Politics Vote for a president of USA - 2016 election

Pick a president.

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 11 20.8%
  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 11 20.8%
  • Ted Cruz

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • Marco Rubio

    Votes: 4 7.5%
  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 24 45.3%

  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
They all look just about as evil as one another from where I'm standing. Better to go with the best candidate.
I would say it should be more of contextual choice. When two main candidates have same chance of winning and every vote counts, one should forget about voting for his own candidate, of third party, and try skewing vote for the lesser evil. When one candidate has a commanding lead, and your vote doesn't count in this case, vote for your own candidate of third party to make a statement.
 
Ahahaha, this really is an unfortunate pool of candidates, though I'm sure Canadians thought similarly with Harper and Trudeau for PM.
I'm usually leftist on social issues, and conservative in fiscal ones. Having said that I believe that economy is the most important issue of all and I tend to vote conservative. Why? Because in good economy, when most people are well off, people turn to be more socially liberal. Other words, when people have a good life, they are more tolerant, inclusive, open minded, less aggressive, compassionate, sharing, etc.




Neither Trump nor Sanders seem to be supported by any considerable establishment, Trump being self funded and Bernie being supported by mostly average people.(Although Bernie has been given money by Google and many Unions and Trump could arguably be called establishment himself. Still, the case could be made that he is a different type of "elite" than what is typical). Meanwhile, Kasich (who used to work for Lehman brothers) and Hillary have both been given large donations from George Soros (Greg Wendt and Mark Kvamme have certainly been much more important donors to Kasich). Hillary also has historical support from almost all companies represented on the DOW Jones. Rubio and Cruz have received large amounts from Goldman Sachs, in fact Cruz is even married to an employee. Rubio also seems to be getting cozy with the Koch brothers especially since he is Jeb Bush's protege.
Interesting background, thanks for sharing. So everyone has big business behind them but Sanders.
 
I didn't make up the negatives of multi-party democracies; there's a lot written about it. If you're really interested you can google it.

That's not an argument. It's just you assuming that the reason I don't agree with you about this is that I haven't read enough about it.

When you vote for a Libertarian, or a leftist votes for a Ralph Nader, you or he may experience a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling because you voted for the person with whose opinions you most agree, but you're also taking the risk of helping to elect someone whose opinions are totally antithetical to yours. When Evangelical Christians and extreme conservatives stayed home during the last Presidential election, they elected Barack Obama. I don't think they're happy with the eight years that followed. (Not that I think they learned the right lessons from that.)

You're describing the major reason that anything outside the two most dominant, polarized viewpoints goes unrepresented in a plurality FPTP system, which I would like to see gone. But I've also already said why it doesn't apply to me right now, so I'm going to go ahead and vote third party unless something changes.

If it turns out to be a Trump/Clinton election, and there's any chance Trump would get elected, despite my threat I'd probably hold my nose and vote for Clinton. On top of everything else, the man doesn't have the temperament or self-control to be president.

You may as well stay home. New York is counting for Clinton. :unsure:

If you're a Rand Paul supporter, then you probably tend toward isolationism. Nothing I say could ever sway you to see the danger in that. Politics is like religion; some people can't be persuaded to change their point of view once they're adults. They just want to fight. Under those circumstances, I don't.

Yeah, I'm not interested in turning this into a foreign policy argument either. I obviously disagree that Rand Paul's foreign policy is dangerous, or even that it could meaningfully be described as "isolationism" (which implies protectionism--Trump is more of an isolationist than Paul). But this clarifies that your beef with him is on foreign policy.
 
If it turns out to be a Trump/Clinton election, and there's any chance Trump would get elected, despite my threat I'd probably hold my nose and vote for Clinton.
I would guess that all democrats would go Clinton and half of conservatives too, just not to elect clown Trump. Plus the first woman president is an issue here too, giving an edge to Clinton. Unless most people dream of 4 years of top rated reality show, and nothing else matter. :)
 
Rubio? Is he the one who got back to Trump for having small hands therefore a small penis?
Yep, really immature and stupid of him. Obviously nobody wants a president with a small penis, lol.
 
Yep, really immature and stupid of him. Obviously nobody wants a president with a small penis, lol.

