My Choice for President

[tango]

With the voting system used in the USA voting for anybody but the major parties is the same in effect as not voting.

People used to say that in the UK as well when it was basically a choice between Conservative or Labour. We had the SDP but they were generally not taken hugely seriously and when they were defeated in one election by the Monster Raving Loony Party they lost what credibility they had and dissolved. The Liberal Democrat party rose out of their ashes and is now regarded as the third major party in UK politics, although due to some pretty poor decisions taken by their former leader Nick Clegg during the coalition government of 2010-2015 they have lost a lot of ground, much of which has been taken by UKIP. The rigged first-past-the-post system used in the UK also helps to keep small parties out of power but, as with everything else, if sufficient numbers of people decide that enough is enough and do vote for smaller parties they start to gain traction. And to be honest, if a choice between a narcissist and a pathological liar isn't a good reason to reject both candidates and vote for a third party I don't know what is.

It's curious to see that from a Republican perspective a third-party vote is effectively a vote for the pathological liar, while from a Democrat perspective a third-party vote is effectively a vote for the narcissistic egomaniac. So with no information other than where I write my X, if I vote Gary Johnson am I effectively voting for Trump or Clinton?

 

[Highlander]

The trouble with this thinking is that it does nothing more than entrench the already badly broken system whereby two major parties can field candidates that are so bad they would be comical if they weren't themselves serious about getting the job. Sooner or later the electorate has to give the establishment the metaphorical bloody nose and say enough is enough.

Given the choice between a narcissistic egomaniac and a pathological liar it doesn't seem remotely unreasonable to vote for "none of the above". It would appear there are enough Republicans who dislike Trump and enough Democrats who dislike Hillary that this election might just be the time a third party candidate makes significant headway.

The question I would ask is, "SO WHAT if one of the candidates is an egomaniac as long as he can help the country out of the mess it is in?" Trump might have an ego, but he is also a very, very generous man who has helped countless people that he really didn't even know over the years. And he has literally employed tens of thousands of people.

He also promises to nominate constitution respecting candidates to the supreme court. Hillary would stack the court with agenda driven leftists who would rule against the second amendment and try to strip citizens of their right to bear arms, etc. The differences between the candidates are literally night and day.

And, while we're talking about egomaniacs, who would ever claim that Hillary, herself, is not an egomaniac?

As for the "broken system" learning a lesson by electing ridiculous candidates, I would suggest that this is exactly what has happened over the past two presidential elections. The system is just fine -- it is like so many other things, it can only be as good as the people who are running it. The voters should begin at the grassroots level and vote out all congressional members who do not support traditional American values instead of just enriching themselves or following agendas that are not respectful of those traditional American values.

 

[Highlander]

I agree is it not likely at all that any third-party candidate will win (BEST CASE scenario - neither major gets the 270 and the House votes for a third party, which I agree is not likely unless someone like Rubio were to enter JUST for this possibility - but the clock is quickly running out for that). But, IMO, voting for a horrible, unqualified "lesser evil" candidate is voting, supporting, endorsing an unqualified evil. And just perpetuates the "system" that brings evils for endorsement. I would agree that my voting for some third party would not help keep Hilary or The Donald out of the White House.... but it would be a protest to unqualified, BAD, choices..... a statement, if you will. I think it is likely a LOT won't vote at all for the top of the ticket - but sadly, that won't matter, the media won't even mention it, it will all be who gets the 270 Electorial Votes (regardless if 80% of Americans reject them BOTH by not voting - that won't be mentioned). BUT if these Third Party people get 10 maybe even 20% of the vote - THAT sends a message. THAT will get noticed. Especially since none of these is a self-funded zillionaire like Ross Perot - the last Third Party to get a significant vote.


I DO hope Trump wins ONLY because I think he's more LIKELY to appoint pro-life Supreme Court judges..... but he is such a loose cannon, who knows? And if he causes the Republicans to lose the Senate, it won't matter because those appointments won't get confirmed. That given, he is SCARY. Very scary. Hilary is less so, far less so.


SAD we are in this spot...... Something is terribly wrong; endorsing this does nothing to correct it.



