All right folks, let's really talk about this

a reply to: seagull

Ive also thought the same for awhile. However, most of the time people just call that vote stealing, as if your only real choice is to play this silly two party game.

This election is entertaining but sad. Sad that people are so easily controlled into feeling like they have to choose these bad choices.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I'm not voting for Trump per say.

I'm voting against Hillary Clinton and choosing the candidate with the best chance to keep her out of the White House.

The parts where Trump:

1) ...is a massive middle finger to establishment DC (GOP and Dems)
2) ...might actually reduce the federal bureaucracy
3) ...might actually nominate conservative SCOTUS justices
4) ...might actually bring jobs back to the USA

...are icing on the cake but I won't hold my breath on the last three.

There really isn't much that will convince me otherwise unless it can be shown to me that Trump is even worse of a conniving, corrupt, career-politicizing, progressive/statist, anti-Constitutional lawyer.

If that can be proven to me, my write-in candidate will be "Two-year-expired can of Cream of Chicken soup."

I'm quite sick of hearing about this SCOTUS crap. No SCOTUS should be liberal aligned or conservative aligned. They should not have political agendas or support anyone's political agenda. They should be non-affiliated, or centralist at the least. To have a left/right leaning Supreme Court is not in the best interest of this country or the people in it. Especially because of the #1 reason to have a left/right leaning SCOTUS is so either group can have their personal beliefs represented. This is a nation of 300+ million people. Personal beliefs don't = good for everyone.

originally posted by: havok
I have to honestly say that I believe this entire debacle was planned to screw with us. We have the WORST candidates possible running and being promoted to run a country on the brink of bankruptcy.

Jeez, who will I pick? The person who should be imprisoned or the person who wants to keep building prisons?

I can't believe the country has come to this. I am seriously mad that these are our only choices.

It is pretty unbelievable. This is the best that either side can nominate? We truly deserve what we get in November, and I have no doubt it will be someone that has sat on the CFR.

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

It's not a matter of the best they can, it's more a matter of the best they will.

As long as we're willing to put up with these ciphers passing themselves off as qualified, this is what we're going to get.

That, and a lot of folks who could do the job, aren't about to put themselves through the process. The hate that'll come their way for the simple crime of being an (R) or a (D) just isn't worth it to them.

Were I even remotely interested in partaking of the blood-letting that is politics these days, I would rethink it. Having people flat out state that I'm not worthy of breathing simply because of the letter after my name? Really? That tells you much of why there aren't better candidates running...

So, as you say, we're going to get exactly what we deserve come November. ...and no one to blame but ourselves.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

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

Same here,

I have been in contact with some of my expat friends in Ireland, Bolivia, BVIs, Greece, Mexico, Coasta Rica and Thailand.

So far Coasta Rica is looking very nice to sit it out until either the system collapses, race wars, martial law, or whatever. I would like to think everyone will come to their senses but after watching the cultural and social divisions grow even wider during the campaign; it's going to get worse, much worse, before it gets better.

y'all have fun....

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

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

PLEASE, TAKE ME WITH YOU!!!!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Trump has not.

I think this is inaccurate. He may not have "held office" or even run for "city dog-catcher", but he is intimately familiar with politicians and politics. From the other side.

He has already admitted that he 'pays' people in Congress to give him his way.

She has already admitted that she 'accepts' payment from corporations that want her to give them her way.....

dp

a reply to: seagull

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

hear! hear!

I have been shouting this from the rafters.

When are the people going to stop allowing themselves to be forced fed the same garbage from different containers?

It is time to clean house.

Whoever the alternate is, they have to be better than Hillary or Trump. Even if they are just as bad, at least we would have sent the message that we have had enough.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

So then, what is the name that everyone needs to write in to prevent this?

originally posted by: imthegoat

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I'm not voting for Trump per say.

I'm voting against Hillary Clinton and choosing the candidate with the best chance to keep her out of the White House.

The parts where Trump:

1) ...is a massive middle finger to establishment DC (GOP and Dems)
2) ...might actually reduce the federal bureaucracy
3) ...might actually nominate conservative SCOTUS justices
4) ...might actually bring jobs back to the USA

...are icing on the cake but I won't hold my breath on the last three.

There really isn't much that will convince me otherwise unless it can be shown to me that Trump is even worse of a conniving, corrupt, career-politicizing, progressive/statist, anti-Constitutional lawyer.

If that can be proven to me, my write-in candidate will be "Two-year-expired can of Cream of Chicken soup."

I'm quite sick of hearing about this SCOTUS crap. No SCOTUS should be liberal aligned or conservative aligned. They should not have political agendas or support anyone's political agenda. They should be non-affiliated, or centralist at the least. To have a left/right leaning Supreme Court is not in the best interest of this country or the people in it. Especially because of the #1 reason to have a left/right leaning SCOTUS is so either group can have their personal beliefs represented. This is a nation of 300+ million people. Personal beliefs don't = good for everyone.

I agree. We should have neutral justices who understand that the Constitution is not a living document, but written in stone. That the only changes are those made by the people.