I guess he got tired of being called "little Marco". :)

I think he'll come to regret it. That one struck a chord with men, in particular, and I think it will be remembered when the dozens of insults Trump has hurled will be forgotten. Trump also won't let it go, always devoting a good couple of minutes to it in each speech, "defending" himself. That tells a lot right there. Any minute I expect Trump to come out waving a certificate from his doctor saying it's "HUGE"! :)

As far as gender is concerned, I couldn't care less whether a candidate is a woman or not. Younger women care even less. The gender problem revolves around Trump; he does terribly with women voters not because they want to vote for a woman, but because they hate him. I know there are women who support him but there's a big gender gap in terms of men versus women where his support is concerned. Just speaking anecdotally, I don't know a single woman, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, minority, white or whatever, who can stand him.

Ed. This is the context:

Rubio: “He’s always calling me Little Marco. And I’ll admit he’s taller than me. He’s like 6’2″, which is why I don’t understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5’2″. Have you seen his hands? They’re like this. And you know what they say about men with small hands? You can’t trust them.”

Of course he also said Rubio couldn't have gotten into the Wharton School of Business (I wonder if Trump was a legacy admission or his father bought at chair?), and made fun of the fact that he often drinks from a water bottle during debates.

"Trump: “I have never seen a human being sweat like this man sweats. … It looked like he had just jumped into a swimming pool with his clothes on.” (Trump then splashed water onstage yelling, “It’s Rubio!”)"

Now admit it, you can't look away. It's exactly like a reality TV show. You're laughing and then feel guilty about having laughed.

Bottom line, though, while he hurt Trump, he also hurt himself.
 
I guess he got tired of being called "little Marco". :)

I think he'll come to regret it. That one struck a chord with men, in particular, and I think it will be remembered when the dozens of insults Trump has hurled will be forgotten. Trump also won't let it go, always devoting a good couple of minutes to it in each speech, "defending" himself. That tells a lot right there. Any minute I expect Trump to come out waving a certificate from his doctor saying it's "HUGE"! :)

As far as gender is concerned, I couldn't care less whether a candidate is a woman or not. Younger women care even less. The gender problem revolves around Trump; he does terribly with women voters not because they want to vote for a woman, but because they hate him. I know there are women who support him but there's a big gender gap in terms of men versus women where his support is concerned. Just speaking anecdotally, I don't know a single woman, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, minority, white or whatever, who can stand him.

Ed. This is the context:

Rubio: “He’s always calling me Little Marco. And I’ll admit he’s taller than me. He’s like 6’2″, which is why I don’t understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5’2″. Have you seen his hands? They’re like this. And you know what they say about men with small hands? You can’t trust them.”

Of course he also said Rubio couldn't have gotten into the Wharton School of Business (I wonder if Trump was a legacy admission or his father bought at chair?), and made fun of the fact that he often drinks from a water bottle during debates.

"Trump: “I have never seen a human being sweat like this man sweats. … It looked like he had just jumped into a swimming pool with his clothes on.” (Trump then splashed water onstage yelling, “It’s Rubio!”)"

Now admit it, you can't look away. It's exactly like a reality TV show. You're laughing and then feel guilty about having laughed.

Bottom line, though, while he hurt Trump, he also hurt himself.
I missed the context, as I don't watch the debates much. Trump might have indeed deserved Rubio's rebuttal. I just wish that candidates forgot about diminishing others and demagoguery, and concentrated on explaining their policy in detail. Explaining in simple but logical language too all, in good narrative style.
Would it work? For many like you and me yes, however debates are arranged having ordinary citizen in mind, and Trump, never mind how good businessman and president he could be, he seems to be a good salesman and a showman.

If it comes to Hillary and first female president, I'm with you on this issue. I'm just saying that many people will vote because they want this to happen finally and sooner the better. This might give few percentage point advantage to her over anyone else and cement her presidency.
 
I would guess that all democrats would go Clinton and half of conservatives too, just not to elect clown Trump. Plus the first woman president is an issue here too, giving an edge to Clinton. Unless most people dream of 4 years of top rated reality show, and nothing else matter. :)

I think you either don't live in USA or are a leftist. Outsourcing of well paying jobs ( manufacturing) has reached monumental proportions. Nothing is manufactured in the USA. Even plane manufacturing is headed to china. Middle class is decimated. For every low paying job created there are 5 illegal Mexicans at ready. So an average American has to compete with low cost oversees competitors and illegal Mexicans at home. That's why Tramp has gained so much support. Its not like everyone went crazy and support the lunatic Trump. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee she does not stand a chance to win against Trump. She does not has a solid reputation among white Americans. Trump appeals to unions with his anti Mexico, anti China rhetoric. Tariffs that he is promising to impose on American companies who outsource jobs are music in unionists. So Trump is not running on social issues like abortion, gays, or government spending to alienate democrats. He is running on the issues that democrats are hurt most. If you live in the USA you have noticed a sense of urgency and anxiety among democrats. They say it open in the interviews. Trump is able to get a big chunk of democrats.
 