- Josiah




.

Trump cannot cause the Repubs to lose the Senate. The Repub Senators, themselves, might lose because they have failed to stand up to Obama and his thuggish way of governing the country. Same thing in the House. The Repubs control the House, but are still too cowardly to stand up to Obama. Instead of rejecting the huge spending bill he asked for -- they approved it with even MORE money than he was asking for.

That is why Trump is so popular. He is an outsider who is not trapped within the "get along with everyone" culture that infests Washington, D.C. People are sick and tired of the same old games being played. One party, the Demos, is saturated with a leftist agenda that is the opposite of the traditional values that the country was founded on. The other party, the Repubs, DO (for the most part) believe in those traditional values -- but lack the guts to stand up for those principles as they are supposed to do.

The last time we had a bad president was when Bill Clinton was elected. How was he elected? It was yet another 3rd party candidate who took 19% of the votes away from H.W. Bush. His name was Ross Perot and he never even planned to become president. He had a personal hatred for GHWB and, as a wealthy billionaire, used his money to fund the campaign that split the Repub vote to let Clinton slide into office.

If conservatives play games with 3rd party nuts, they will help elect Hillary to the white house. And the second amendment will be gone forever and abortion will continue to be invalidly kept as a law on the books.

Trump will nominate conservative SCOTUS judges whose only directive is to uphold the constitution instead of violating it as the liberal justices do.

I'm all for 3rd party candidates who would split the Demo vote because that would be a service to the nation. But it is foolhardy to split up Trump's vote and allow Hillary to slide into office just like her husband did.

 

[psalms 91]

Trump is a clown who will never be elected and he is the one wjho has done major damage to the party, danage I am not sure they can recover from

 

[Josiah]

Trump cannot cause the Repubs to lose the Senate.

He may well do that. Already, several running for re-election are finding themselves in the fight of their politcal lives as people show their disgust at Trump. And a lot of Republicans may well just stay home, depriving Republican senate candiates from getting their votes. Trump at the top of the ticket may well cause Republicans to loose the House, too - although that's less likely. The Republican in my district, running for re-election - is doing all he can to distance himself from Trump but it turns out that's the ONLY thing ANYONE wants to talk about - what an idiot Trump is - and the Dem challenger (who normally wouldn't have a chance against a very popular Republican in a Republican district) is slightly ahead of him in the polls - with a campaign that is focused on only one and exclusively one thing: Trump. Instead of a powerful Republican getting re-elected (it was considered a shoe in), we may well get a new Dem whom we know nothing about except that he thinks Trump is an idiot. I wonder how many other cases of this are happening all over America.

That is why Trump is so popular.

He's not. He has the highest negatives of anyone running for president since Hoover in 1932. The ONLY reason he is just 10 points behind Hillary is that her negatives are darn near as high!



- Josiah

 

[tango]

The question I would ask is, "SO WHAT if one of the candidates is an egomaniac as long as he can help the country out of the mess it is in?" Trump might have an ego, but he is also a very, very generous man who has helped countless people that he really didn't even know over the years. And he has literally employed tens of thousands of people.

That's the kicker, I'm not entirely convinced he can help the country out of the mess it is in. At least not without creating another mess. I don't have a problem with a person with ego - you have to have ego to even consider running for the top job, my concern is the way he appears to blow his mouth first and think second. Part of running the country is international diplomacy and, although I agree with your other post about the "get along with everyone" notion, where diplomacy and negotiation are concerned it's necessary to get along with people some of the time, even if only to avoid ruffling feathers that might need to be smoothed later on. In business I don't doubt he's done very well but in international relations he can't just fire a foreign leader for being stubborn.

He also promises to nominate constitution respecting candidates to the supreme court. Hillary would stack the court with agenda driven leftists who would rule against the second amendment and try to strip citizens of their right to bear arms, etc. The differences between the candidates are literally night and day.

Please don't take my reservations about Trump as indicating even the slightest desire to have Hillary in the White House. I think Trump would be a disaster but think Hillary would be a greater disaster. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for either of them.

