What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

is your November vote going to be for one candidate or against another (1 Viewer)

what is your main incentive for voting for your presidential candidate

  • I will vote for Trump mainly because of who he is and what he stands for

    Votes: 3 2.6%

  • I will vote for Trump mainly as a vote against Hillary

    Votes: 14 12.0%

  • I will vote for Hillary mainly because of who she is and what she stands for

    Votes: 20 17.1%

  • I will vote for HIllary mainly as a vote against Trump

    Votes: 26 22.2%

  • I will not vote for Trump or Hillary

    Votes: 54 46.2%
  • Total voters
    117
Righetti

Righetti

Footballguy
I will vote for Hillary mainly because of who Trump is, I don't love her but I despise him.. I know there are many people who will vote for Trump mainly because of who she is..

what says you?

 
I would have voted for any other major candidate for president over Hillary Clinton in this election. 

Including Sarah Palin, whose nomination I thought was the most cynical and ridiculous act of political pandering I would ever see.

Damn you GOP for making me vote for her.

 
I'm indifferent when it comes to Clinton as a person and I dislike her as a politician but I'm flat out embarrassed for our country that Trump is the republican nominee. I honestly think the damage is already done from an optics standpoint. 

If Johnson doesn't gain enough traction I have no choice but to vote for Clinton. I'll be treating my vote solely as a repudiation of bigotry and douchebaggery. 

 
I would honestly vote - though i promised myself, after Obama '08 gave us the everlasting gobstopper of nothingness, that i would not vote again until money was no longer speech - for the candidate most likely to hasten the fall of this democracy cycle (because i'm an old man who wants to see how that shakes out). I no longer know who that is.   :kicksrock:

 
wikkidpissah said:
I would honestly vote - though i promised myself, after Obama '08 gave us the everlasting gobstopper of nothingness, that i would not vote again until money was no longer speech - for the candidate most likely to hasten the fall of this democracy cycle (because i'm an old man who wants to see how that shakes out). I no longer know who that is.   :kicksrock:
Click to expand...
If I'm understanding you correctly, I know who that is.  It's Clinton.  She made a constitutional amendment undoing Citizens United a campaign issue and part of her acceptance speech.  But a constitutional amendment is unlikely to be the mechanism to undo Citizens United: another SCOTUS decision could do it more easily.  If you want that to happen, then you want Clinton appointing Supreme Court justices, not Trump. 

 
Aerial Assault said:
If I'm understanding you correctly, I know who that is.  It's Clinton.  She made a constitutional amendment undoing Citizens United a campaign issue and part of her acceptance speech.  But a constitutional amendment is unlikely to be the mechanism to undo Citizens United: another SCOTUS decision could do it more easily.  If you want that to happen, then you want Clinton appointing Supreme Court justices, not Trump. 
Click to expand...
Point is valid, but i hate thinking that way. It's treasonous that the next SC appointment is being held up by partisanship and just another argument for tearing it down. The SC worked best when the Prez tried to come up with nominees both sides could stomach - as Obama, to his credit, appeared to attempt - and we'd get stability overall and a surprise now & then. Gave vitality to jurisprudence. Our deader angels killed that, too.

 
wikkidpissah said:
Point is valid, but i hate thinking that way. It's treasonous that the next SC appointment is being held up by partisanship and just another argument for tearing it down. The SC worked best when the Prez tried to come up with nominees both sides could stomach - as Obama, to his credit, appeared to attempt - and we'd get stability overall and a surprise now & then. Gave vitality to jurisprudence. Our deader angels killed that, too.
Click to expand...
Okay.  Let me try it this way.  You seem to like Sotomayor and Kagan.  Clinton will appoint justices similar to them.  In addition, I don't see why you wouldn't simply vote for the party that is against the ridiculous obstruction of the Supreme Court nomination process.  :shrug:   

 
SameSongNDance said:
I'm indifferent when it comes to Clinton as a person and I dislike her as a politician but I'm flat out embarrassed for our country that Trump is the republican nominee. I honestly think the damage is already done from an optics standpoint. 

If Johnson doesn't gain enough traction I have no choice but to vote for Clinton. I'll be treating my vote solely as a repudiation of bigotry and douchebaggery. 
Click to expand...
Please vote for Donald, he will create a good paying job for you. Clinton will further damage the economy and ruin your future.

 
Aerial Assault said:
Okay.  Let me try it this way.  You seem to like Sotomayor and Kagan.  Clinton will appoint justices similar to them.  In addition, I don't see why you wouldn't simply vote for the party that is against the ridiculous obstruction of the Supreme Court nomination process.  :shrug:   
Click to expand...
No. i'm waaaay left, but i prefer my judges agenda-free. Hedging is for suckers and losers. Best people, chips fall where they may. 