I am in the United States, and do not like any of the Presidential candidates.
 
Parties arise naturally, regardless of whatever Washington wanted. The number of parties is dictated by the voting system. The problem in the United States isn't so much the existence of parties, but the existence of only two major parties. Multi-party systems encourage coalition building and agreement, which is why I'm in favor of changing the voting system to proportional representation. (Not to mention that I tend to be a third party voter anyway.)

A three party system like in the UK is probably better. However too many parties, like in Belgium, only causes confusion and forces parties into delicate coalitions, which sometimes makes it impossible to form a government.
 
A three party system like in the UK is probably better. However too many parties, like in Belgium, only causes confusion and forces parties into delicate coalitions, which sometimes makes it impossible to form a government.

I don't feel like the UK is a good example of an actual three party system, it's more of a two party system with some strong 3rd parties and regional parties. I also think that Belgium's problems extend far beyond it having multiple parties. But I get your point, and there are ways to discourage the number of parties from exploding without making a duopoly. Germany does that, for example. I'm not saying they have the perfect system, but it has that effect.
 
Nothing is manufactured in the USA.
If you have any interest of being threaded seriously, and before you fall in love with Trump (though this might be too late), please avoid making ridiculous statements like this, and read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States
And if you cut america from cheap exports to protect local manufacturing, keep in mind that US is the second largest exporter in the world. Interesting ha? It means that things are not only made in US but also the surplus is exported. If you play protectionist game, other countries will reciprocate with tariffs on American goods, and these exporting jobs will be lost. Do you really want this?
There is another effect of American wealth being invested around the globe, in factories and production in particular. This makes people in poor countries richer, and guess what. When they have money, they buy US products like Coca Cola, Starbucks, paints, Windows, tools, medication, patents, etc.

If you really want a debate how protectionism is good for US, please start from giving us an example of well run and rich country with economy insulated from the rest of the world. Good luck.
 
What is the attitude of each of those candidates to immigration ???
 
What is the attitude of each of those candidates to immigration ???

As I understand it:
Trump: Deport all illegals, ban all Muslims from entering, build a wall
Rubio: Potential citizenship for illegals, enforce laws, comprehensive reform
Cruz: No potential citizenship for illegals, stricter enforcement, build a wall
Kasich: Potential citizenship for illegals, enforce laws, comprehensive reform
Clinton: DREAM Act support, comprehensive reform
Sanders: Potential citizenship for illegals, DREAM Act support, no comprehensive reform (opposes guest workers)
Johnson: Increase legal immigration, but stricter enforcement of laws against existing illegals
McAfee: Increase legal immigration, potential citizenship for illegals
 
Meh, I'm disappointed with this election in general. I really can't tell whom is being racist, who has been slandered or what. I'm leaning towards Bernie Sanders because of his history with MLK so I think he has potential.
 
As I understand it:
Trump: Deport all illegals, ban all Muslims from entering, build a wall
Rubio: Potential citizenship for illegals, enforce laws, comprehensive reform
Cruz: No potential citizenship for illegals, stricter enforcement, build a wall
Kasich: Potential citizenship for illegals, enforce laws, comprehensive reform
Clinton: DREAM Act support, comprehensive reform
Sanders: Potential citizenship for illegals, DREAM Act support, no comprehensive reform (opposes guest workers)
Johnson: Increase legal immigration, but stricter enforcement of laws against existing illegals
McAfee: Increase legal immigration, potential citizenship for illegals

Thanks!