And, while we're talking about egomaniacs, who would ever claim that Hillary, herself, is not an egomaniac?

I never said she wasn't. I think I've been quite clear that I have no time for her either.

As for the "broken system" learning a lesson by electing ridiculous candidates, I would suggest that this is exactly what has happened over the past two presidential elections. The system is just fine -- it is like so many other things, it can only be as good as the people who are running it. The voters should begin at the grassroots level and vote out all congressional members who do not support traditional American values instead of just enriching themselves or following agendas that are not respectful of those traditional American values.

The voters might begin at the grassroots level but if recent leaks are anything to go by that didn't help Bernie win against Hillary for the Democratic nomination. The trouble is so many voters are tribal and if they are offered the choice between their guy who has had his snout in the trough for 28 years and is asking for another 4, or the other guy who promises something new but is aligned with the wrong party, they'll vote for their guy while calling for term limits. We The People can impose term limits any time we choose - they're called elections. It would be nice to see term limits enforced so people can stay loyal to their party and still get a bit of turnover in the political world but in the meantime if people want it they have to vote for it.

Of course part of the problem is the way people ignore what really matters because they are focussed on the trivia. In the UK we saw people who didn't bother to vote (for free) in a General Election because "it doesn't make any difference" and yet they would pay to vote for their preferred candidate on Strictly Come Celebrity Cow Tipping On Ice With The Stars.

 

[psalms 91]

If Trump is elected then we deserve everything we get and it wont be good

 

[tango]

If Trump is elected then we deserve everything we get and it wont be good

You could say the same about Hillary.

 

[Highlander]

He may well do that. Already, several running for re-election are finding themselves in the fight of their politcal lives as people show their disgust at Trump. And a lot of Republicans may well just stay home, depriving Republican senate candiates from getting their votes. Trump at the top of the ticket may well cause Republicans to loose the House, too - although that's less likely. The Republican in my district, running for re-election - is doing all he can to distance himself from Trump but it turns out that's the ONLY thing ANYONE wants to talk about - what an idiot Trump is - and the Dem challenger (who normally wouldn't have a chance against a very popular Republican in a Republican district) is slightly ahead of him in the polls - with a campaign that is focused on only one and exclusively one thing: Trump. Instead of a powerful Republican getting re-elected (it was considered a shoe in), we may well get a new Dem whom we know nothing about except that he thinks Trump is an idiot. I wonder how many other cases of this are happening all over America.

What is the name of this very powerful Republican incumbent in your state? If he is that powerful, I would have to wonder why his chances are so slim no matter who is on the ticket for prez. By chance, you would not be talking about John McCain, would you?

As for Repubs possibly staying home -- what about the last presidential election when FIVE MILLION Repubs stayed home because they had a lame, weak candidate in Romney. Same with the previous election when the aforementioned McCain won the nomination.

The politically correct stances taken by both McCain & Romney are why the voters were so uninspired. Trump is the opposite of political correctness. He is a man's man and not afraid to offend any overly sensitive ears. That is why he IS so popular. And that is why those 5 million voters -- and even more -- will show up this time.

Especially when the alternative is a virtual communist who will further destroy this country in continuation with what Obama has done to it.

He's not. He has the highest negatives of anyone running for president since Hoover in 1932. The ONLY reason he is just 10 points behind Hillary is that her negatives are darn near as high!
- Josiah

Trump's negatives are only the result of a madd media that is nothing more than another wing of the Democrat party. Hillary's negatives are for all of the crimes she has committed. Trump's negatives are based mostly on myth. Hillary's are based mostly on fact.

When Labor Day is past -- and the voters traditionally begin paying close attention to the campaign -- things will almost definitely head in Trump's direction. In fact, over the past two days, three major polls (Zogby and Rasmussen and the L.A. Times are showing Hillary's lead virtually down to one or two points. So they already are trending in his direction.

And, with the administration's admission today that they DID pay ransom to Iran for our hostages, Hillary will look even worse.

And, worse for her, Hillary's health may become as big a problem for her as her emails and her murderous performance as secretary of state. She has been tripping, falling, having mental lapses and also has recently been stricken with convulsions that make her head bob back and forth as she tries to keep smiling through it all.

