Your Presidential Candidate Preference

AveryR1988 wrote:

If Bernie supporters were going to vote 3rd party because (well most I know can't stand Hillary either), I'm curious which one you think would fit better- Jill or Johnson?

In random news, I was rather disappointed to learn that PBS edited Jill's commentary on Hillary Clinton out of their television special.

There is no right answer for that question. It is subject to why they supported Sanders. Either way that question would make a great new thread.

Why not? ^^

So which candidate are you looking at, and why?

Just to give this little post a bit more substance, I'm working on a class for Let's Regroup at KoA on Voter's Awareness (it's party neutral). In the discussions we have up so far, I talk about generating your own policy algorithm (list everything you want the candidate to discuss, prioritize each one on a list of 1-10, grade the candidate's answer based on how much you like it on the 1-10, if anyone's interested I can link the videos I have up already, because it's a lot more complicated to explain without the video !), bias judging them by their appearance (well, okay, to be fair, that's more in relation to people at the local level, presidential candidates can't afford to look like joe-smoe), relevance of personality, and I'm working on the one that looks a bit more closely at candidates with flaws in their policies but you like almost everything else, etc.

The big names seem to be:

The obvious- Hillary and Trump

and then third party- Jill Stein and Gary Johnson

Jill and Gary haven't made themselves quite well known, but let's be fair, they are third party, it's harder for them to get their time in the spot light. Jill does have a PBS special, but it's been criticized for cutting out her talk about Hillary Clinton in the official release, so there's no telling what else they cut out. Gary Johnson is probably a bit more well known because of his campaign pushing that he's not Hillary or Trump.

More politics in our religious Temple, yaaay...

How about we consciously try and avoid inherently divisive topics and focus on the things we can unite over? Just my preference, as a Jedi...

tzb wrote: More politics in our religious Temple, yaaay...

How about we consciously try and avoid inherently divisive topics and focus on the things we can unite over? Just my preference, as a Jedi...

I was just about to post something similar. And also going to direct to the kind reminder provided by Proteus that this is a global forum

I agree totally tzb.

As an American, I am terrified about the choices we have. As A Jedi Knight, it is my responsibility to work with whatever system of government is in place.

So while I am in this Temple..There is No Politics: There is The Force!

As a Brit, I don't really follow American Politics (in fact I don't even fully understand how the heck your political system works, despite Avalonslight's best attempts to educate me on the matter).

I did stumble across this video the other day though, which amused me greatly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI

As a Dutchy i can only wish you all good luck , but frankly , i think you are screwed ..whoever you choose, i dont really see America as a democracy with only 2 parties and a strawman construction and thus disableling the real voters.

One day, slowly but surely, people will tire of it all and stop buying into the circus of ridiculous choices within a system that ultimately no longer benifits the people it was built to serve. Only when the people decide for themselves they no longer wish to buy into the crap placed upon our plates, and decide together not to vote, will anything substantial change...

That's really too bad that we feel we can't discuss this like adults.

Realistically, on some platform the US president does affect the wider global scale. It's a sad fact. The wrong decision (Bush and through Obama) can lead to wider implications (we went into Iraq [Bush], we were pulled out [Obama], ISIS rose in the chaos , sequence of events, not saying it was Obama's fault, even though he has blamed himself for it, that was a terrible situation, he couldn't' have realistically done anything about it. Yes, I know that was a run-on sentence, I don't care, lol) can have huge implications in other areas (ISIS attacking France, because they can ).

The discussion isn't just one for Americans. Just like Brexit wasn't just one for Europe, it actually impacts other areas in terms of trade agreements and what not.

I was kind of hoping that there would be more talk on Jill and Gary, tbh. Everyone knows about the other two. But I won't begrudge people an opportunity to talk about what they like or dislike in any candidate. I mean, a Jedi group is the one place I don't expect there to be "You're racist because you support Trump" or "You're in support of troops being murdered because you support Hillary". It's the one place in all of the internet I would expect people to just talk about the candidate and not the supporters.

