POLL: Who Are You Voting For In The 2016 Presidential Election?

[Simonsays]

the biggest hawk to ever run for president, who is already responsible for several terrible wars that killed tens of thousands and harmed many more. Get your head checked.

Sweeping statement again. How is Hilary Clinton the biggest hawk, who is (solely my italics) responsible for several wars that killed....... Where does this stuff come from?? She is not President, she does not dictate foreign policy even in her current role

Mexico sends over a lot of its criminals to cross the border (which is true) a

Who sends them ?? The Government of Mexico? True?? Any evidence??

War in Iraq/Afghanistan started by Republican Presidents??? They of course are good wars no doubt? How about the destabilising/overthrow/backing right wing insurgents of numerous left/liberal Governments throughout the world since WW2

Mapped: The 7 Governments the U.S. Has Overthrown

A passionate irrational hatred of Hilary Clinton (mass murderer ?? Lol) /environmentalists anyone slightly left of Ghenkis Khan and then having to justify it with statements unsupportable by logic or facts??

+1, there should be a separate thread for people outside the USA. It's almost as if they believe any Progressive propaganda without questioning it.

Another sweeping statement that Non Americans believe in "Progressive propaganda" whatever that means?? arent fans of Trump possibly?( Is Regressive propaganda, the opposite btw, lol) They are also incapable of reason and guilty of blind faith, irony fail here. All based on a few posts on RPForum thread ??!!

Methinks you would have had quite a lot to say on the Brexit thread, but you werent a member of RPForum then were you.

Id say 80% of those commenting were from US and were overwhelmingly pro Brexit. I didnt tell them to "butt out" they werent from the UK. I was interested in their opinions, although i didnt agree with a lot of them.

If you come into this thread, or frankly anywhere on this forum and call people names, degrade them, etc....you will be banned on sight. If you come here to make false accusations against me you will be banned on sight. If you come here to cause division, (how do you define division btw??) you will be banned on sight.

I can't get over how you value speech more than actions. Seriously, if you think "hate speech" ala Trump saying Mexico sends over a lot of its criminals to cross the border (which is true) and that's more important than war in the Middle East, you're a disgusting person.

Wondering what you care about vis a vis American foreign actions outside of mass murder...maybe it's progressive feelz. Someone you hold the untenable position that Trump is worse for other nations than the biggest hawk to ever run for president, who is already responsible for several terrible wars that killed tens of thousands and harmed many more. Get your head checked

The fact that you put anything before my #1 there is sick.[/QUOTE]

Should Kyle be banned as per Charlies rules? Yes.

Me . I think no.

Maybe he should moderate his language a touch.

 

[Birdie]

 

[Queequeg]

lol. I knew an orange pant suit would look great on her

 

[yerrag]

Bill didn't wear matching orange ties this time.

 

[James_001]

Trump Campaigned Against Lobbyists. Now They’re on His Transition Team.

Lobbyists are on the trump transition team. I can wait for everyone who voted for trump to see why kind of person he really is, as if he wasn't revealing enough in his past lies and deceptions.

 

[yerrag]

He's got two months to work things out. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as I did with Barack Obama.

When Barack Obama got Tim Geithner as treasury secretary, I lost it. Geithner did so poorly as president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York prior to that appointment. The 2008 financial crisis happened under his watch. There are many appointees in government who are rewarded for their failures. He is just one.

 

[chrismeyers]

He's got two months to work things out. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as I did with Barack Obama.

When Barack Obama got Tim Geithner as treasury secretary, I lost it. Geithner did so poorly as president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York prior to that appointment. The 2008 financial crisis happened under his watch. There are many appointees in government who are rewarded for their failures. He is just one.

To be completely honest none of that appointment stuff makes any difference this time. Just the fact that they got a republican president means a) all the executive orders are gone and more importantly b) the congress (both house and senate) have about 100 fully formed bills all ready theyve been passing for a couple years to do 90% of trumps agenda. Quickly. Obamacare, border security, lower taxes you name it. All they needed was an R president and thank god we gave them one.

 

[dfspcc20]

Charles Eisenstein has been one of my favorite writes/thinkers of late (other than Ray Peat, of course!). Anyway, I thought I'd share. Seems apt in this time of "us vs. them".

Non-partisan, IMO; actually more off-the-political spectrum.

The Election: Of Hate, Grief, and a New Story | Charles Eisenstein

 

[lollipop]

The sad thing is this whole election was supposed to be about change like so many in the past. I saw this headline today and it made me sad:

 

[chrismeyers]

Oh give me a break with the whining. We are all INFINITELY better off economically with a Republican president. I mean who here really believes in high taxes, low growth, big government and no border protection. That is a tiny percent of the population. The only reason all the wacko nuts on the street are so worried is because they get too caught up in identity politics which have NOTHING to do with the role of a president. He is there to sign bills, he has a fully R congress and he will sign those bills. Now get over all the emotionalism

 

[lollipop]

WoW @chrismeyers chill out. I am not whining nor am I supporting one side or the other. Frankly the commentary was on all the hype and how that truly translates. I saw Trump's first 100 day list and if he achieves half of them, it would be amazing and beneficial for us all. I never took a side amazingly throughout this whole campaign and stayed realitively neutral. I found this choice he made interesting considering the hype. AND truth is maybe hype is necessary to win in the world today.