If she happens to suffer one of these attacks during the debates, she may as well head for the nearest federal pen where she belongs.

 

[Highlander]

That's the kicker, I'm not entirely convinced he can help the country out of the mess it is in. At least not without creating another mess. I don't have a problem with a person with ego - you have to have ego to even consider running for the top job, my concern is the way he appears to blow his mouth first and think second. Part of running the country is international diplomacy and, although I agree with your other post about the "get along with everyone" notion, where diplomacy and negotiation are concerned it's necessary to get along with people some of the time, even if only to avoid ruffling feathers that might need to be smoothed later on. In business I don't doubt he's done very well but in international relations he can't just fire a foreign leader for being stubborn.



Please don't take my reservations about Trump as indicating even the slightest desire to have Hillary in the White House. I think Trump would be a disaster but think Hillary would be a greater disaster. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for either of them.



I never said she wasn't. I think I've been quite clear that I have no time for her either.



The voters might begin at the grassroots level but if recent leaks are anything to go by that didn't help Bernie win against Hillary for the Democratic nomination. The trouble is so many voters are tribal and if they are offered the choice between their guy who has had his snout in the trough for 28 years and is asking for another 4, or the other guy who promises something new but is aligned with the wrong party, they'll vote for their guy while calling for term limits. We The People can impose term limits any time we choose - they're called elections. It would be nice to see term limits enforced so people can stay loyal to their party and still get a bit of turnover in the political world but in the meantime if people want it they have to vote for it.

Of course part of the problem is the way people ignore what really matters because they are focussed on the trivia. In the UK we saw people who didn't bother to vote (for free) in a General Election because "it doesn't make any difference" and yet they would pay to vote for their preferred candidate on Strictly Come Celebrity Cow Tipping On Ice With The Stars.

The problem Bernie faced was not with the grassroots voters. It was with Debbie Shultz, former DNC chairman, who rigged the delegate system by creating the many hundreds of super delegates that already were set to vote for Hillary before the primary campaign even started.

As for the general election, people have only TWO concrete choices -- and those are the only two candidates with any mathamatical chance of winning. For anyone to vote for any of the offshoot candiates as an alternative to one of the main candidates is virtually voting for that main candidate's competitor.

Like it or not, that is the way it is. For me, I'm perfectly happy with Trump. He plans to protect our border, lower tax rates for everyone, including businesses, make us energy independent, appoint morally qualified nominees to the supreme court, protect our right to bear arms, make it almost impossible for terrorists to enter the country by posing as immigrants, etc. I could go on and on.

But I'll stop with this simple reminder that Hillary is in direct opposition to virtually all of the above.

 

[tango]

The problem Bernie faced was not with the grassroots voters. It was with Debbie Shultz, former DNC chairman, who rigged the delegate system by creating the many hundreds of super delegates that already were set to vote for Hillary before the primary campaign even started.

That's my point, there's not much point in saying the people at the grassroots need to do something when they are overruled by a corrupt party machine.

As for the general election, people have only TWO concrete choices -- and those are the only two candidates with any mathamatical chance of winning. For anyone to vote for any of the offshoot candiates as an alternative to one of the main candidates is virtually voting for that main candidate's competitor.

Like it or not, that is the way it is. For me, I'm perfectly happy with Trump. He plans to protect our border, lower tax rates for everyone, including businesses, make us energy independent, appoint morally qualified nominees to the supreme court, protect our right to bear arms, make it almost impossible for terrorists to enter the country by posing as immigrants, etc. I could go on and on.

But I'll stop with this simple reminder that Hillary is in direct opposition to virtually all of the above.

I get that Hillary is in opposition to everything you've described. As I said before, don't think for a second that I'd vote for Hillary. I think she'd be a disaster. I'm just not sure Trump wouldn't also be a disaster. Maybe he would bring the kind of brashness that we need but if the party wants to broaden its appeal beyond white men it needs a candidate who does more than talk as if all Muslims are terrorists and all Mexicans are thugs. It's an uphill battle given how many polls suggest that non-white voters tend to vote Democrat, but suggesting entire groups of people are worthless or worse isn't generally a good way to earn their support.

