Real Time board poll: Who did you vote or support in the Pres. election?
-
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. -
megafauna005 — 9 years ago(January 23, 2017 09:50 PM)
The Electoral college is pure GENIUS! If we didn't have it then just THREE states, CA, NY, & IL, would determine EVERY election!
Urban centers only comprise about 4% of the area in the USA but have 55% of the population! You liberals on here don't actually believe 96% of the geographical area of the USA should be IGNORED!!
To give you an idea how lopsided urban areas are and how Hillary's popular vote win does NOT mean most of the country supports her consider this! LA county and NY city got about a NET 3.5 million vote win for Hillary.
So if you take out LESS than 1% of the land from the USA then Hillary's 3 million vote win becomes a Trump 500,000 vote win!!
NO ONE in here can seriously accept less than ONE percent of the land in America swinging national elections in a country of 50 states & 320 million people!!
Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH! -
WhoToTrust — 9 years ago(January 24, 2017 06:28 AM)
Except of course when the areas in question have been gerymandered VERY SPECIFICALLY to the point that the fairness you've just implied is being incorporated was in effect thrown out the window.
The truth is in the details. -
WhoToTrust — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 04:21 PM)
by megafauna005 Those aren't empty spaces. PEOPLE actually live there. But liberals forgot that & that helped contribute to their loss!
Well, SOME liberals did anyway.
If they'd been paying attention, rather than thinking their party had a lock on the election just because Trump was/is a walking cliche, and actually nominated the person who had earned and most deserved said nomination (Sanders), they wouldn't have lost the support that they did by trying to force THEIR choice (Clinton) on everyone.
Granted, that's still a distinction that gets lost on many even now. -
megafauna005 — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 10:30 PM)
You couldn't be more WRONG! Sanders would've been ANNIHILATED by Trump! Even if you ignore the fact that he's Jewish/atheist. Remember the Trump campaign didnt run ANY attack ads against him. Look at the treasure trove of info below if they did!
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal.
The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.
Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men.
Yes, there is an explanation for ita long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.
Then theres the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermonts nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words environmental racist on Republican billboards. And if you cant, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.
Also on the list:
Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die, while President Daniel Ortega condemned state terrorism by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was patriotic.
The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I dont know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.)
In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.
http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044
Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH!