 

[chrismeyers]

Understood. Heres my recommendation to him to get his agenda quickly implemented. He has a fully R congress , good. Call in the Senate minority leader into his office and say the following:

"This is my agenda, these are the 6 bills I will get passed this year. Now you can either have some input or no input into them, that decision is yours. The first time you filibuster any of the bills this year or our supreme court nomination, the fillibuster in the Senate is dead, we will use the nuclear option and ram through all of the bills with the republican majority. Now obviously I dont want necessarily to go down this path, and I do want democratic input into our bills, but the decisions is yours. Some input or absolutely no input, and we pass them. So decide right now what you want the tenor to be between your side and our side."

That is how I would do it.

 

[lollipop]

Understood. Heres my recommendation to him to get his agenda quickly implemented. He has a fully R congress , good. Call in the Senate minority leader into his office and say the following:

"This is my agenda, these are the 6 bills I will get passed this year. Now you can either have some input or no input into them, that decision is yours. The first time you filibuster any of the bills this year or our supreme court nomination, the fillibuster in the Senate is dead, we will use the nuclear option and ram through all of the bills with the republican majority. Now obviously I dont want necessarily to go down this path, and I do want democratic input into our bills, but the decisions is yours. Some input or absolutely no input, and we pass them. So decide right now what you want the tenor to be between your side and our side."

That is how I would do it.

 

[yerrag]

To be completely honest none of that appointment stuff makes any difference this time. Just the fact that they got a republican president means a) all the executive orders are gone and more importantly b) the congress (both house and senate) have about 100 fully formed bills all ready theyve been passing for a couple years to do 90% of trumps agenda. Quickly. Obamacare, border security, lower taxes you name it. All they needed was an R president and thank god we gave them one.

Remember Guantanamo? Still around. Some things are too sticky. It's too fluid this early in the game. I don't want to prognosticate. If I do, it will just end up as my wish list.

 

[90intuition]

Oh give me a break with the whining. We are all INFINITELY better off economically with a Republican president. I mean who here really believes in high taxes, low growth, big government and no border protection. That is a tiny percent of the population. The only reason all the wacko nuts on the street are so worried is because they get too caught up in identity politics which have NOTHING to do with the role of a president. He is there to sign bills, he has a fully R congress and he will sign those bills. Now get over all the emotionalism

Im no expert, but was your last republican president really that good for the economy? I heard Bush put america in so much debt because of the war that the dollar was about to collapse.

It is just theory that republican president would spend less, I think history tells another story.

 

[MyUsernameHere]

It's too bad that Rand Paul didn't make it to the end-game, he seems like a decent guy. Or his dad, Ron.

Either way I feel like the machinery at the top echelon of the US is so big, it doesn't really matter so much who is president. It's all the same old story anyway - a little bit of this and a little bit of that, it just keeps getting worse for the common man in the long run.

It's the same here in Europe too. Elections don't matter anywhere near as much as everyone would like them to.

 

[dbh25]

Who sends them ?? The Government of Mexico? True?? Any evidence??

There's no doubt that people cross illegally, and commit crimes including murder.

Another sweeping statement that Non Americans believe in "Progressive propaganda" whatever that means?? arent fans of Trump possibly?( Is Regressive propaganda, the opposite btw, lol)

From what information sources do you base your opinions?

Methinks you would have had quite a lot to say on the Brexit thread, but you werent a member of RPForum then were you. Id say 80% of those commenting were from US and were overwhelmingly pro Brexit. I didnt tell them to "butt out" they werent from the UK. I was interested in their opinions, although i didnt agree with a lot of them.

Apparently, I was not a member at the time. But I forgot how this goes, you just KNOW I would have had quite a lot to say.
Since the thread is: POLL: Who Are You Voting For In The 2016 Presidential Election?
it would have been more interesting to hear from actual voters. You can have any opinion you like.

 

[Kyle M]

Sweeping statement again. How is Hilary Clinton the biggest hawk, who is (solely my italics) responsible for several wars that killed....... Where does this stuff come from?? She is not President, she does not dictate foreign policy even in her current role

Secretary of state has a lot of involvement in foreign policy, usually they fly all around the world and conduct diplomacy on behalf of the president. I'm surprised you don't know that. Here are some articles, the first by even Huff Po itself, about Hillary Clinton's central role in pushing for regime change in Libya, the motives, etc, including the infamous tick tock email.
Clinton Emails on Libya Expose The Lie of 'Humanitarian Intervention' | The Huffington Post
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/[URL]http://theduran.com/julian-assange-exposes-hillary-clintons-libya-tick-tock-list-a-step-by-step-guide-to-destroy-libya/[/URL]

Who sends them ?? The Government of Mexico? True?? Any evidence??

