You don't like any of the Presidential Candidates (1 Viewer)

[Mister CIA]

Makes me think of that Richard Pryor movie where he encourages everyone to vote for "none of the above" and "None" wins. Ain't nobody winning this thing. We are all losers here.

I fervently believe that "none of the above" needs to be an option on ballots, which would probably prompt Hillary to legally change her name to "none of the above."

The political system must have a means for voters to express that they have no confidence in the Democratic and Republican parties. We're being ruled by hoarders.

 

[Fennis]

Makes me think of that Richard Pryor movie where he encourages everyone to vote for "none of the above" and "None" wins. Ain't nobody winning this thing. We are all losers here.

I fervently believe that "none of the above" needs to be an option on ballots, which would probably prompt Hillary to legally change her name to "none of the above."

The political system must have a means for voters to express that they have no confidence in the Democratic and Republican parties. We're being ruled by hoarders.

In Canada Sheldon Bergson changed his last name to Znoneofthe. First name, Above

I'd vote for that dude.

 

[tommyboy]

I still hate them all today.

 

[whoknew]

Makes me think of that Richard Pryor movie where he encourages everyone to vote for "none of the above" and "None" wins. Ain't nobody winning this thing. We are all losers here.

I fervently believe that "none of the above" needs to be an option on ballots, which would probably prompt Hillary to legally change her name to "none of the above."

The political system must have a means for voters to express that they have no confidence in the Democratic and Republican parties. We're being ruled by hoarders.

Just don't vote.

 

[chet]

Bloomberg has said that he will run if Bernie and Trump win their respective party nominations. The question is, who does that hurt more? My guess is Bernie as many will be voting with an anybody but Trump mentality. Could Bloomberg win? History says no but who knows if he runs against those two.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I like Gary Johnson

My vote will likely land here again.

I really wanted to like him but just couldn't do it. While I like his stance on issues, he has put so little effort in detailing his plans that it's hard to take him seriously. Trump provides more details than he does.

While I don't love any of them, I'll likely vote for the Republican candidate.

As we've learned from Obama, it's idiotic to vote for someone based on what they "say" they will do. Details are pointless. No one has any plans, and any details offered are worth zero... once in office they'll all have to capitulate to the machinery. Promises can't possibly be kept.

More useful to vote for someone based on what they believe in, how they act, and if you think they'll be able to maintain their principles in the face of opposition. That way when the do have to compromise you'll feel at least they'll stand up for the right things and not give away the store.

This isn't true, and frankly it's the sort of thing people say if they only follow election politics. Which actually is understandable, elections and fun and easy to understand while the legislative and administrative processes are dry and boring.

But candidates usually at least try to do most of what they say they'll do. Obama is no exception, he's done a lot of the stuff he said he'd do- troops out of Iraq, health care legislation, removing most of the Bush tax cuts on the super-rich, new restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, green energy push, getting rid of mandatory minimums, and so on. Here's the Politifact Obameter, rating 45% of his promises as having been kept, 25% of them as having been partially reached through compromise, 6% stalled and 2% in the works. That leaves only 22% as "broken," and even some of those were attempted before being rebuffed without the possibility of compromise by Congress (closing Gitmo is the most obvious example).

Bottom line is that for better or worse these people do a lot of what they say they'll do and they try to do almost all of it. So it's worth listening to what they say.

 

[El Floppo]

Bloomberg has said that he will run if Bernie and Trump win their respective party nominations. The question is, who does that hurt more? My guess is Bernie as many will be voting with an anybody but Trump mentality. Could Bloomberg win? History says no but who knows if he runs against those two.

I think there's enough discontent from both parties, and Bloomberg crosses the political lines just enough, that he'd put a dent in both. He was a "republican" mayor, here in NYC.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Bloomberg has said that he will run if Bernie and Trump win their respective party nominations. The question is, who does that hurt more? My guess is Bernie as many will be voting with an anybody but Trump mentality. Could Bloomberg win? History says no but who knows if he runs against those two.

So Bloomberg enters - because he doesn't want Trump to win. Then Sanders supporters vote for Bloomberg - because they don't want Trump to win. And then Trump wins?

 

[Phil Elliott]

The memes the kids are making on this election are hilarious. I like the Sanders memes the best so I go with him (although the "I trust THIS more than Hillary" ones are great.).

I would instantly change my vote Hillary if there was a provision that should something happen to her, Bill steps back in, was approved.

My hope is that Bill just secretly tells her what to do. No shtick.

Blumenthal is already doing it.

 

[NREC34]

I like Gary Johnson

My vote will likely land here again.

I really wanted to like him but just couldn't do it. While I like his stance on issues, he has put so little effort in detailing his plans that it's hard to take him seriously. Trump provides more details than he does.While I don't love any of them, I'll likely vote for the Republican candidate.

As we've learned from Obama, it's idiotic to vote for someone based on what they "say" they will do. Details are pointless. No one has any plans, and any details offered are worth zero... once in office they'll all have to capitulate to the machinery. Promises can't possibly be kept.

More useful to vote for someone based on what they believe in, how they act, and if you think they'll be able to maintain their principles in the face of opposition. That way when the do have to compromise you'll feel at least they'll stand up for the right things and not give away the store.

This isn't true, and frankly it's the sort of thing people say if they only follow election politics. Which actually is understandable, elections and fun and easy to understand while the legislative and administrative processes are dry and boring.

But candidates usually at least try to do most of what they say they'll do. Obama is no exception, he's done a lot of the stuff he said he'd do- troops out of Iraq, health care legislation, removing most of the Bush tax cuts on the super-rich, new restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, green energy push, getting rid of mandatory minimums, and so on. Here's the Politifact Obameter, rating 45% of his promises as having been kept, 25% of them as having been partially reached through compromise, 6% stalled and 2% in the works. That leaves only 22% as "broken," and even some of those were attempted before being rebuffed without the possibility of compromise by Congress (closing Gitmo is the most obvious example).

Bottom line is that for better or worse these people do a lot of what they say they'll do and they try to do almost all of it. So it's worth listening to what they say.

Don't you know that guy is totally impartial and doesn't "root for laundry"? He even said so awhile back. No reason he'd be biased about Obama.