brocktoon said:
"Those conclusions could cause political problems for former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton — though the main report doesn’t mention her and instead places blame for the security lapses on those further down the chain of command." Benghazi was preventable because ambassador Stevens refused extra security, ignored recommendations to stay at the embassy in and around the Sept-11 anniversary. It has been widely proven that no "stand down" order was even given. For a group of people that espouse personal responsibility but never question the actions of the Ambassador but blame Sec Clinton is more than hyper political and self serving.

If you read your link it is clear that how Benghazi could have been prevented by the staff if they would have heeded warnings or taken proper security measures.

What has never made sense to me in the whole Benghazi hearings is why no one has investigated Rep Darrell Issa revealed classified information during the early information but no one complained.

Last year a C-130 crashed due to pilot error (LINK) resulting in 11 deaths...6 of which were US military. Should the joint chiefs be held accountable or the DoD secretary for this mistake. If you are going to blame Sec Clinton for Benghazi then why not blame the top of the chain of command for this incident that result in more loss of American life?
Click to expand...

I am aware that their was not a stand down notice given... But even she says that she was responsible. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/...sibility-benghazi-attack-151022211612239.html

If she says she was responsible, how can we not blame her? This was not pilot error... This was a pre-meditated attack that could have been prevented that her people tried to cover up by saying it was a spontaneous protest to a video.
 
michaelskis said:
Do you think they will let Gary Johnson debate with Hillary and Trump?
Click to expand...

I hope that is not a serious question. If we have learned anything over the decades, it is that the media is partly culpable in preventing the rise of 3rd parties and it is not in either other candidate's best interest to include Johnson. Not defending it... just stating reality.

------------------

I really wish Joe Biden was the Democratic nominee. While most talk about gaffes and "lovable goofball" moments, he is among the most sincere folks you'll find, extremely intelligent when it comes to a variety of policy areas and is solidly grounded. He seems to have a certain level of universal respect as well from his colleagues on both sides.

I'm no fan of Clinton (but will cast a vote holding my nose), and while I agree with much of Bernie Sanders he is getting on my nerves at this point as he comes off increasingly as an angry old man. Trump is simply an "absolutely not under any circumstance" for me. He is clearly racist, lies so much that he makes Clinton look like the Pope, is far too volatile, lacks understanding of fundamental aspects of the presidency & has failed to surround himself with people that do, he lacks any semblance of a moral compass, has wanton disregard for the Constitution and lacks respect for the judiciary (and for the legislative branch as well, for that matter). His authoritarian approach is a direct threat to the Constitutional Republic.

One of my favorite aspects is that Trump supporters talk about corruption/lies with Clinton, when Trump's record is significantly worse on both fronts.

Some are willing to vote for Trump because he is upsetting the system, and view that end as a universal good adequately protected by checks & balances. I don't believe that is the case--the legislative branch is nowhere near functional to act as an effective check these days. And we've already gotten a hint about Trump's judiciary view. An authoritarian, loose cannon bigot leading the executive branch is a serious danger.

A Trump loss will force a re-calibration of the Republican Party, not unlike what occurred following Goldwater. This is because a Trump loss will amount to a tacit endorsement of Obama's policies as an "Obama 3rd Term" and will have likely resulted in significant down-ballot damage to the Republican Party.

And I won't consider the Libertarian Party as a legitimate home for my vote or as a protest vote. I agree with only a small portion of their platform.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I really wish Joe Biden was the Democratic nominee.
Click to expand...

I could have easily voted for Biden over Trump. But, with it being Hillary versus Trump, I just won't vote in the Presidential election (I couldn't vote for Hillary even if I was holding my nose). Plus, despite some rumblings in the press and the blogsphere that Georgia could turn blue this time, it just won't happen - Obama isn't at the top of the ballot, Senator Isakson (R) is safe, no minorities are on the Dem ticket for statewide office, and Rs outnumbered Ds in the presidential primary voting by over 500k. Despite demographic trends, Georgia won't turn blue until 2020 at the earliest - voting against Trump in Georgia won't matter thanks to the Electoral College system.
 
Bubba said:
I could have easily voted for Biden over Trump. But, with it being Hillary versus Trump, I just won't vote in the Presidential election (I couldn't vote for Hillary even if I was holding my nose). Plus, despite some rumblings in the press and the blogsphere that Georgia could turn blue this time, it just won't happen - Obama isn't at the top of the ballot, Senator Isakson (R) is safe, no minorities are on the Dem ticket for statewide office, and Rs outnumbered Ds in the presidential primary voting by over 500k. Despite demographic trends, Georgia won't turn blue until 2020 at the earliest - voting against Trump in Georgia won't matter thanks to the Electoral College system.
Click to expand...

Trump and Clinton are not the only names on the ballot. Vote for one of the others that don't have a snowball's chance of winning just to voice your opposition to those two.
 
michaelskis said:
Trump and Clinton are not the only names on the ballot. Vote for one of the others that don't have a snowball's chance of winning just to voice your opposition to those two.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to cast a vote for a third party candidate when I don't agree with most of their platform (which would be all of the ones I'm aware of).

The state, and, more especially, the local races have a lot more direct impact on my life - I'll worry about them and not waste my time with the clown show of a Presidential race this time around (no offense intended to clowns).
 
