USA Politics

I don't know. All I know is that Trump being a bigoted moron does not justify not holding Hillary accountable for the things she's done.

There are only two candidates I'd consider voting for in this election if I was American, and they're Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.
 
You forgot Morocco .. but yeah. It cracks me up in this election when anyone tries to say "my person is so great" .. certainly everyone has baggage, everyone has made mistakes, there is no perfect person and that is an unreasonable standard to try to hold anyone to.

But Hillary and Trump are both just so flawed as people and having some at least basic standards of integrity .. it is beyond belief.

I disagree with Obama on a lot, agree with him on some .. but I think at heart, he is a pretty good person .,. same with Romney. Same with George W and George H.W. ... I can disagree with them on policy and still say they are Presidential and do what they think is best generally for the country .. or at least as much as possible given the overall state of politics.

No way anyone can say that with a straight face about Hillary or Trump.

Edit: If this were an old western movie, both are wearing black hats. They only argument is really who has a darker shade
 
Night Prowler said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html


http://www.sciencealert.com/us-pres...thinks-wi-fi-is-a-threat-to-children-s-health
Click to expand...

Wasn't here when I buried Gary Johnson for the Aleppo thing, huh?

The Flash said:
Gary Johnson was just on the news here, with a recent gaffe of his. His answer upon being asked about the situation in Aleppo was "What is Aleppo?"

That's an unacceptable error, leave the situation aside, Aleppo is a city of great historical importance.
Click to expand...
The Flash said:
I think I wouldn't be too harsh to say that the GP in U.S. is atrocious at geography.

In any case, a politician not knowing where Aleppo is, let alone what Aleppo is, is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
The Flash said:
Who cares if political commentators don't use the city's name. Aleppo is a strategic location in Syria. It was the biggest city in the country up until the Civil War. Its control is a key aspect of fixing the problems in Syria. This is a candidate for the President we're talking about.

One error of course wouldn't make him a less favorable candidate than Trump or Hillary. But it's a terrible gaffe nonetheless.
Click to expand...
The Flash said:
This is exactly my point, it's not trivia. Aleppo is crucial to understand the situation in Syria. As I said, you don't know what you're talking about aside from generalities if you don't know what Aleppo is. It was the biggest city in the country for crying out loud, its deterioration as a city is one of the key aspects of the civil war.
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are also flawed candidates. But they're good enough to qualify for the "best possible option" vote. Trump and Hillary aren't.
 
The difference between Hillary and Trump however is that one has the ability to admit and even learn from mistakes. The other cannot even fathom that he ever even made a mistake. Seriously. When asked whether he has been to confession, Trump wasn't sure that he'd ever done anything worth confessing. Neither of these candidates are perfect, you will not agree with a president, or spouse, or friend, or fellow Maidenfan 100% of the time. No one is asking you to. However, integrity includes such traits as empathy, taking criticism, and showing civility and/or restraint. In short, what I am saying (with a stright face) is that that Clinton IS generally best for the US.
 
So vote for no one .. Johnson did not know a city location. if that is the standard no one should bother voting.

Hillary misplaced Mosul in the last debate ... scratch her.
 
Whooten said:
So you're voting for Trump.
Click to expand...

He voted for Gary Johnson.

Whooten said:
integrity includes such traits as empathy, taking criticism, and showing civility and/or restraint. In short, what I am saying (with a stright face) is that that Clinton IS generally best for the US.
Click to expand...

Integrity also includes not voting for an evil person because you "have to", when there are other candidates available.
 
Despite the e-mail issue being Trump's major attacking point during the campaign, I don't think it is the important reason for those who dislike Clinton. But they see her as a cynical representative of the status quo, plus she has been disliked by many since her time as first lady.

On a different note: The main selling points of Clinton and Trump seems to be "I can become the first woman to be POTUS" and "I'm not part of the DC establishment", respectively. And there is something positive to both these selling points.

Having the first female president isn't worth so much in itself, but it opens the door for others so that in the future, being a woman won't disqualify a candidate. And a businessman or someone else from outside the main political scene could surely freshen things up a bit, if he/she had an understanding of what was going on. But it would help if he/she was competent ... Trump isn't.
 
Both Johnson and Stein aren't serious candidates IMO, no offense but it's a wasted vote. Neither of them has a chance, as is always the case with third party candidates. Stein never held a political position in her life. Same goes for Trump obviously. Hillary is the only choice. I don't like her at all, but I think voting should be mandatory everywhere, so I would've voted for her.
 
The Flash said:
He voted for Gary Johnson.



Integrity also includes not voting for an evil person because you "have to", when there are other candidates available.
Click to expand...

However, as we learned in 2000, voting for a 3rd party candidate (where are the McMillan fans at?) has the same effect as voting for one of the "evils." Voting for Johnson, or Stein, or McMillan, etc. enables Trump.

Of course, due to the electoral college, I living in NY, or bearfan living in (I'm guessing Illinois) voting for a 3rd party candidate has minimal effect (hell, I voted for Nader in 2000), but if you're in one of 10 or so "competitive" states, a vote for Stein/Johnson/McMullin/Pence/Dave Murray is the same as a vote for Trump.
 
Whooten said:
I should also add "a vote for no one" is a vote for Trump to my post above.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. I could, if one of the candidates was "meh", and the other was godawful. They're both godawful.

I have done tactical voting myself in the past, but I wouldn't do it if both top two candidates were terrible. I'd vote for my desired candidate even if he had no chance of winning.

Night Prowler said:
Both Johnson and Stein aren't serious candidates IMO, no offense but it's a wasted vote. Neither of them has a chance, as is always the case with third party candidates. Stein never held a political position in her life. Same goes for Trump obviously. Hillary is the only choice. I don't like her at all, but I think voting should be mandatory everywhere, so I would've voted for her.
Click to expand...

Wasted? If you gather enough people around, you could spark a change for the future. Do you think if, let's say, Johnson received %10 of the vote, people wouldn't take the Libertarian candidate in the following election more seriously? Not sure if I'd agree with that.

To me, if any of the candidates do not represent you in any way and you're forced to vote, it's not time to oblige. It's time for a revolution.
 
Last edited:
There is a time for what Flash describes but during the presidential election is not that time. Midterm turnout is embarrassingly low and primary voters have disproportionate impact on candidates. That is when change can happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top