Take the 2016 Presidential Poll: From AboveTopSecret.com and Disinfo.com

a reply to: kendix1960

Neither one.

Gary Johnson.

Link.

This'll give you, at least a little, idea of what he thinks.

a reply to: seagull

Thanks for the clarification, seagull.

a reply to: kendix1960

a reply to: seagull

I can't go along with Gary Johnson's plan to cut military spending by 43 percent because in my opinion the military has already been slashed to the bone by President Obama. I'm also skeptical about slashing foreign aide, especially if that would include aide to Israel, which need all the help America can provide in antimissile defense installations given the threat from Hamas and other Iranian surrogates as well as from Iran itself as time goes by.

Mr. Johnson sounds similar to Rand Paul in a number of ways. A bit too isolationist for me to support him. He is basically a Libertarian in his approach.

He does have some good ideas in other areas but right now national defense and a proactive effort against global terrorism must be given priority.

a reply to: kendix1960

I agree with you entirely, nothing to add other than I believe (and it is my opinion only) that Sanders would be even worse than Trump. A weakend America with that man could mean war with China, Russia, etc. But honestly that could happen either way by other reasons.

a reply to: kendix1960

I have an issue with the defense cuts, too.

But the rest are, if not great ideas, certainly worth kicking around to see if they can be bettered.

But the defense cuts are an issue I'm going to have problems getting around, too. My support isn't carved in stone, ever.

a reply to: seagull

Good for you, seagull! I agree that the defense cuts are the major reason why I can't support a Libertarian like Johnson or Rand Paul a t the present time. Just too isolationist.

a reply to: kendix1960

I'm of the opinion that the US, and some other countries I could name, could use a bit more in the way of isolationism. Not to the extent of jumping into a hole and pulling it closed behind us, that won't/can't work in todays world, if ever it did. But a bit less involvement in the internal affairs of other nations would be welcomed by me.

Don't ignore threats, of course. But meddling where we aren't necessarily needed/welcomed doesn't usually work our well for us...

There are, of course, times where that won't work...so, there you go.

a reply to: seagull

I understand your position but with the kind of threats we're facing today form Isis as well as from Putin and from Iran, military cuts just aren't realistic. Its a small world and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans will no longer shield or protect us any longer in today's dangerous world.

Bernie=economic doom/war
Hillary=war
Trump=wants to bring great minds together to fix situations.

a reply to: Jordan River

I agree that Sanders means economic doom, but Trump means utter disaster for America. This fellow is a racial divider and won't bring anybody together. He'll just drive people apart! Not sure how Hillary means war, but she does mean four more years of Obama and that's bad enough.

a reply to: kendix1960

Understood.

My thinking on it shouldn't be described as "isolationist"...much too strong a term for it.

Maybe Teddy Roosevelt said it best...

Speak softly, and carry a big stick, and you will go far.

That about sums it up, I suppose. I know the world is much too small a place for true isolationism to be at all practicle, if it ever was.

But nothing says we have to carry ourselves like a bombastic braggart, either. Especially since we have a horrible habit of not backing our words up with actions.

originally posted by: starfoxxx
WoW with all the Trump hate threads around here you would think he would not have no where near as many as votes.

TRUMP 2016

We cannot afford to keep playing "their game." When we do, we lose.
It's as certain as trying to beat the odds in Vegas.
The House ALWAYS comes out on top when you play their games....

a reply to: kendix1960

Slashed to the bone? What the hell are you talking about? "Slashed to the bone" isn't spending more than the next six countries combined.

I'm voting for Trump because I am done with "career lying politicians" who will say ANYTHING you want to hear to sit in the presidential seat!

originally posted by: Staroth
I'm voting for Trump because I am done with "career lying politicians" who will say ANYTHING you want to hear to sit in the presidential seat!

True but that doesn't mean you have to vote for someone with fascistic tendencies, you know you could vote for Burnie..

a reply to: Spider879

But he's a surcialianimizt!

originally posted by: Oleman
Why are polls like this always done on weekday afternoons, and close before the end of a normal office work day?
From what I see, it looks like this poll ends at 4PM CT. Doesn't that introduce a bit of bias?

Kind of like actual elections. Instead of holding them on a sensible day, like Saturday or Sunday, the polls open when the majority of the middle class is on their way to work, and remain open for about an hour after people return home.

Yes, you can do the early voting or other options, but the scheduling of voting is most definitely skewed to be as inconvenient as possible except for upper class, retired and jobless individuals. At the very least, there should be nighttime hours, but preferably day and night and over at least a weekday and a weekend. Should I decide to vote, I'll be taking an unpaid 2 hours off work so I can vote.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Its got nothing to do with how much other countries spend but with the fact that our forces are only a half or less than were just a few years ago and inadequate to contain let alone defeat Isis.

a reply to: Staroth

Why would you want to vote for a racial bigot and right wing fascist dictator with a gargantuan ego and no viable policies?