Bubba said:
I'm not going to cast a vote for a third party candidate when I don't agree with most of their platform (which would be all of the ones I'm aware of).

The state, and, more especially, the local races have a lot more direct impact on my life - I'll worry about them and not waste my time with the clown show of a Presidential race this time around (no offense intended to clowns).
Click to expand...
I am sure there will be some independent candidates on the ballot.

Otherwise, write in the name of the person who you think should be president. If it is Bernie, write his name in. If it is Jeb Bush, write in Bernie. But please don't stay silent.
 
michaelskis said:
I am sure there will be some independent candidates on the ballot.

Otherwise, write in the name of the person who you think should be president. If it is Bernie, write his name in. If it is Jeb Bush, write in Bernie. But please don't stay silent.
Click to expand...

Why not? It's been proven that for the most part, your vote is worthless. I won't be voting in this election, because I refuse to support either of these trash candidates. That's my right, and I'm going to exercise it. If I write in anything it'll be "F**k Off" because that's how much I truly care about this election at this point. Both Clinton and Trump belong behind bars not in the Oval Office.
 
AG74683 said:
Why not? It's been proven that for the most part, your vote is worthless. I won't be voting in this election, because I refuse to support either of these trash candidates. That's my right, and I'm going to exercise it. If I write in anything it'll be "F**k Off" because that's how much I truly care about this election at this point. Both Clinton and Trump belong behind bars not in the Oval Office.
Click to expand...

No argument there. I just think that we should make our voice heard regardless of the situation. If enough people do this, it will send a message to both parties that we won't play their games anymore.
 
What I find so amazing (well, not really, the American people are pretty uninformed as a whole), is that there is so much angst about the presidential race and who will win but yet the people that continually #@%& us are the folks we keep electing to congress. Until that changes it doesn't really matter.
 
YEAH!!

MD Planner said:
What I find so amazing (well, not really, the American people are pretty uninformed as a whole), is that there is so much angst about the presidential race and who will win but yet the people that continually #@%& us are the folks we keep electing to congress. Until that changes it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

{MIC DROP!!!}

:brofist::fire::yoda:
 
michaelskis said:
No argument there. I just think that we should make our voice heard regardless of the situation. If enough people do this, it will send a message to both parties that we won't play their games anymore.
Click to expand...

Unless you are in a true battleground state, there's no message to send until the electoral college goes away.
 
MD Planner said:
What I find so amazing (well, not really, the American people are pretty uninformed as a whole), is that there is so much angst about the presidential race and who will win but yet the people that continually #@%& us are the folks we keep electing to congress. Until that changes it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

POST OF THE ELECTION RIGHT THERE!*


Bubba said:
Unless you are in a true battleground state, there's no message to send until the electoral college goes away.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that voting for someone else will have an impact on the outcome of the election, but if both Trump and Clinton get lower than expected % of the popular vote, I think that the media and the political establishment will start to take notice.
 
MD Planner said:
What I find so amazing (well, not really, the American people are pretty uninformed as a whole), is that there is so much angst about the presidential race and who will win but yet the people that continually #@%& us are the folks we keep electing to congress. Until that changes it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but it seems like local politicians are all the same cardboard cut out. Parks and Rec. had a really good portrayal of this during the season that Ben and April worked on that congressman's campaign in DC. Around here, you have two flavors of politician. Either they are enormously overqualified and know how to do just enough to stay elected or they are complete idiots and cannot even answer the simplest question.

The thing is, I'm not entirely sure I favor term limits for congress. It takes time to build up your reputation and make a name for yourself to gear up for a Presidential run. With stiff term limits, how could we expect folks to gather enough experience to fully comprehend the workings of the presidential office?
 
"The most qualified candidate to seek the white house." That was the line that President Obama used in his endorsement of Hillary Clinton today. :victory: I think this statement alone proves that Obama does not have the mental capacity to be President of the United States and he should resign immediately. There is also debate about the jacket that she wore and how she is a hypocrite because she was talking about equality. I don't care if the jacket was loaned or not, it retails for at least $7,000. All the furniture in my living room cost me less than that. However, in the grand scheme of things, and to use her words, What does it matter. We all know she is a hypocrite, that there has been voter fraud at multiple levels to give her the nomination, and that the corruption in her family and team is legendary. The cost... and color of her jacket does not change any of that.

Personally, I really hope that Bernie gets the nomination or decides to run as a 3rd party candidate. I think he would destroy both Trump and Clinton. I might even vote for him. (Although I still have concerns regarding his economic policy)
 
michaelskis said:
Personally, I really hope that Bernie gets the nomination or decides to run as a 3rd party candidate. I think he would destroy both Trump and Clinton. I might even vote for him. (Although I still have concerns regarding his economic policy)
Click to expand...

I really don't blame folks for not liking Clinton. Hell, I don't really like her.

My real hope over the last couple of months was for a brokered Democratic Convention in which Joe Biden stepped in as a consensus candidate, given that I didn't see a route to victory for Sanders and am less than excited about Clinton. Biden could easily beat Trump.

The nice thing about economic policy is that the President has little to do with it. I've told many people that with reservations similar to yours--to look at what could realistically change. When you do that, Bernie's platform becomes very appealing to a broad spectrum of voters.

There's a part of me that is quite sad that I won't get to see Trump & Sanders head-to-head in a debate, because you know that would be fun to watch.
 
Back
Top