*shrugs* Oh well. If it goes no where, it goes no where.

Obama has taken a lot of flak for things outside his influence, it doesn't help that the Republican party has actively undermined him at every turn then manipulated the media to make it look as though it was his fault...

America isn't a true democracy, it's a representative democratic republic, in a true democracy every citizen has a say, in our system we elect representatives that are supposed to represent our views/voice...unfortunately that is seldom the case thanks to Reagan allowing lobbyists to influence policy..money talks, feces walks...further corrupting our system is the electoral college...it doesn't matter who the more popular candidate is, it only matters who the electoral college likes...my mom's great uncle ran for president against Harry truman and won the popular vote there are even pictures in history books poking fun about it, showing truman stepping off a plane holding a newspaper headlined "Dewey defeats truman"....however Dewey was not popular with the electoral college (some of his proposed policies threatened their jobs) and therefore truman wound up winning the electoral vote and as a result the presidency...

Until we give everyone a say, and eliminate the 2 party system we will continue having election cycle like the one we're currently endurin....

All that being said, if everyone that voted wrote in bernie sanders he could still become president provided he had enough electoral support...as to whom i'm going with....still undecided, Hillary can't be trusted and trump is a pompous buffoon.....maybe we need a cooling off cycle, you know because we're breaking up with barack....

I see what you're trying to do Alethea. I feel somewhat torn in the middle here of "Great, more politics...yay" and "Well this is a place for learning and IF handled APPROPRIATELY a discussion of politics isn't out of place, in my opinion."

As such, I'm going to contribute to the discussion a little while remaining as polite and non-controversial as possible.

I know very little about Gary Johnson but what I do know I like. I'd feel inclined to vote for him if I thought it wouldn't be a waste of a vote. As much as I do not like Hillary I like her a lot more than Trump so I'll probably vote for Hillary because our 2 party system (which the country wasn't designed to support originally) is so broken that that's the only way I feel I can honestly say I opposed Trump. Granted, I'm of the opinion that our vote barely counts since the popular vote is merely a suggestion for the electoral college. Even if 98% of the time they side with the popular vote, the fact that they don't have to makes me feel like it's barely worth it.

My current preference is "none," given the choices. To quote the meme, I think America needs to be single for four years and find itself.

I think there's a rule that someone written in can't actually get it if they didn't pay for an opportunity to be on the Ballot. Which if it's a legit rule, that's stupid, IMO.

That said, I think that someone had talked about trying to pay for his name on the ballot at one point.

"A ballot is like a bullet. You don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket." - Malcolm X.

If you vote for Hillary, you're voting for the Dixiecrats. You're voting for Obama again, basically. The first mixed race president doesn't mean he was a good one. Nor does a woman, necessarily. You vote Repuiblican, and you're voting for a madman. So vote green, or vote for Hillary and you better hope the damn woman listens to your protests.

My biggest problem I have with the election, is the size of the USA. The values change all across the country for various reasons. No party or candidate is a good fit for the whole country. Our system is broken and corrupt. Each party and each candidate has something to bring to the table, but to choose what one is more important is unfair I feel.
Democrats - Welfare for the poor
Republicans - Corporate stability
Liberals - Deregulation
Green - Environment stability
Of course they can all be exploited, but having to choose between have a roof over my head, having a job, having clean air to breath, or safe medications.. it just isn't right. Besides the system has gotten so messed up being turned into a giant chess game, none of them can even get anything done. This is why me and my partner are planning on moving to Germany (not our first choice).



Edit: sorry it's so scatter brained, I'm still half awake and haven't had coffee yet.

As an Australian I don't have to have one... but being overly opinionated; I cannot get behind people who abuse speech for popularity, he seems irresponsible in his normal conduct compared to Clinton who has made mistakes in the course of her career. Trump has made plenty of mistakes in his career also, so for me it comes down to character assessment. While I wouldn't say Clinton wins, I do feel Trump loses.

