Vote for a president of USA. 2016 election.

[LeBrok]

Let's have some fun and see who Eupidia's members would elect the new president of US of America.

[LeBrok]

I have to admit, I don't really like any of them. I voted Rubio, as the one closer to the center, still having some chance of winning if super delegates choose so, and as a lesser evil. I don't think any of them is a good material for a leader. I would rather pick Obama or Romney from last election. On brighter side we have one billion dollar worth of reality show for a whole year paid by candidates and their faithful.

[Angela]

You forgot Kasich, who would be my first choice, but it doesn't matter because he doesn't stand a chance. Of the remaining ones which you have listed, Rubio is the least bad option for me as well.

As God is my judge, if it comes down to Hillary versus Trump, for the first time in my adult life I'll sit out an election. I couldn't bear to vote for either one. (Trump isn't right wing, for what it's worth; he's just a con man and a blowhard playing the xenophobe card; he gave money to and supported liberal causes his entire life. If I were the type to go in for conspiracy theories I'd say he and Hillary cooked this up together. If you feed people's fears and prejudices they'll vote for you even if it's blatantly obvious you're a liar and an opportunist.)

[Fire Haired14]

As God is my judge, if it comes down to Hillary versus Trump, for the first time in my adult life I'll sit out an election. I couldn't bear to vote for either one. (Trump isn't right wing, for what it's worth; he's just a con man and a blowhard playing the xenophobe card; he gave money to and supported liberal causes his entire life. If I were the type to go in for conspiracy theories I'd say he and Hillary cooked this up together. If you feed people's fears and prejudices they'll vote for you even if it's blatantly obvious you're a liar and an opportunist.)

So true....

[Maleth]

Rubio? Is he the one who got back to Trump for having small hands therefore a small penis? Is this the style of how future American presidents should lead the wealthiest nation on earth? - In my opinion Hillary with all her downfalls is the only person that can qualify. Trump is a sad sad story and bewlidered how so many American people can genuinely think he is fit for office.....very worrisome indeed. Another thing that show the political spectrum in the USA is changing is having a self confessed socialist like Sanders running for leader and not doing too badly. I thought socialism was a taboo word in the USA. Seems like not anymore. There must be some valid reason for it.

[Maciamo]

I chose Bernie Sanders, although I would have preferred Michael Bloomberg if he had run (he just announced today that he wouldn't run). If not Sanders, then I'd go with Clinton.

I think that Ted Cruz is the worst candidate (fundamentalist Christian + too anti-government), followed by Trump.

The New York Times published an interesting comparison of the percentages of lies, truths and half-truths in the statements made by each of the candidates since 2007.

Here a chart showing where candidates stand on important issues.




Like most Western/Northern Europeans, I am am in favour of abortion and same-sex marriage and of stricter gun control, so I could only vote for a Democrat.

Climate change is possibly the most important issue for this presidential election, and here is where Democratic candidates stand.

[Promenade]

Ahahaha, this really is an unfortunate pool of candidates, though I'm sure Canadians thought similarly with Harper and Trudeau for PM. In reality the executive branch here isn't as powerful as it is presented to be. This is a very important and interesting election though, we are seeing the revolt of populist forces in each party against the establishment. It would be fascinating to see what would happen if Trump or Sanders were elected. I'm sure some here may even consider either frightening but it really is a unique election. If you view this as a non partisan, the election so far has been very intriguing.

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.

Yet all this money and influence has been hijacked from two relative outsiders on both sides, its extraordinary to consider. I'm sure either would have a very hard time doing anything as president since the legislature would be incredibly hostile toward them. We probably wont ever see such a political revolt in America like this again if one is elected due to how little influence they'd have.

[DuPidh]

Let's have some fun and see who Eupidia's members would elect the new president of US of America.