But we do not have 8 justices like that. Depending on the case, we have 4 progressive activists plus 1-2 moderates who find 'penumbras' and 'emanations' to fit their own agendas. To fix this we need conservative originalist justices who understand their job is to right the ship, not set their own course.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

So then, what is the name that everyone needs to write in to prevent this?

It is time to use social media to our advantage.

If millions of people can come together and text in a vote for some performer on those talent shows life SYTYCD, AGT, and the likes. They can come together and decide on an alternate candidate. They can all come together and actually cast that vote.

I know it is nothing but wishful thinking on my part, but it would be so sweet, if we finally came together on something really important, and send a message loud and clear to those demons on the Hill.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

It doesn't have to be any one name.

Because this isn't something that's going to be resolved in one Presidential/Midterm election cycle. Would that it were that way.

What we, as citizens, have as a duty is oversight. We watch what is happening. If we don't like it, we remove, or cause to be removed, the issue. Be it a law, or elected official, or non-elected official. They all answer to us. But only if we're willing to do the work necessary to do it.

No one says we have to agree, but odds are good that if we aren't too tied to our ideological blinders, as far too many of us are, a solution will present itself.

We know what needs doing. We've known it for decades now. Only one reason for not doing it. Sheer unadulterated laziness.

I will take a bet with everyone and it is this:

I bet that whoever wins the presidential vote nothing that really matters will change. Back in 2007 when Obama was set to will his first term he was promising change, real change and he was genuine in his sincerity. He realy believed that as President he could effect the changes that people were, and still are, crying out for.

The fact, the reality , is that as soon as he was elected he was taken to a back room somewhere away from all prying eyes and ears where he was shown a couple of videos that you will never see on the net and informed of certain matters over which he had no control then sent back to the oval office to play the game of being Mr President which is nothing more than a token figurehead with very little actual power.

Whoever gets to play President next will find themselves in exactly the same position. All the bluster now, all the promises of change will come to nothing whether it be Clinton or Trump. I bet you anything you like.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yeah--but I've worked with lawyers for many years, and had quite a few friends who were lawyers (and a judge), but that doesn't make me a lawyer nor a judge, and I sure as hell wouldn't be comfortable arguing a case in front of a court room.

Just because he consorts with (and apparently manipulates with money) politicians does not really make him one in the least, as evident by how he conducts himself at rallies and on Twitter.

That said, I think he's a very intelligent person, and he knows what he's doing. If he wanted to, he could play the part of a politician relatively easily if he could just get his immaturity and need to be in charge of the conversation in check--but he seems incapable of doing so. He has gotten markedly better, though, since the debates amongst Republicans in the early days of this election cycle.

He has nowhere really to go but up in his ability to be a politician--I think Clinton is on her way down. I'm not sure which is worse.

Regardless. I still think that both are a poison for our country.

At LEAST President Camacho in Idocracy knew he WASNT smart and hired smart people...

...and listened to them.

When the SMART people told him Brawndo isnt what plants crave....he at least listened.

Id vote Camacho....OVER Trump.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
So yes, the SCOTUS line-up is important.

Bottom line is the decades long fight to overturn Roe v Wade by judicial placement of SCOTUS. I had a friend who became pregnant shortly after RvW. When her fetus died, she was given the CHOICE to carry it to full term. Right now, there is a choice. Overturn RvW and women will no longer be given the choice to carry a dead or severely malformed fetus.

When women choose to get pregnant, they naturally do not think about what happens unexpectedly in some cases. But these things do happen and are devastating. I remember my friend. She and her husband cried, we all cried. But because of RvW, she had a choice.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

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

PLEASE, TAKE ME WITH YOU!!!!

LoL we could all have our own little bungalos to sip a good drink and watch it burn, hey at least we could do it from paradise

a reply to: Teikiatsu

We should have neutral justices who understand that the Constitution is not a living document, but written in stone.

INCORRECT. It is a living document, and the original authors of it knew that.

.....That the only changes are those made by the people.

YES. The people make changes. (Which truth invalidates your previous statement of 'we should have.')

WE DO NOT NEED JUSTICES who think in 250 year old terms.
This is not the second half of the 18th century. Things change. We don't use muzzle-loaded muskets anymore. Religion is becoming ever more problematic. The Republican candidate for POTUS intends to discriminate BLATANTLY AND OPENLY against Muslims.

They want to take away the rights of women to make their own decisions. They want to forbid anyone from living a lifestyle that they don't like.
They think that this was founded as a "Christian Nation" (which it was not.)

There have been 'amendments' made and repealed since forever. It IS A LIVING DOCUMENT. It's people like you who think nothing should ever change, despite the fact that things have changed.

Jesus, it's just appalling (and nauseating) how obscenely out of touch with the 21st century's realities you people are.

a reply to: DanteGaland

At LEAST President Camacho in Idocracy knew he WASNT smart and hired smart people...

...and listened to them.

When the SMART people told him Brawndo isnt what plants crave....he at least listened.

Id vote Camacho....OVER Trump.

So would I.
Although there's really not much difference between the two....... aside from Camacho actually being SMARTER.