2016 Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
#6,577
#6,577
Mr_Henley said:
What I think is best for the country is more Libertarian principles, not socialist ones.

I'm voting for a Libertarian. Kills two birds with one stone.


Are you going to continue to make an ass out of yourself trying to convince me, and everyone else, that me choosing to cast a vote for the man who best represents my beliefs, for POTUS, is selfish and not simply being informed and opinionated?
Click to expand...

Being informed is irrelevant to the discussion, as I can be informed and still be selfish or unselfish. You've stated multiple times that YOU will cast YOUR vote to support YOUR beliefs. That is all about self... period.

I'm not trying guilt you, or insult you, or anything else. Again, I'm just stating my opinion on this specific topic. :hi:
 
#6,578
#6,578
Grand Vol said:
I would tend to agree with you, but I'll factor in ego as a huge part of that rhetoric. And I personally believe he would be the one to start slinging bombs in the name of "America!" if it came down to it.



Perhaps. You are spot on with the slimeball comments as I totally agree with you.



Rubio has just as much experience as Cruz or Trump on the world stage. I don't disagree he could lead us into another conflict, but I don't think he's as quick to do so as people claim. I think he is very intelligent and looks for multiple angles to problem solving. While a couple of posters give him crap about the Gang of 8 thing, it took a lot of balls to cross party lines and set that up. And it showed a maturity to actually compromise on something rather than the standard partisan "NO!" answer to everything that came from across the aisle.

Of the three, I'd almost see him as the least likely to start crap just because 'Murica! However, I don't think he would be a President to be trifled with either.
Click to expand...

I agree. He shows more maturity and understanding of issues and a knowledge of the land scape both domestically and on the international scale. I believe his decisions would be more intelligent than Bush's and more decisive than Obama's.
 
#6,580
#6,580
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Being informed is irrelevant to the discussion, as I can be informed and still be selfish or unselfish. You've stated multiple times that YOU will cast YOUR vote to support YOUR beliefs. That is all about self... period.

I'm not trying guilt you, or insult you, or anything else. Again, I'm just stating my opinion on this specific topic. :hi:
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I'm still casting a vote that is....mine?....on Election Day. My vote, will be for whomever I decide is the best candidate for President out of the names in front of me on that board/list. Sure, I'm selfish.
 
#6,581
#6,581
Mr_Henley said:
I literally said in my post I will vote for Rand Paul or Gary Johnson. One of the two is sure to be there on Election Day. I'm foregoing my concession to just vote republican simply to vote against a democrat. I vote for candidates I believe represent my personal values. I refuse to simply vote against someone who doesn't. It's why we're in the mess we have now.

Yes, I will "forego my opportunity" to simply vote Rubio to keep Hilary from winning the nomination. If the Republicans can't produce someone I can support as the nominee, they don't get my vote. Period.

I'm not expecting a perfect candidate. I disagree with Rand on some things, just like I actually agree with Bernie Sanders on a few things. I can compromise to support a candidate. Rubio, Cruz, Trump? No thanks. I'll vote Libertarian, which is much closer to my truest beliefs.
Click to expand...
Thank you - HRC
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,583
#6,583
Mr_Henley said:
I guess I was just born selfish, you know, with the right to cast my very own vote based on personal opinion or beliefs. Does someone want to go to the booth and press it for me? Just whomever has the best chance of winning within your preferred party, the party you predetermined to support, will do just fine.
Click to expand...

.When you get down to the nitty-gritty the two parties are equally scum. Those that vote for a R or a D are not voting for who they think is the best candidate, they are voting for the party, which imo is not very smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,584
#6,584
#6,586
#6,586
Gramps said:
.When you get down to the nitty-gritty the two parties are equally scum. Those that vote for a R or a D are not voting for who they think is the best candidate, they are voting for the party, which imo is not very smart.
Click to expand...

Which is my entire point. I agree.
 
#6,587
#6,587
Mr_Henley said:
Which is my entire point. I agree.
Click to expand...

I would agree, as well. The establishment of a viable 3rd party candidate will not happen overnight. If more people believed like you and cast their vote for the person they most closely identified with instead of the lesser of two evils because they had been convinced to do otherwise was wasting a vote. The process would be much quicker.

In other words, the act is anything but selfish and is forward thinking. Voting for someone just because they might have a chance of winning in this cycle ensures that you will get what you always get...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,588
#6,588
ClearwaterVol said:
I would agree, as well. The establishment of a viable 3rd party candidate will not happen overnight. If more people believed like you and cast their vote for the person they most closely identified with instead of the lesser of two evils because they had been convinced to do otherwise was wasting a vote. The process would be much quicker.

In other words, the act is anything but selfish and is forward thinking. Voting for someone just because they might have a chance of winning in this cycle ensures that you will get what you always get...
Click to expand...

A viable third party isn't happening within our lifetimes outside of an insurrection. Change begins at the primary level and if more people participated in the nominating process we could actually change the direction of the parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,590
#6,590
carlos86 said:
Christie & Bush camps are communicating via back channel about a shared goal: discrediting Rubio.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/0...t-boy-in-the-bubble-marco-rubio.html?referer=
Click to expand...

ylgod.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,591
#6,591
Rubio doing well after Iowa:

Rubio seeks to turn momentum from endorsements, fundraising into votes - AOL

On Wednesday, Rubio's campaign announced raising $2 million in the day following his stronger-than-expected third-place win in the Iowa caucuses.