TRUMP for President!
Its the person that has most chances of being elected! America today has become Mexico's playground. Mexican women get pregnant like crazy in Mexico, in USA and deliver their babies in American soil dumping the financial responsibility of raising them, to the american public. Mexican drug dealers have caused and continue to cause thousand of victims daily. The way Mexicans are multiplying in USA has reached epidemic proportions and only a Wall resembling Chinese wall might slow it a bit down, but there is no way of stopping it!
Mexico is draining USA and only Trump with our support can do something about it. As Trump has said Mexicans are the worst rapists! America is at the moment being raped by Mexicans.
Muslims in the other hand are the worst! They have embraced terror and killed Americans.
Its the last chance to make a stand to protect America. If Democrats win this election cycle the process of mexicanisation of America is in full force ahead.
If you know somebody who votes in USA ask them to do the right thing: Vote TRUMP!

[Angela]

TRUMP for President!
Its the person that has most chances of being elected! America today has become Mexico's playground. Mexican women get pregnant like crazy in Mexico, in USA and deliver their babies in American soil dumping the financial responsibility of raising them, to the american public. Mexican drug dealers have caused and continue to cause thousand of victims daily. The way Mexicans are multiplying in USA has reached epidemic proportions and only a Wall resembling Chinese wall might slow it a bit down, but there is no way of stopping it!
Mexico is draining USA and only Trump with our support can do something about it. As Trump has said Mexicans are the worst rapists! America is at the moment being raped by Mexicans.
Muslims in the other hand are the worst! They have embraced terror and killed Americans.
Its the last chance to make a stand to protect America. If Democrats win this election cycle the process of mexicanisation of America is in full force ahead.
If you know somebody who votes in USA ask them to do the right thing: Vote TRUMP!

My goodness, you're not a Mexican then? You're here masquerading under a false flag? Or are you a self-hating Mexican? Anyway, obviously you haven't seen the polls where Trump would lose in any head to head against either of the Democratic candidates.

Also as to Trump, he's employed foreign workers his entire life, because they're cheaper. He's a fake and a fraud. He's bilked his workers, the people he got to pay for his fake Trump University, and his creditors. You know what you call someone who knows all that and believes his promises? Stupid, that's what.

Every single one of the Republican candidates is against unregulated immigration; the difference is that the rest of them don't pretend that the American people would ever permit the wholesale rounding up and deportation of twelve million men, women, and children.

His voters are the same kind of blue collar, uneducated men (both Republicans and Democrats) who voted in Hitler and the Nazis. Fortunately, there's no way he could win in a general election. Unfortunately, if he's the nominee, and he may be, because he wasn't called out early enough, he'll guarantee the presidency to Hillary Clinton, who in addition to the very real possibility that she'll be indicted for misuse of security information, has, in order to secure the black vote, promised massive increases in welfare spending of various sorts.

Bernie Sanders is an honest man, but he's an out and out socialist whose biggest supporters are middle and upper class white college students living off their daddies who want lots of free stuff forever...them and people who've never run a business in their lives. *Well, I take that back. Ben and Jerry of Ben and Jerry ice cream fame are behind him...ex 60's drugged out hippies who turned to capitalism.

As for Ted Cruz, don't get me started. He's a brilliant guy, unlike Trump, but another snake oil salesman promising what he can't deliver. His voters have no real concept of how the system works. They're furious because they elected people to Congress running on a very conservative agenda and those people couldn't deliver the goods. What they're too emotional about the issues to understand is that in order to get laws passed you need control of both houses of Congress and a President who won't veto the laws you passed. In other words you don't need just the House of Representatives, which they had, but a Senate (which they got only very late in Obama's term) where they would have the 2/3 majority needed to over-ride a presidential veto. By voting for him in the primary they're once again guaranteeing a Democratic president who will block anything the conservatives want. In addition to all of that, anyone with a modicum of street smarts who has been paying attention can see that he's dishonest, and not a man of his word. That's why all his Republican colleagues hate him, not because of his ideas. He would be another Nixon, highly intelligent and capable, but a man with no code of ethics.

Meanwhile, the polls indicate that if there were a referendum today and Americans of both parties could choose the President, it would be John Kasich, which makes sense because he's the most centrist candidate. Unfortunately, he's too moderate for the Republican ideologues who vote in the Republican primaries for their candidate.