 

[MarkFL]

I have to laugh when people are bamboozled into thinking Trump is a shrewd businessman...he was born the son of a wealthy New York real estate tycoon, and despite many failed ventures and bankruptcies has managed to remain through sheer luck much richer than he deserves. New York recovered nicely from its financial woes, and Trump was in a position to go along for the ride. Trump's father was the real success in the Trump family, and the son is just another loud-mouthed rich boy who's never known anything but the privileges his father's wealth afforded him from birth.

He doesn't care one whit for the people, the vast majority of whom he likely believes are far beneath him in every way; he simply wants to leave his mark in the history books, nothing more.

I could look past all of these things, because he's not the first to have ridden his father's coattails, nor felt he is above the masses because of his inherited wealth, and desires to sit in the highest office in the land simply for the prestige. Our list of presidents is littered with such people...however, it is his over the top ego-maniacal demeanor that I fear would have the potential to do much more harm than any of the perceived shortcomings in his competition.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have to laugh when people are bamboozled into thinking Trump is a shrewd businessman...he was born the son of a wealthy New York real estate tycoon, and despite many failed ventures and bankruptcies has managed to remain through sheer luck much richer than he deserves. New York recovered nicely from its financial woes, and Trump was in a position to go along for the ride. Trump's father was the real success in the Trump family, and the son is just another loud-mouthed rich boy who's never known anything but the privileges his father's wealth afforded him from birth.

He doesn't care one whit for the people, the vast majority of whom he likely believes are far beneath him in every way; he simply wants to leave his mark in the history books, nothing more.

I could look past all of these things, because he's not the first to have ridden his father's coattails, nor felt he is above the masses because of his inherited wealth, and desires to sit in the highest office in the land simply for the prestige. Our list of presidents is littered with such people...however, it is his over the top ego-maniacal demeanor that I fear would have the potential to do much more harm than any of the perceived shortcomings in his competition.

As far as I can tell (from a distance) the alleged shortcomings of Hillary Clinton (and all the other republican candidacy contenders) is more a matter of propaganda against her (and them) than anything real.

PS: for those who complain about 'super delegates' let it be remembered that Hillary Clinton received many millions of votes more than her nearest democrat opponent. Hillary Clinton received 15,805,136 votes in the primaries. Bernie Sanders received 12,029,699.

 

[MarkFL]

My distaste for Trump goes much farther back than his unfortunate bid for the presidency. I always thought of him as a blowhard of little substance who tries to pass himself off as some kind of business whiz, when his real talent is that of self-promotion and being famous for being famous.

 

[MoreCoffee]

My distaste for Trump goes much farther back than his unfortunate bid for the presidency. I always thought of him as a blowhard of little substance who tries to pass himself off as some kind of business whiz, when his real talent is that of self-promotion and being famous for being famous.

Like Paris Hilton and the Kardashians?

 

[MarkFL]

Like Paris Hilton and the Cardashians?

Yes, exactly. :rofl3:

 

[Highlander]

That's my point, there's not much point in saying the people at the grassroots need to do something when they are overruled by a corrupt party machine.

It is one thing to control the enclosed environment of one single party, such as when she orchestrated the superdelegates to be for Hillary from the very beginning. But it is quite another to try and manipulate the electoral college. There are no "superelectorates" that can overwhelm the conventional electoral college members. The best the Dems can hope for is their traditional election thefts in the various individual precincts across the nation.

Many times we hear about one Demo precinct ending up counting more votes than the number of voters who actually live there. This is how Kennedy won the election in 1960. The cheating in Chicago falsely put the whole state of Illinois into Kennedy's side with the electoral votes.

But corrupt states such as Illinois are already factored into what Hillary can be expected to win. So she has nothing to gain in that regard. The real trick is for the swing voters to vote for Trump, for the 3rd party candidates to get fewer votes than expected (from conservative voters) and, lastly, for the main Repub core voters to show up at the voting booths instead of staying home as they did with Romney & McCain.