Rubio also picked up the endorsements of seven current and former elected officials, including three prominent Pennsylvanians — Sen. Pat Toomey, Rep. Glenn Thompson, who will endorse him officially on Thursday, and former Sen. Rick Santorum, who endorsed Rubio on Fox News after announcing he was dropping his own bid for president.

Rubio got the backing of popular Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina on Tuesday, and will announce Rep. Lynn Westmoreland's endorsement on Thursday.
Click to expand...

So far he's staying above the mud slinging (as seen above) and taking the high ground to relay a message as opposed to attack his counterparts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,592
#6,592
#6,593
#6,593
ClearwaterVol said:
I would agree, as well. The establishment of a viable 3rd party candidate will not happen overnight. If more people believed like you and cast their vote for the person they most closely identified with instead of the lesser of two evils because they had been convinced to do otherwise was wasting a vote. The process would be much quicker.
Click to expand...

History does not support your position. People have been voting for independents and/or 3rd party candidates for decades and nothing has changed. When people don't vote for either primary party it's as much a reflection of "voting against either party" (which is what Henley and Gramps have alluded to) as it is voting for the non-party candidate. They are casting a vote due to their frustrations with either party (I get that), but that doesn't mean the other candidate is really any better. It's more of a "grass is always greener" or in VN terms "the back-up QB is always better" scenario. In most cases the 3rd party candidate hasn't even been fully vetted (i.e. has not participated in any debates, has not been the focus of any criticism, etc).

ClearwaterVol said:
In other words, the act is anything but selfish and is forward thinking. Voting for someone just because they might have a chance of winning in this cycle ensures that you will get what you always get...
Click to expand...

And this is not true, which is actually the point I am making. A number of voters chose to sit out or vote independent the last election because they couldn't get behind Romney... so it was actually what you are arguing for (to vote "your guy" regardless) that "gave us what we always get". And though it certainly can't be proven, it's my strong opinion that the country would have been much better off under a Romney administration the past 4 years. And it's not because he had an R beside his name, but because he was the better candidate of the two... period.

If a voter honestly can't discern any differences between two viable candidates, then by all means don't vote or vote independent. But don't kid yourself into thinking that by doing so your vote is making a difference, because the actual facts would suggest otherwise.
 
#6,595
#6,595
Uh oh, the "War on Women" is coming to a Democratic Party near you:

Feminists Melt Down Over Unlikable Hillary Clinton | RealClearPolitics

Poor Hillary. She just can’t seem to catch a break. Recall that in 2008, Hillary lost Iowa not only to a young, fresh, and charming Barack Obama. She also lost, albeit by one point, to the very smarmy John Edwards. This time around, when the stars were allegedly cast her way, a whopping 84 percent of Democratic voters under the age of 30 “Felt the Bern,” pulling for Sanders; Hillary, for her part, dominated the senior demographic.

This has led certain feminists to the verge of a nervous breakdown. Why, the chorus goes, is Bernie cast as the future, while Hillary gets painted as “the establishment”? Hillary Clinton is a woman, didn’t you notice? She is by her very nature oppressed; by definition, she cannot be the establishment. Never mind her questionable treatment of the many women who accused her husband of sexual assault; never mind her current classified e-mail quagmire, in which she may have put national security at risk. She is a woman, America. Everything else is chump change.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,597
#6,597
The former Pennsylvania senator, who dropped his presidential bid Wednesday, told co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski he is supporting Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign because the Florida senator is someone “who can work together with people.” But Santorum struggled to name one accomplishment Rubio has had in the Senate.
Story Continued Below


Read more: Santorum can't name any of Rubio's Senate accomplishments - POLITICO
 
#6,598
#6,598
Franklin Pierce said:
The former Pennsylvania senator, who dropped his presidential bid Wednesday, told co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski he is supporting Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign because the Florida senator is someone “who can work together with people.” But Santorum struggled to name one accomplishment Rubio has had in the Senate.
Story Continued Below


Read more: Santorum can't name any of Rubio's Senate accomplishments - POLITICO
Click to expand...

Which isn't very surprising. Santorum's support for Rubio, much like many of the other endorsements he has received, is a reflection of the establishment supporting one of their own. I don't dislike Rubio, but I am honestly torn between supporting the continuing establishment versus supporting some wild azz (Trump or Cruz) that will shake things up.
 
#6,600
#6,600
Franklin Pierce said:
The former Pennsylvania senator, who dropped his presidential bid Wednesday, told co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski he is supporting Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign because the Florida senator is someone “who can work together with people.” But Santorum struggled to name one accomplishment Rubio has had in the Senate.
Story Continued Below


Read more: Santorum can't name any of Rubio's Senate accomplishments - POLITICO
Click to expand...

I can name one right now. He was the author of legislation that prevents the federal government from bailing insurance companies who suffer because of Obamacare.

How Marco Rubio stealthily gutted ObamaCare
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top