So I think Obama should have let Hilary run back when, knowing it would be an easy win for anyone in the Dems at that time, and he knowing he would romp in two terms later to ensure a 4 term run for the Dems. All this then would be a moot point because Trump against a fresh Obama wouldn't have had enough chance for Trump to bother even trying... so maybe its better this way, Trump can run and if he fails he might give up on politics for good.

I don't mind though I guess, aren't they just talking faces for the machinery in the background which pretty much never changes? I'd assume Trump would do what he was told pretty much like Clinton will.

A long time ago, in a constitutional republic far, far away.... federal congressmen and senators recieved their paychecks from the states they were from and each state had a stake in what was being done and the people could actually have control over who they elected locally and how they would be represented on the national level.

Now the USA is in the age of democracy: mob rule, popular opinion where there is no room for any fairness or equality, as the minority have to go along with everyone else. There is no rule of law, set standards that will not change, a consistent norm.

Whatever is popular or trendy becomes law and there is a constant uncertainty due to constant gutting and ammending the foundation that was a constitutional republic. The supreme court no longer functions as intended due to being appointed by the most popular president towing the party line deciding what is or isn't constitutional.

50.1% tells the other 49.9% how to live, in general our lives are being decided by a process similar to how Lindsay Lohan became popular. When the US backed by UN goes out to place like Iraq, encouraging 'democratic' elections which if at least 50% of the country votes we call it a valid election, less in invalid according to international law. Half of the American public has not voted in more than 50 years.

People have become so disenfranchised or apathetic to the voting process, they couldn't care less. Some say it's their fault the way the country goes because of not voting, in certain situations yes but the foundation of the US as a consitutional republic covered the inherent laziness and actual inability for people to keep track and hold accountable a national government, let alone a state government. It goes back to how state legislators would take applications for who to send to represent them in the national government, they would be working for the state and chosen by legislators the people were actually able to somewhat control because a person would typically live within 20 minutes of the legislator for their district and could be there to have their voice heard on the national level. The state could then recall their national representatives.

Another safeguard against the government off the tracks was the jury system where people now just rubber stamp prosecutions for victimless crimes or unconstitutional laws letting the government of people elected by a popularity contest get to do whatever they want disenfranchising mass amounts of the voting population who give up and don't take part anymore.

We are dealing with opportunistic charlatans who will say anything and when they get elected you can't control them, this is not just America either, it's pretty much everywhere except the third world. A national government functioning properly in a constitutional republic as intended, would be functioning as not to exist. Nope, instead the State department loses $6 billion, Pentagon $6.5 trillion, banker bailouts and stimulus packages, bailout the insurance companies under the guise of reformed healthcare, $9 trillion missing from Federal Reserve, $2.3 trillion goes missing before 9/11, IRS pleads the 5th, fake wars, all the scandals tolerated, it's insane.

It's literally insane, doing the same thing over again expecting different results, there's a global parasitic class feeding off the people who are working, making victims of people who want to work, getting them to fight each other and continue to prop up their supposed saviors in the popularity contest who are bought and paid for since the beginning. I think Trump is just peddling what the country wants and actually needs to hear in order to preserve the country as a whole and it shows how ridiculously far we've fallen. Those third party candidates are bought and paid for too, Mr. Johnson is a shill.

Giant Meteor 2016!

Lightstrider wrote: Giant Meteor 2016!

He's got my vote :woohoo:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You're awesome Lightstrider!

Presidential elections get all of the press, but the office of President of the United States doesn't really hold the power that people think it does anymore. Sure, the "finger on the nuclear trigger" is scary, but in more practical instances, the President can do very little without cooperation from his/her own party and at least some support from any opposition. In recent years, the President has basically just been a patsy that takes the blame anything that goes wrong while they are in office. The local election in your town, village or city is where you will see the direct impact of your vote.

I digress... Back to the matter at hand.