==================================

Interesting video about Trump:

 
That video is a response to this:

 
As I understand it:
Trump: Deport all illegals, ban all Muslims from entering, build a wall
Rubio: Potential citizenship for illegals, enforce laws, comprehensive reform
Cruz: No potential citizenship for illegals, stricter enforcement, build a wall
Kasich: Potential citizenship for illegals, enforce laws, comprehensive reform
Clinton: DREAM Act support, comprehensive reform
Sanders: Potential citizenship for illegals, DREAM Act support, no comprehensive reform (opposes guest workers)
Johnson: Increase legal immigration, but stricter enforcement of laws against existing illegals
McAfee: Increase legal immigration, potential citizenship for illegals


I see that America suffers from the same odd left-right cleavage on immigration as in Europe. I never understood why more rational, secular and liberal/libertarian parties, who favour abortion, gay rights, legalizing of soft drugs, fight global warming, and so on, are always so consistently in favour of letting poor immigrants flood the country. That doesn't make any sense. Most of the poor immigrants, be it Mexicans in the US, or Africans and Middle Easterners in Europe, are very religious and strongly against liberal values. So why would liberal politicians want to bring more of these people in their country ? That's total nonsense. If we want to become a fully liberated, secular and wealthy society, the first rule of immigration would be to ban poor, religious and socially conservative people. (The problem is that the US would lose more than half of its population, and it would be easier to just redraw the borders and integrate the Northeast and West Coast together with Canada).

If such a party existed in any Northwest European country it would be the most popular party. The closest I have found is the Vlaams Belang in Flanders, which are economically enlightened, liberal by American standards, but they take a too xenophobic approach against their fellow Europeans. Most anti-immigration parties (UK Independence Party, Front National in France, etc.) are very conservative socially and economically and anti-EU, just like the Republicans in the US. What people want is an anti-immigration party that is just the opposite on other issues (liberal, not conservative).

The main problem of the immigration debate anywhere, be it in Europe, America or Japan, is the lack of nuance. It is ridiculous to be simply for or against immigration. People see things in a too black or white manner. Most Japanese see all foreigners as gaijin, whether they are from Norway, China or Nigeria. It's an us against them mentality that does not allow nuance in political debates. Too many lower and middle class Europeans fall for the rhetoric of Far Right parties because they are fed up of Muslim immigrants. But these parties also want to take their country out of the EU and close their borders to everyone. Not rational or nuanced at all.

I personally have no problem, and even encourage migration within the EU and between developed countries. I also don't have any problem with granting work visas to qualified workers from developing countries where there is a need for it, but immigration policy should always favour workers from more secular countries (say China, Vietnam or Thailand) over religious and especially Muslim countries, because workers from the latter would have more problem integrating in a secular and liberal society.

The USA is a special case as it is the only Western country with "native" religious extremists (mostly evangelical Christians). The country has been split politically for many decades between the more European-like Northeast and West Coast, and the more religious and conservative/Republican rest of the country.

Northwest Europeans, and increasingly also Canadians, New Englanders and West Coast Americans are secular, socially liberal (favouring gay rights, abortion, etc.) and environmentally conscious. Yet a majority of them are also afraid of religious extremists because they threaten their values and lifestyle. So the only political party that could answer their needs is a secular, liberal, environmentally-conscious, (and pro-EU in Europe) party with a strong attitude against immigrants from poor, religious countries, but not against immigrants from other countries.
 
People of European descent actually skew Republican. It's the opposite for Democrats. The reason the south still has decent returns for Democrats is because as former slaves states they still have huge numbers of black people.

"Republicans hold a 49%-40% lead over the Democrats in leaned party identification among whites. The GOP’s advantage widens to 21 points among white men who have not completed college (54%-33%) and white southerners (55%-34%). The Democrats hold an 80%-11% advantage among blacks, lead by close to three-to-one among Asian Americans (65%-23%) and by more than two-to-one among Hispanics (56%-26%)."

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

Women also lean more Democrat than men.

Some of this is relatively recent as these things go. The south used to be solidly Democrat. As the Democrat party became increasingly affiliated with minority rights and high government spending on social welfare etc., the party affiliation in the south changed, especially because Republicans tend to favor local control over centralized bureaucracies.

Conversely, northeastern and midwestern states with large urban cities with high minority populations (people who went there from the south, usually, when these cities had a lot of factories) can skew Democrat because of black and Hispanic voting patterns, where middle class suburbs vote very differently. You can see this in the greater New York metropolitan area, where the inner city votes Democrat overwhelmingly, and the suburbs elect "moderate" Republicans quite often. Certain suburban counties are quite "Republican" as a matter of fact.

You do have people who vote Republican because they are small government, fiscal conservatives but social progressives to some extent.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 700865 times.

Back
Top