.

 
It is more about the philosophy of Democrats vs. Republicans rather than the candidates themselves.  If a Republican hamburger ran against a Democratic sandwich, I would choose the sandwich.

 
wikkidpissah said:
No. i'm waaaay left, but i prefer my judges agenda-free. Hedging is for suckers and losers. Best people, chips fall where they may. 

.
Click to expand...
Sure.  I'm probably as "way left" as you are and I understand what you're saying about appellate jurists (particularly as I have to practice in front of some of them from time to time).  But despite many years of bleating to the contrary, judicial activism is more commonly found in conservative judicial circles than liberal ones.  I don't think Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor or Kagan have "agendas" beyond what any normal human being has.  I don't believe Garland does either.

In any event, if you want partisanship out of the federal judiciary, I can assure you that Democratic appointees are going to get you/us there much faster than Republican ones. 

 
The problem with voting for neither is sometimes the wrong candidate will get elected. Meaning if you are left-ish, and you vote for someone besides Hilary, that is essentially a vote for Trump.

 
I am voting for Hilary to avoid Trump.  I really dislike her but I don't think she is a threat to our democracy like Trump is.  

 
Aerial Assault said:
Sure.  I'm probably as "way left" as you are and I understand what you're saying about appellate jurists (particularly as I have to practice in front of some of them from time to time).  But despite many years of bleating to the contrary, judicial activism is more commonly found in conservative judicial circles than liberal ones.  I don't think Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor or Kagan have "agendas" beyond what any normal human being has.  I don't believe Garland does either.

In any event, if you want partisanship out of the federal judiciary, I can assure you that Democratic appointees are going to get you/us there much faster than Republican ones. 
Click to expand...
The End will get us there faster. Hate to play a generational card, but i was lucky enough to see the brief decade+ window where America had just won a war on two fronts and wanted to attack our every problem with equal vigor. Sacrifice and citizenship was as much a part of the gestalt as freeways and blastoffs. We saw, for the first & only time in human history, "of the people, by the people, for the people" begin to work. I could go into how and why that changed, but i'd lose the point. Along the way, suffice it to say, taking a side became more important than taking a stand. Of the people, by the people, for the people only works when people who fundamentally disagree work shoulder-to-shoulder toward best possible outcomes. Money-as-speech and liberty-as-license has killed that. We missed our chance, darn the luck, and will not meet so remarkable a set of circumstances again so it is time for the always-silly notion of capitalist democracy to join our previous answers upon the ashpile of history. My point was that I no longer know which major candidate gets us there faster. I imagine, though, as we have thru my lifetime - we'll get the president we deserve

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wikkidpissah said:
The End will get us there faster. Hate to play a generational card, but i was lucky enough to see the brief decade+ window where America had just won a war on two fronts and wanted to attack our every problem with equal vigor. Sacrifice and citizenship was as much a part of the gestalt as freeways and blastoffs. We saw, for the first & only time in human history, "of the people, by the people, for the people" begin to work. I could go into how and why that changed, but i'd lose the point. Along the way, suffice it to say, taking a side became more important than taking a stand. Of the people, by the people, for the people only works when people who fundamentally disagree work shoulder-to-shoulder toward best possible outcomes. Money-as-speech and liberty-as-license has killed that. We missed our chance, darn the luck, so time for the always-silly notion of capitalist democracy to join our previous answers upon the ashpile of history. My point was that I no longer know which major candidate gets us there faster. I imagine, though, as we have thru my lifetime - we'll get the president we deserve
Click to expand...
I completely respect your generational perspective; thanks for providing it.  :thumbup:  

I understand your disillusionment with the current political climate, and clearly I'm not going to persuade you that the Republican Party has taken more actions to destroy bipartisanship in the last two decades than the Democratic Party has.  I don't actually think that my argument on that point is all that difficult to make, but I certainly appreciate your well-expressed view that is not exactly contrary, but rather finding equal harm with both sides, or finding yourself unable to determine which side is which. The problem is that political immobilization helps no one.  If I knew nothing about the current situation and came into it with my generation's general level of analysis, reasonable aptitude and critical thinking, I'd like to think that I would conclude that voting for Clinton and other Democrats would ease or eliminate the paralysis.  But I've found that overcoming this divide and convincing people of that who are pretty much done with both parties is a very difficult climb.  