1. I always vote, regardless of if it "actually matters"
2. I know about Johnson, but not enough to make a wise decision about him.
3. I have been a registered Democrat my whole adult life and have always voted for the Democratic candidate for President, but I have considered third party candidates before.
4. I don't like a lot of what Hillary has to offer, but I'm likely going to vote for her anyway. She's an evil I am familiar with.

I am German so this only concerns me indirectly, yet Alethea asked in the context of ‘Voter’s Awareness’ which is a topic I can actually get in on.

So if I take a look in a generic German newspaper this morning I see an article about Trump wanting to bill Mexico for the wall, Trump wanting to be hard on illegal immigrants, Marine Le Pen (French Front National – basically a French Nazi in German newspapers (warning: hyperbole)) saying Hilary means war and destruction of all that is good and trump jumping different bandwagons (no connotations, the headline reads a rather distinct sarcastic phrasing). And another headlining how Trump wants to get rid of illegal immigrants.

That’s from a cursory glance on 3 German Newspapers, ranging from leftist to rightwing. And that’s how it is here all day ‘erry day.

Basically we will be flooded with news on what horrible scheme Trump has plotted, what dreadful ideas he recently uttered and all the terrible, terrible consequences bringing him into power might surely have. Then there is the occasional article on Hilary being an impalpable slick politician. Admittedly your left is still so very American it would still count as right wing in Germany (where as people like Trump are quite a bit off our political scale, those who present positions similar to his usually are pushed out of power positions fairly quick). By the way, this thread is the first time I have heard there are actually two third party candidates. I faintly remember hearing about one, though not their name and certainly not what they stand for. I think it’s fair to assume our newspapers are a wee bit biased.

If I had the choice between Hilary and Trump, excluding the third parties, I’d vote for Trump. Not because he is the lesser evil (I don’t think they give each other any quarter on that field) but because I think he’ll be the less effective one. As some pointed out, the president doesn’t have nearly as much power as newspapers want to make us believe. Where Hilary is a very well versed and highly skilled and integrated politician, Trump is a boulder. I think she could use her party and wield it to her benefits and/or to accomplish her agenda. Trump basically became candidate against the will of his party and they are far less likely to indulge him. So between a rock and a hard place I’d take the one that is less likely to go anywhere.

If I had the choice you US citizens have, I’d vote any of the third parties, regardless of whether they’ll actually have a chance to go anywhere. Even if still one of the evils wins, there will be another notch on the list of people who are willing to vote but unwilling to support the current crap.



An additional read about the party system:
When Hitler rose to power, he made use of a flaw in our party system back then. At the time, any party with enough votes to represent a seat in the parliament would actually get that seat. The last election before his rise saw 16 parties in the parliament, 12 of which had less than 5% of the votes. The strongest party (social democrats) had 24,5% of the votes. To actually get anywhere, they had to either work with the communists (not a slur, they were the communist party in name and program) AND the Nazis or they’d have to gather another 14% of allies to get anywhere.
Today our system is largely the same but for an important change: Now, only parties gaining 5% or more of the votes actually get their seats, thus allowing for currently 4 parties in the parliament. Usually we are ruled by the strongest party with a junior partner party. Lately we’ve been ruled by the two strongest parties working together (sounds nice but is actually a strained relationship).

So while it is nice to have a party to represent exactly your/my opinion, by necessity, they have to be limited to a few or you won’t get anywhere as a constant bickering between a 5 head coalition slowly kills any chance of notable progress.

As another remark:
Be glad you’ve got actually polarizing politicians. Here in Germany the presented political choices have constantly shifted to the left so all parties now offer the same crap but with slightly different flavors (would you like your left with a green touch, a communist touch, some Christian values touch or just regular left?). The trouble being that the lack of a conservative party creates a vacuum for right wing parties of dubious (at best) agendas. As much as it irks me, I believe our version of the ‘Tea Party’ to be a necessity. While I hope they never rise to any power, their voice is needed to create an actual debate between two opinions instead of a debate on which flavor the current opinion is going to have.