I get that Hillary is in opposition to everything you've described. As I said before, don't think for a second that I'd vote for Hillary. I think she'd be a disaster. I'm just not sure Trump wouldn't also be a disaster. Maybe he would bring the kind of brashness that we need but if the party wants to broaden its appeal beyond white men it needs a candidate who does more than talk as if all Muslims are terrorists and all Mexicans are thugs. It's an uphill battle given how many polls suggest that non-white voters tend to vote Democrat, but suggesting entire groups of people are worthless or worse isn't generally a good way to earn their support.

With Trump, there is great hope that he can perform the same magic for the nation that he has done for his businesses. With Hillary, we already KNOW we would be getting corruption, lies, deception and less respect around the world -- not to mention the most important thing of all, the Supreme Court. If she is able to nominate 3-4 young, new justices over the coming years, the court will be warped into a leftist nightmare for the next two generations. We cannot afford this.

Trump is a must. America would not survive (and continue to be "America") a presidency run by Hillary Clinton.

 

[Highlander]

My distaste for Trump goes much farther back than his unfortunate bid for the presidency. I always thought of him as a blowhard of little substance who tries to pass himself off as some kind of business whiz, when his real talent is that of self-promotion and being famous for being famous.

Anyone can be a self-promoter and anyone can be "famous for being famous." But they do not build towers that bear their name and they do not count many billions of dollars in their bank accounts. Nor do they sign paychecks for tens of thousands of employees that work for him.

Trump does all of this -- and only a historically successful talent can accomplish this.

Trump is also getting very clever as he begins to exhibit a very welcome presidential demeanor. In fact, on Thursday he even admitted his regrets at some of the attacks he exchanged with some of the other Repub candidates.

This is all happening as the major polls are now showing that he has virtually caught up with Hillary in the polls. It is now a virtual tie.

Enjoy yourself in not liking the man. But at least be honest with yourself and acknowledge that he is a business genius.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

With Trump, there is great hope that he can perform the same magic for the nation that he has done for his businesses. ...

You mean sending the USA to bankruptcy like he did with these businesses?

How is Donald Trump Able to File for Bankruptcy So Many Times?

Written James Hirby and Fact Checked by The Law Dictionary Staff

People might ask "How is Donald Trump able to file for bankruptcy so many times?" The answer is "He didn't." Trump himself has never filed for bankruptcy. His corporations have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times.

By filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the corporation is allowed to continue running while restructuring and reducing its debt. By allowing the business to continue, employees still have their jobs and the business is still making money. Corporate debts still need to be repaid but they may be reduced. The corporation must develop a repayment plan and corporate budget. Both must be approved by the creditors and by the bankruptcy court.

A corporation is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, other owners, board of directors, and CEO. Since it is a separate entity, the corporation files bankruptcy under its own name. In Chapter 11 bankruptcies, the owners’ personal assets are not at risk. The owners’ credit history remains intact.

In 1991, Trump's Taj Mahal located in Atlantic City was in debt for billions of dollars. As a result, Trump's corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy court allowed Trump to reorganize his corporate debts and allowed the casino to keep operating. Trump did surrender half of his ownership interests in the Taj Mahal. He chose to sell his yacht and airplane to help make loan payments.

In 1992, Trump filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on his Trump Plaza Hotel in Atlantic City. At this time, Trump owed $550 million on the Trump Plaza Hotel. As part of the restructuring, Trump gave Citibank a 49% interest in the hotel. He was given a lenient repayment plan. Trump was able to stay on as CEO but he had to give up his salary.

Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts filed for bankruptcy in 2004. The corporation had $1.8 billion dollars of debt. Trump reduced his share in the company to 25% thereby surrendering his control of the corporation. The corporation received lower interest rates and another loan to upgrade the properties.

In 2009, Trump Entertainment Resorts filed bankruptcy after missing a large bond interest payment. Trump was not able to agree with his board of directors on a repayment plan so he resigned as chairman of the board and retained only a 10% ownership interest in the corporation.

(source)

 

[psalms 91]

Bottom line, neither is good and neither will help the nation. I believe that whopever is elected they will be overseeing the downfall of America.