Real Time board poll: Who did you vote or support in the Pres. election?
-
Druffmaul — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 01:12 PM)
My first choice would have been Sanders, but I never had any faith that he could win the primary let alone the general. So I "supported" Clinton only in the sense that I opposed Trump. Whoever was running against him was going to get my vote.
-
AdrianLePier — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 06:06 AM)
I voted for Trump. Was always going to vote for Trump. Voted for him in both the primaries and in the general. I'm a registered Democrat, but there was no way in hell I was going to vote for HRC, and I'll most likely never vote for another democrat candidate - ever. Don't like what the party has become over the past 10 years.
-
mikepr3 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 10:23 AM)
Actually, since there's so few replies to your POLL, clearly MOST here are paying you no MIND, since you're well-known as one OF the biggest JACKASSES on THIS entire SITE!! LOL
(seriously, how obnoxious is it to type like you do in every post..) -
megafauna005 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 06:38 PM)
The post above is a PERFECT example of a BUTTHURT crying inconsolable Hillary voter!! Look in the mirror FOOL since YOU are nothing but a CRYBABY!
Plus Bill has been in hiatus for months now so OF COURSE the posting is down!
Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH! -
mikepr3 — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 02:06 PM)
"butthurt" is another phrase braying jackasses like yourself use, along with "SJW". It's embarrassing. And your reply there was embarrassing, but typical. The "look in the mirror" comment makes no sense. I didn't say "crybaby" or that I voted for Hillary.
Love how you turned my insulting your idiotic speech pattern and capitalizing words and just doubled down on it. You are one hell of a twit. But I already knew that. -
WhoToTrust — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 08:31 AM)
by AdrianLePier and I'll most likely never vote for another democrat candidate - ever. Don't like what the party has become over the past 10 years.
It is this kind of progressively narrower and narrower-minded reasoning that's resulted in all of the impasses and divides between political parties over the years.
Congratulations, you're status-quo programming and conditioning is complete. -
lazarillo — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 10:38 AM)
I voted AGAINST Trumpleave it at thatbut I worry really about anyone who voted ENTHUSIASTICALLY for EITHER major candidate.
However, if Trump proves to be more reasonable and competent than expected (I'm really not at all confident at the moment), I would certainly consider voting for him in the future. I have actually voted for every US president in my adult lifeGeorge HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obamaat least once, so I'm not some dyed-in-the-wool liberal or conservative. But I have never faced a WORSE choice than I did in 2016. In 1996, 2000, and 2012 I would been fairly happy whoever won, but in this election it was really bad vs. worseand "worse" wonso we can only hope for the best now.
"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream" -
megafauna005 — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 06:08 AM)
Trump has ALREADY trademarked 2 different versions of
Keep America Great
for 2020! Regardless of your political affiliation the guy is a marketing GENIUS. One reason he won is because he had a great slogan while even Dems like Joe Biden said Hillary had NOTHING!
Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH! -
WhoToTrust — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 11:39 AM)
I'm in Illinois and I voted third party.
I considered it disappointing, and not very "democratic", that there conveniently seemed to be room for SO many candidates on the stage for the debates for the two main political parties, but suddenly, when it came time for the debates for the
actual position of president
, there was NOW apparently only room on the stage for TWO people? (
Even thoughincluding those two main party candidatesthere were about 28 people running for the position of president.
)
Granted, while some of the candidates running for president could only realistically be viewed as representing extreme fringe elements of society, that couldn't objectively be said about ALL of the third party candidates we had to choose from in this election.
In that regard, I simply voted my conscience based on who seemed to have ALL voters best interests in mind.
Unfortunately, history repeated itself when the majority of the population allowed themselves to be influenced by only what they were seeing represented on their tv screens (only two people with a "real" chance of "winning"), and again voted accordingly.
It again wasn't about who could represent the country in the most
presidential
matter, it was about the voter either voting for THIS candidate because they didn't want THAT candidate to win, or that they considered THIS candidate the lesser of two evils when being compared to THAT candidate.
It seems obvious that the actions of the two main political party candidates are dictated by what their polling numbers tell them they should be saying, doing, endorsing, etc, and unfortunately, the underlying data of those polling numbers is based on MORE and MORE extreme viewpoints coming from the two main political ideologies that don't necessarily represent a common sense approach to governing with the best interests of EVERYONE in the country.
That said, is it any wonder that those main parties don't pay any attention to the relatively small percentages of votes reflecting a desire for an objective, common-sense, basis for governing reflected in the vote count from people who were brave enough to actually vote their conscience and not just on who they wanted to "win"?
Until more voters start realizing, acknowledging, accepting, and changing the fact that their voting is based on the divisiveness being promoted by the candidates who can afford to get on tv, there is no incentive for politicians with the money to get on tv to change their divisive ways. At least in my opinion anyway.
And if any of you are of a mind to ask me WHICH third-party candidate I voted for, you've already missed the point. -
WhoToTrust — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 02:30 PM)
by mikepr3 Who gives a beep Third party voters helped Trump get elected, and this is on YOU. Enjoy.
Feel free to believe Trump winning the election is "on me" if it makes you feel better, in the meantime try to realize that you're logic is flawed and that you missed the point of my post entirelyas you may note I predicted. -
mikepr3 — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 03:48 PM)
I don't think you have much of a point, and it's not very original either way. And I have never understood how people who act superior, or otherwise smarter than others, will still make that you're/your thing mistake all the time. Weird.
-
WhoToTrust — 9 years ago(January 22, 2017 10:51 AM)
by mikepr3 I don't think you have much of a point, and it's not very original either way. And I have never understood how people who act superior, or otherwise smarter than others, will still make that you're/your thing mistake all the time. Weird.
I simply presented an option that was available to everyone.
That YOU are of the PERSONAL opinion that I haven't made much of a point doesn't automatically mean I haven't, just as you blaming others for something you admit it's you who doesn't understand doesn't automatically make those other people "weird" either. Based on your own admission and you resorting to name-calling when faced with people you THINK are "acting superior, or other smarter than others", it could be viewed that your response is based on an intellectual inferiority complex on YOUR part.
As an example, getting back to the original point YOU were trying to make: that my voting for a third party makes me responsible for Trump winningI could just as easily say that you being a part of the population who once again allowed yourself to be influenced into NOT voting for a third party is the reason Trump won.
Again, Democratic and Republican weren't the only two choices we had, but they have historically been presented as the only two options that have a chance of "winning". If voters allow themselves to buy into that way of thinking (as illustrated in the flow chart below), the rest simply becomes a repeat of past historyas it just did once again.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/152/896/c6c.jpg -
mikepr3 — 9 years ago(January 22, 2017 11:17 AM)
I'm actually not bothering to read your walls of text. And not because I don't have the attenion span for it or any other dumb thing you're going to try, but because it's so typical, boring, and I've read it before.
You thought this election was an appropriate time to take a stand. It was more important than you thought. You beep up, and beep us all. Bad move. Should've saved it for next time. -
WhoToTrust — 9 years ago(January 22, 2017 01:37 PM)
by mikepr3 >> I'm actually not bothering to read your walls of text. And not because I don't have the attenion span for it or any other dumb thing you're going to try, but because it's so typical, boring, and I've read it before.
You thought this election was an appropriate time to take a stand. It was more important than you thought. You beep up, and beep us all. Bad move. Should've saved it for next time.
Congratulations, you not only illustrated your PREFERENCE for remaining purposefully ignorant about what you're talking about at any given time, but also proved that the ongoing assumptions you make ignore any input you've not thought of yourself.
Bad move indeed.