You know, the founding fathers had this right as well. George Washington warned against the dangers of the party system. I've read them very carefully, and have always marveled at their acumen, but I didn't pay enough attention to that. He was absolutely right. Too bad they didn't address it in some way.

[bicicleur]

none of them are fit
it will be an interesting campaign

[sparkey]

None of those listed. The reasonable candidates (Paul for Republicans, Webb for Democrats) dropped out already, leaving only ultra-nationalist Trump, ultra-conservative Cruz, ultra-hawk Rubio, clueless Kasich (who you forgot, lol), ultra-left Sanders, and ultra-corrupt Clinton. No thank you.

The only interesting contest for me is now the Libertarian Party contest between Gary Johnson and John McAfee.

[sparkey]

You know, the founding fathers had this right as well. George Washington warned against the dangers of the party system. I've read them very carefully, and have always marveled at their acumen, but I didn't pay enough attention to that. He was absolutely right. Too bad they didn't address it in some way.

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.)

[Angela]

None of those listed. The reasonable candidates (Paul for Republicans, Webb for Democrats) dropped out already, leaving only ultra-nationalist Trump, ultra-conservative Cruz, ultra-hawk Rubio, clueless Kasich (who you forgot, lol), ultra-left Sanders, and ultra-corrupt Clinton. No thank you.

The only interesting contest for me is now the Libertarian Party contest between Gary Johnson and John McAfee.

No different than my staying home altogether...a totally thrown away vote.

You can see how multi-party countries work by looking at a state like Israel, although the same pattern can be observed in European countries. Wacko minority parties can hold the system hostage. (That's how the Nazi's were able to get power, and why modern Israel is imprisoned by antique religious laws.)

In some versions, there's complete paralysis. In others, each legislative crisis means that the whole coalition can collapse. You wind up getting leaders who are only supported by a small section of the voting public, leading to instability.

American democracy has been stable for so long because a two party system was conducive to moderation.

In fact, that's how we got Trump: too many contenders for the Republican nomination because they all thought Hillary Clinton would be easy to beat. So, even though Trump has a ceiling of about 35%, some of which, in some states, comes from Democratic ranks, he could win. Or, they can split it up, leading to a contested convention, which means deals and coalitions, with whose results nobody will be happy.

It's a recipe for disaster.

This is sort of poly sci 101.

[Angela]

No different than my staying home altogether...a totally thrown away vote.

You can see how multi-party countries work by looking at a state like Israel, although the same pattern can be observed in European countries. Wacko minority parties can hold the system hostage. (That's how the Nazi's were able to get power, and why modern Israel is imprisoned by antique religious laws.)

In some versions, there's complete paralysis. In others, each legislative crisis means that the whole coalition can collapse. You wind up getting leaders who are only supported by a small section of the voting public, leading to instability.

American democracy has been stable for so long because a two party system was conducive to moderation.

In fact, that's how we got Trump: too many contenders for the Republican nomination because they all thought Hillary Clinton would be easy to beat. So, even though Trump has a ceiling of about 35%, some of which, in some states, comes from Democratic ranks, he could win. Or, they can split it up, leading to a contested convention, which means deals and coalitions, with whose results nobody will be happy.

It's a recipe for disaster.

This is sort of poly sci 101.

As for Ron Paul, he's a dangerously naive loon, and Webb was a total non-entity.

[sparkey]

No different than my staying home altogether...a totally thrown away vote.

Somebody in New York, telling somebody in California that their Presidential vote won't matter? Our heads are getting counted toward the Democratic electoral vote totals, whether we vote Republican, Libertarian, or whatever. That's the way the American electoral college system works. So why not vote for the candidate we like best? If a third party candidate gets unexpectedly high percentages, at least the political world may take note, quite possibly more than if the losing major party got a smidgen more.

You can see how multi-party countries work by looking at a state like Israel, although the same pattern can be observed in European countries. Wacko minority parties can hold the system hostage. (That's how the Nazi's were able to get power, and why modern Israel is imprisoned by antique religious laws.)

In some versions, there's complete paralysis. In others, each legislative crisis means that the whole coalition can collapse. You wind up getting leaders who are only supported by a small section of the voting public, leading to instability.