As a matter of fact, government pamphlets with advice for crossing the border http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/w...l-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.html are available in government buildings, including police and jail buildings, and especially in towns close to the border. The result is that, at least for Central American women passing through Mexico to cross into the US, 80% are raped 80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S. | The Huffington Post

I wouldn't imagine the number for Mexican women crossing is much lower. The entire border area is run by criminal drug runners and human traffickers, with implicit help or lack of interference by the Mexican government. They know what's happening, but they can't or won't engage in a war with the drug and prostitution cartels. There's many stories about it, I feel bad for anyone in Mexico that would try to fight those interests, usually their head is hanging on traffic lights in Juarez. Trump says things in an unpolished manner, and he isn't the most well read person, but the net action of the Mexican government is such that the illegal border crossing is run by very nasty, murderous criminal organizations, and the people that cross either pay those people (if you are a young woman, usually with sex as well) or are one of those people. Illegal immigrants are much more likely to commit violent crimes, mostly murder, rape, and kidnapping, than other segments of the US population: Articles: Illegal Aliens Murder at a Much Higher Rate Than US Citizens Do
Voices: How violent are undocumented immigrants?

War in Iraq/Afghanistan started by Republican Presidents??? They of course are good wars no doubt? How about the destabilising/overthrow/backing right wing insurgents of numerous left/liberal Governments throughout the world since WW2

You have made the mistake of putting me on the Republican side of things because I criticize Hillary Clinton. In truth, Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush are closer to each other, policy wise, than either of them are to Trump or to Bernie Sanders, who themselves are rather close in policy though not in style. Hillary Clinton is a neoconservative, she is influenced from the same Straussian school, is a protege of Kissinger, espouses so-called politique real, and has voted for or supported every war since she was in public office. Iraq War 2 was the worst government action of my lifetime, so no I don't believe that was a good war, but Hillary Clinton and the rest of the neoconservatives supported it fully. No surprise, since her corporate and state (Saudi Arabia, Qatar) donors all wanted to remove the nonconformist Middle Eastern leaders. There is no such thing as a good war in my opinion, but for some reason your mind lacks the ability to see that just having an "R" next to your name rather than a "D" isn't the ultimate arbiter for bellicosity.

Methinks you would have had quite a lot to say on the Brexit thread, but you werent a member of RPForum then were you.

Id say 80% of those commenting were from US and were overwhelmingly pro Brexit. I didnt tell them to "butt out" they werent from the UK. I was interested in their opinions, although i didnt agree with a lot of them.

Yeah probably, if I thought that people were mischaracterizing the argument for or against. I didn't vote for Trump, and I don't particularly support Trump, I'm an anarchocapitalist and believe the state is an unredeemable, criminal institution by its nature. I do find that people attacking Trump, or supporting Hillary, are/were more misinformed and hysterical than the other way around, however. The disappearance of the anti-war left after Obama took office, even unto him continuing Bush's 2 wars and starting 3-5 more, all the while earning a Noble Peace Prize, is part of the insane tribal irrationality that really bothers me. By any objective measure, Hillary Clinton is a total war hawk, just because you're ignorant of that doesn't make it not so. If she was a man with an "R" next to her name, most of her supporters would call her "literally Hitler."

 

[tankasnowgod]

Im no expert, but was your last republican president really that good for the economy? I heard Bush put america in so much debt because of the war that the dollar was about to collapse.

It is just theory that republican president would spend less, I think history tells another story.

It's true that Bush basically doubled the debt. It's also true that Obama basically doubled the debt. I'm not a fan of either, but in this head to head comparison, Republican president's spent like 5 trillion less.

 

[90intuition]

It's true that Bush basically doubled the debt. It's also true that Obama basically doubled the debt. I'm not a fan of either, but in this head to head comparison, Republican president's spent like 5 trillion less.

If just checked the history. in Bush Sr. years. America was loosing around 350-400 billion each year. Bill Clinton reduced this to around 100 billion each year at the end of his eigth years. Then Bush Yr. came and he gradually increased it to 1600 billion of looses at the end of his eight years. Then Obama and came and it decreased a bit to 300 billion in 2015. Sadly in 2016 it is back to 1400.

So the big picture is that republican presidents increase the yearly added debt, while democratic presidents decrease the yearly added debt.

Even when we go much more back in history this trend hold. Reagan added around 250 billion each year to the debt. While at the end Carters presidency it was 90 billion a year.