TLDR:  Good talk.   :)   

 
Mr. Ected said:
The problem with voting for neither is sometimes the wrong candidate will get elected. Meaning if you are left-ish, and you vote for someone besides Hilary, that is essentially a vote for Trump.
Click to expand...
Or if you vote for Johnson, it is essentially a vote for Johnson.

 
Mr. Ected said:
The problem with voting for neither is sometimes the wrong candidate will get elected. Meaning if you are left-ish, and you vote for someone besides Hilary, that is essentially a vote for Trump.
Click to expand...
Except that Johnson is pulling equally from both sides.  

 
Voting Hillary mainly because of Trump, she'll be adequate but hard to get excited about her. Would have voted for her over Cruz and probably anyone the Republican candidate except maybe Kasich.

 
Bogart said:
Voting Gary Johnson because I agree with him on more issues than the other two.
Click to expand...
If Gary Johnson could get the kind of traction nationally like he gets in the FFA he might actually have had a shot 

 
Voting for Hillary partly b/c of Trump and partly b/c she's a democrat.   It would take a highly moderate, quality candidate for me to vote republican.  

 
The General said:
Voting Hillary mainly because of Trump, she'll be adequate but hard to get excited about her. Would have voted for her over Cruz and probably anyone the Republican candidate except maybe Kasich.
Click to expand...
I liked Kasich too but he was as charismatic as a wet blanket

 
Righetti said:
If Gary Johnson could get the kind of traction nationally like he gets in the FFA he might actually have had a shot 
Click to expand...
Just needs money to buy some national advertising to increase his polling numbers.

If Johnson could get in the debates, he could make some serious noise. But his polling numbers are shrinking, and that's just sad to me. And all because of cash.

 
Voting for Trump. I can't stand Clinton and I believe she will just continue the status quo for this country and I don't think that is a good thing.  

I don't know what Trump will do. What I like about him is that he is not pandering to the ultra-Right and that is where a lot of the past GOP candidates lose me. I would like to think he  would be a Moderate and compromise on a lot of things to get "great deals" to use Trump-speak. But at worse, him being elected, would send a loud and clear message to both parties that the people want change from the business as usual and rethink what candidates they want to represent their respective parties.

That being said, I believe Clinton will win and it probably won't be close.

 
Voting Johnson as a vote against both of these turds. Although to be clear, Trump is much, much, much worse than Clinton and if I lived in a swing state I would probably have to vote for her as a vote against Trump.

 
Still undecided but I've gone from "I'm voting Trump" to "I'm voting Clinton or Johnson" over the last 3-4 months. I lean slightly right and loathe Clinton but Trump has proven to be so much of an racist blowhard that I cannot in good conscience vote for the man. Every time he opened his mouth I found myself making excuses for him and thought "at some point in the process he's going to present himself in a more sensible light and act presidential." Never happened and I realized I had been duped.

Don't like Clinton...at all but it's her or Johnson at this point. If the election were tomorrow I'd say Clinton would get my vote.

 
ChiefD said:
Just needs money to buy some national advertising to increase his polling numbers.

If Johnson could get in the debates, he could make some serious noise. But his polling numbers are shrinking, and that's just sad to me. And all because of cash.
Click to expand...
I'd love a third candidate and as president it might work but down party there is an issue in what three or more parties brings and that is the European model where you need these coalitions in parliament to establish a government and get anything done and those coalitions are messy and frail

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My vote will be FOR someone, probably a 3rd party or independent candidate.  Of course, Trump is going to win my state (TN) easily, so I might as well vote for whoever I actually like.  If I lived in a swing state, I'd seriously consider voting for Clinton because Trump seems like a sure-fire disaster.

 
Sorry to be literal - but everyone will be voting FOR someone.  I think someone mentioned it in one of the million threads we've had but I'd love to see them change voting to where we actually could vote against someone.  I'd vote against both of them.

 
AAABatteries said:
Sorry to be literal - but everyone will be voting FOR someone.  I think someone mentioned it in one of the million threads we've had but I'd love to see them change voting to where we actually could vote against someone.  I'd vote against both of them.
Click to expand...
Yeah....I'm told this isn't true....Tim should be able to clear it up for you.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BobbyLayne
Yes, Gen Z is staring at you. The question is why.
2
Replies
77
Views
2K
QUEZILLA
Q
Chadstroma
How to Tell Someone is a Good Person by the Small Things
2 3
Replies
104
Views
2K
elguapo07
elguapo07
Paddington
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2
9 10 11
Replies
528
Views
9K
Paddington
Paddington

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top