All right folks, let's really talk about this

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm voting for the Donald. Admittedly this is a Hail Mary pass. Hillary is an evil tool, no doubt. The Donald may be a self-interested wrench in the works...but, IMO, the works need some serious wrenching. That just as many establishment Republicans hate him, as Dems, is indicative to me.

He is a proxy for "None of the above".

We tried Hope and Change! That didn't work. So now it is time for Demolish and Rebuild. Who better understands that, than a commercial real estate guy?

Chaos and tipping points, Clem.

I don't think either are a better choice. There are few differences, sure. Either way, war(either Russia, China, etc. or a combo) and flip flopping is guaranteed. I refuse to vote least of the worst. Americans should not perpetuating this cycle any longer. It's too bad many are buying into one of the other still under the same illusion that one won't be as bad.

Likely those issues about and all the rest can be flip flopped on at anytime due to pandering by both candidates. In short, same sides of the coin.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm going to be honest, I watch the U.S news here in Scotland and have read bits n pieces on the election but from what I've seen and read and I think these two are just as bad as each other, out only for self gain and power. In my opinion and as bad as he is I would be hoping for a miracle and Obama stays in as I think trump or clinton would either ruin the economy while lining there's and their friends pockets or go into a full scale war. Just my opinion

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I'm going to be honest, I watch the U.S news here in Scotland and have read bits n pieces on the election but from what I've seen and read and I think these two are just as bad as each other, out only for self gain and power. In my opinion and as bad as he is I would be hoping for a miracle and Obama stays in as I think trump or clinton would either ruin the economy while lining there's and their friends pockets or go into a full scale war. Just my opinion

a reply to: havok

You know those two idiots aren't your only choices.

There are going to be other names on that ballot you use. Not just Johnson or Stein, either. The voters pamphlet you get should, at the very least, give you a starting place to look at the alternatives to Tweedle-dee, and Tweedle-dum.

If we don't start realizing there are alternatives, we'll continue to have "choices" like this foisted off on us.

Ask yourself this, what happens if neither a Democrat (though I have wondered just how democratic she is...), or a Republican (though I've often wondered just how in favor of a republic he really is...). Might they not realize that they need to put forward better candidates?

Or, they'll be really stupid, and decide that rigging the game further is a better notion. Little realizing that people are beginning, at long last, to kinda, sorta, figure it out... So, that might be a good thing, too.

All because people selected something other than (D) or (R) on their ballot...

I still think he is a better choice than Hillary... but that is like saying the white spec on top of chicken excrement is better than the rest of the pile.

Most of that is based on the stances of Hillary, now and in the past rather than anything Trump has said.

That said I am voting for a candidate I believe in so I am voting third party.

a reply to: seagull

Here's the problem ... the alternatives need to be serious ones.

I'm disgusted with the libertarian party. This year was the one year they had a real chance to present a coherent alternative, and what did they do? They nominated a guy who is the walking poster child for why chronic recreational marijuana use is bad bundled with a real lack to true libertarianism. Who is seriously going to vote for that to lead the country even with the alternatives?

It's like the local talk guy said - He even spent time working with the libertarian party in his youth, and his impression is that they aren't serious about getting elected and governing, only in running to complain and protest. And until that changes within their party, there won't be any real challenge from them.

a reply to: ketsuko

Of course they do. So, too, do the major parties. There's a reason I'm not voting for either one of them...I don't believe they're competent to be President either. They're no more qualified than those candidates, and that's why I'm voting third party.

Until the message is sent, and, more importantly, understood--Trump and Clinton is what we're going to get. Maintain the status quo is what the two major parties want, and work for.

Change? Not in their vocabulary. Not in the way you, or I, would mean it anyway.

As long as they can get away with it, we're going to be fed the same "stuff" we've been fed since WWII. Enjoy.

Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts.

I think there's something that needs to be emphasized beyond which one "wins." Congress has just as much power as the Prez, they are meant to find common ground and legislate as best they can to keep everyone reasonably safe, secure, and looked after.

Whichever one is chosen as "Pres" is more of a figure-head than an 'actor' in making laws. If Congress doesn't want to, they won't do what is asked by the Pres. Executive orders are temporary fixes ("bandaids" or "emergency stopgaps" when dealing with domestic unrest) - if they don't work out, they can be repealed. POTUS use of them is historically pretty common, and the next opposition candidate can say "I'll tear that one up on day one." So, that's one of the things that the new Prez can do.

When it comes to what Congress puts forth, the Prez can only "veto" their decision/suggestion; which can be overridden anyway by them. Then we have the SCOTUS. The referees.

Now...only the POTUS can declare war, and only with the consent of Congress - except that the POTUS also has the nuclear codes. I don't know how that works, really - does anyone else have the codes? POTUS as Commander in Chief is the scariest part of the thing.

I don't doubt that Trump is hot-headed enough to use them if he gets pushed too far. I know Clinton is hawkish also, and that many are nonplussed with Obama's more reticent use of force.

Beyond war, the domestic situation is still mostly in the hands of Congress. Lawsuits take forever, and often are "post-crisis" diagnostics and prescriptive suggestions. But they have to be "asked" to review stuff. If no one "takes it to" the Supreme Court, they pretty much stay silent. They also don't get media attention or do the talk-show circuits.

So yes, the SCOTUS line-up is important.

But here's the thing. If NOBODY in Congress likes the prez, they have demonstrated they are not above pure obstructionism. They have also demonstrated that they are not loyalists when it comes to party lines.