Most multi-party countries are stable. Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, etc. Those that are unstable would still be unstable with FPTP, because they have additional internal issues, like ethnic or religious strife. The modern United States is a great candidate for a country that could support a stable multi-party system. We're more like the Netherlands than we are like Israel.

American democracy has been stable for so long because a two party system was conducive to moderation.

I don't know where to begin. America is not moderating, it's polarizing, and this has been measured. Also, we haven't exactly been stable, we've even had one of the largest civil wars ever.

In fact, that's how we got Trump: too many contenders for the Republican nomination because they all thought Hillary Clinton would be easy to beat. So, even though Trump has a ceiling of about 35%, some of which, in some states, comes from Democratic ranks, he could win. Or, they can split it up, leading to a contested convention, which means deals and coalitions, with whose results nobody will be happy.

It's a recipe for disaster.

This is sort of poly sci 101.

What? Clearly in a two-party system, somebody like Trump can take over a party, because, you know, it's happening. And in a multi-party system, you're more likely to have reasonable alternatives for those in the party who don't support such a person. How are you arguing for a two-party system here? Don't treat me like you're teaching me something if you can't even back up your own position.

As for Ron Paul, he's a dangerously naive loon, and Webb was a total non-entity.

Ron Paul wasn't running this year. I assume you mean Rand Paul. How is he "a dangerously naive loon"? His positions come across as largely well thought-out and within reason to me; I really only took issue with his immigration stance. He's not a conspiracy theorist or a historical revisionist or a demagogue or anything like that.

I can't disagree that Webb failed to make an impact, though. I think the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left for him.

[Aaron1981]

Let's have some fun and see who Eupidia's members would elect the new president of US of America.

Some Canadians have far too much to say in other country's issues. Let's worry about that fool you elected in my wonderful country shall we?

[LeBrok]

None of those listed. The reasonable candidates (Paul for Republicans, Webb for Democrats) dropped out already, leaving only ultra-nationalist Trump, ultra-conservative Cruz, ultra-hawk Rubio, clueless Kasich (who you forgot, lol), ultra-left Sanders, and ultra-corrupt Clinton. No thank you.

The only interesting contest for me is now the Libertarian Party contest between Gary Johnson and John McAfee.

No, I didn't forget. The only candidates listed are the once with reasonable chance of winning. As I said in my first posts, it's only for fun and for most rational people the election is between the bigger and lesser evil. The damage control mode.

[sparkey]

No, I didn't forget. The only candidates listed are the once with reasonable chance of winning. As I said in my first posts, it's only for fun and for most rational people the election is between the bigger and lesser evil. The damage control mode.

They all look just about as evil as one another from where I'm standing. Better to go with the best candidate.

[Angela]

@Sparkey,

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.

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.)

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.

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.

@ Aaron,
I'm sorry, I think I missed something. It's not LeBrok's country as well?

@LeBrok,
As always, the voice of reason. :)

Now I think I'll turn on the news and get more depressed!

[LeBrok]

Some Canadians have far too much to say in other country's issues. Let's worry about that fool you elected in my wonderful country shall we?

I elected?!!! I voted PC.

In international politics US has a leading roll in the West, the rest of the West, the loose coalition or NATO as whole, follows. It means that US can easily drag Canada into a war, like in case of Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan. Either you were for or against, it affected you and all of us. US is also our biggest trading partner and decisions made by its presidents affects us greatly. Many Canadians, directly through self investing or indirectly through pension plans, have their money invested in US economy. Internal polices of US president and his party can influence greatly wealth of Canadians. Environmental decisions, like recent Obama's veto on pipeline from Alberta to Texas was a hit for our oil economy and GDP. On these grounds it is utmost importance for Canadians to pay attention what is going on behind our Southern border.
Sure, we don't have any say in US election, but it affects us a lot. If you think you are insulated from it and shouldn't care, think again...

[LeBrok]

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.

[LeBrok]

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.

[sparkey]

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.

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.

[LeBrok]

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. :)

[LeBrok]

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.