Trump is not favored by any of them. Cruz's 'endorsement' was nothing but a way to keep his hat thrown in the ring.

I still don't trust that Trump would actually "take office" if he wins. In fact, I am more inclined to think he will decline and Pence will become the President, which would be more like Cruz having won.

There will still be people homeless, starving, without medical care or adequate education after Nov 8. I think we need to do something about that. I worry about the global unrest and the reckless 'leaders' around the world. I think Trump would only make things even worse because his diplomacy is, well --- isn't. There isn't a diplomatic cell in his body.

So electing him would add even MORE tension to the world theatre, and seeing as he's such an impulsive "attacker" and thinks he can just walk back every insulting thing he's ever said if he gets called on it, how can we trust that he wouldn't call up 100,000 troops and send them to their certain deaths "just because he can," and then try to say - wait, bring them all back home, I was just kidding.

That is what scares me. He isn't right in the head. He isn't respected by other world leaders. He's a wildcard. Some of you think that's what we need, I get that.

He is not going to call off his contracts in China or Bangladesh on day one. He is not going to live up to all the things he's insisting he would do, like ending world trade. He can't. He just can't.

If we are going to repatriate the hidden money from all over the globe, we have to do so with the cooperation of other world leaders and parliaments/governing bodies. Pissing people off is not the way.

I think if Trump wins, we will be sort of on a par with North Korea. And that would be a dismal situation indeed.

Anyway, that wall of text was just my stream of consciousness as I sip my coffee. One important point I want to make is that we need to focus on LOCAL elections. If we want representation, we have to send representatives who we know will

a) work toward our best interests in concert with the other side

and

b) have the common sense to realize that the idea is to COMPROMISE, not to 'shut down' the other side.

I think if we want real change, we need to change our local leadership and representation. But POTUS gets all the glitz and show-biz and spotlight. Because our politics have become entwined with entertainment.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I don't have a magic wand, and I have no special influence with the masses. So as much as I would love to fix this little problem, I can't pull this off alone.

Commendable . It would take a Movement of Many People to Change America for the Better . It's up to All of Us to do our part .

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Clinton has basically been in politics for half of her life.

Trump has not.

Clinton may have come across as more "presidential," but when dissecting the things that were actually claimed and said, most of what she puts forth as plans do not add up in the grand scheme of governing and her claimed goals.

Trump's may not really, either, but again, Clinton has been doing this all of her life and has a former two-term president as a husband who can help her behind the scenes, so for her plans to be so blatantly incongruent with reality (I'm talking cost, fiscal impact, relying on ideas that have yet to show success in the past, etc.), to me, that's inexcusable.

If it weren't for the option of a third-party, I wouldn't vote at all. I can't stand Clinton's career-politician ways, and I can't stand Trump's narcissistic, childish ways.

I don't blame you for being undecided still--when your options are ricin or arsenic, it's always a tough call.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I identify as an unwed American Indian lesbian who wants to nuke the whales, so I have no dog in this race.

originally posted by: AshFan
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I identify as an unwed American Indian lesbian who wants to nuke the whales, so I have no dog in this race.

... and the thread comes to a halt while every tries to decide whose "side" you are on ...

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Your analysis is spot on correct. Problem is in this election, the POTUS election is really all about the SCOTUS and that's the only reason I consider voting for Trump..........not that it matters, I live a deep Red state so I could not vote in POTUS race and may well not for reasons of conscience.

The problem with SCOTUS is that if Hilary wins, she'll doubtless appoint a neo-liberal anti-2nd Amendment Justice who will work ceaselessly to undermine 2nd Amendment rights. That's a deal killer for me and my family; we simply couldn't live in this country without our CCW. As it is now, we have to be very circumspect about where we go and when we go there. And that's because, in reality, with open borders, high rate of mental illness aggravated by drug use and SSRI meds there's so many evil loonies on the loose that there's practically no safety anywhere.

There's no fixing the poverty and associated crime problems so there's no point in discussing that. Even the POTUS candidates aren't spending much time discussing that issue. HRC throws out her tired lines, but everyone knows its just talk because realistically speaking there's no solution; there isn't enough money and the root causes can't be solved with money alone.

But you're quite correct that the down ballot Congressional races are extremely important, especially in this election because I have no doubt Hilary will win and that will serve to make the divisions in the US even brighter, deeper and more violent. That being the case, what's going to be really important is maintaining strong State and local control.

a reply to: TonyS

And Trump will nominate pro federal government, pro elite, pro police, racist, anti women, and pro child labor judges.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: AshFan
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I identify as an unwed American Indian lesbian who wants to nuke the whales, so I have no dog in this race.

... and the thread comes to a halt while every tries to decide whose "side" you are on ...

If you think anyone cares, you give me far to much credit.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You're one brave woman love! Lol.

I don't know what I'm going to do either , I know I will not and cannot in good conscience vote for either.

I know you wanted to hear from supporters, so pardon my imposition here in the thread.

I'm thinking of either moving to the mountains or finding a beach near blue water and watching it all implode from a distance

double

originally posted by: WilburnRoach
a reply to: TonyS

And Trump will nominate pro federal government, pro elite, pro police, racist, anti women, and pro child labor judges.

The last four I can understand someone believing, but the first two? Trump has expressed disdain for government overreach and has repeatedly scoffed at things like the Bildebergs and UN.