If you can vote, who will you vote for; if you can't, who would you want to vote for?

So now that we can say with (almost) certainty that the election will actually be Trump vs Clinton, with Trump being well on his way to snatching the 1237 delegates and Clinton well on her way to snatching her 1800 delegates and 500 bought ones, I think I'm currently undecided. I'll have to see the crap show that plays out in the next few months before I make up my mind. It should be funny.

On one hand, Clinton gets elected and Democrats keep power for a few more years (plus filling Scalia's seat). On the other hand Trump messes up the system, takes away the establishment's power, and puts the country in a position where we'll probably see some real reform being pushed through in the 2020's.





And if you want to laugh, here's Ted Cruz accidentally elbowing and punching his wife while Carly Fiorina awkwardly watches. (you know, a week after he prematurely announces his VP).

 

Hilary's track record in government is full of failure. And no, I don't think you can accuse of Trump being bought out when you compare him to Clinton lol.

 

Failure? http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...y-clintons-greatest-accomplishment-213157?o=1

As for who is deeper in Wall Street's pockets, if you can't notice that a born-rich, Ivy grad, Manhattan real estate developer IS Wall Street, then I don't have any hope for you.

 

I will legit move to the UK, and I'm Canadian. I can watch America's downfall overseas.

 

Trump has just added a former hedge fund manager and Goldman Sachs partner to his campaign, to function as the campaign national finance chairman. If Goldman Sachs were one of the largest, most knowingly and recklessly irresponsible engineers of our recent economic collapse (yep), that could be a problem for him, and might signal that he's too chummy with the worst of Wall Street (and yep)... especially if the two may have known each other for a decade and a half, and have had documented business dealings together (another yep).

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...dge-fund-manager-as-national-finance-chairman

 

He added him to help fundraising and since you think that is so bad I think its worth noting he donated to the Hilary campaign.

 

I do think it's bad, which is why I support Bernie.

You indicated that you also think Wall Street influence is bad, as you cited it a reason to vote for against Hillary. This is simply another detail that shows how Trump has no claim to superiority on this issue.

Basically, your argument is that you don't like candidates who have been tainted by sewage, and Hillary has taken jobs as a sewage worker, but Trump is a ninja turtle, living in that filth every day.

 

Except with Trump you know you're getting a button. Clinton is actually skilled at corruption and deceit, and can cause more damage.

Honestly ATM their stances on interventionism is my biggest motivation ATM.

 

Here's the deal: Both are power craving, both are liars, both would probably be corrupt. As for their personalities, I don't believe Trump is quite as abrasive as he acts. He is trying to get into the White House, and that is the face he has painted for himself. I have a hard time believing he would be where he is financially if he truly had no speech filter. Now that he has secured (most likely) Republican nomination, it will be interesting to see how his demeanor changes.


Taking a look at their tax plans, we see that Trump's is absolutely imbecilic. Hillary's would at least keep the country financially alive. However, I would not be surprised if Trump's plan was mere proposed to help him secure the nomination. I find it hard to believe that a man of such wealth would be so oblivious to the foolishness of his own plan.



At the end of the day, I am a republican, and thus, without an absolutely fantastic democrat candidate, will hope for the election of a republic. I will hope, though, that the face he has painted for himself is truly just a face, and that he is much smarter than he pretends to be.

 

TRUMP

 

Our current system is designed so that only power-craving types are selected, so any alternative candidates will share that flaw.

Not sure where this stuff about Hillary being corrupt and deceitful is coming from. She's just as evasive as the next politician, but her and her husband have been the targets of years of invasive investigation (the new political weapon of choice) and so far the only thing that has managed to show any basis in reality is Bill's infidelity. Given the thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars poured into these investigations, don't you think it's time to stop being paranoid about them?

 

Anarchy for 4 years would be better than Trump or Hillary.

 

I think his point was that trump is part of the group that does the buying, and is therefore closer to the source. I would agree, but I think I might still vote for him over Hillary. Not by much though.

--- Double Post Merged, May 7, 2016, Original Post Date: May 7, 2016 ---

Lol, I think that might be true.

 

It's weird how people think building a wall will keep illegal immigrants out. A large amount of them get here by plane.

 

I want to say that Trump probably scripts everything he says. He's very clever, to put it lightly. He says an outrageous claim and gets all the media attention he can. I'm actually very surprised to see his success, but at the same time I understand it. The Republican party has been complaining for the past 8 years and creating a ton of animosity among voters. Essentially, they created Trump, and he was destined to happen. The real question is what happens next. With Clinton, nothing changes. With Trump, we might just see one of the biggest party realignments since the 1960s.

 

I don't know why but I'll share this

 

The problem with socialism is this. If I work hard, and the fits of my labor are taken from me and distributed amongst the populous as a whole, why should I work hard? Furthermore, it gives the government far to much power if you'received not convinced that's a bad thing, why don't you go talk to the 20 million Russians murdered by Stalin. (While Stalin claimed to be Communist, his government was nothing like the communism proposed by Karl Marx, and much more closely resembled Socialism, as defined by the Google definition you used.)

As to why each citizen must be their own bodyguard, you say these shootings aren't done by criminals. I'm sorry but what is your definition of criminal? Because "someone who shoots kids at a school" definitely falls within the group I would label as criminals.
Now Imagine you are a criminal, or as you would say pent-up aggression. Are you more likely to commit a shooting in a world where no one has guns, and the police are a good 10 minutes away, Or in a world where everyone is armed?
"Why Do you believe the only way to defend yourself is by shooting someone?"
So I guess when someone runs at you with a gun you'really going to try and talk it out?
"What are you so afraid of?"
How about being shot? Or worse yet, my family being shot.

Now for abortion:
I would state that the egg becomes a child at the moment of conception, because it will become a human. I don't give a crap whether you think it is or not. It will, barring any unforseen events, become a child. A sperm will not become a child on it's own, nor will an egg. But a fetus will.
I'll leave you with one of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes. "I can't help but notice that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.

 

Well - Because she is corrupt and deceitful. Just because others are corrupt and deceitful is not a justification, and only highlights the issue of our current system.

I'll be editing this post as I keep finding examples of Clinton outright pandering, lying, or corruption.

A quick link with someone else doing the legwork for me atm

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/c...ry_clinton_online_or_risk_a/d2yqeba?context=3

 

In current society those who work the hardest are paid the least. The higher up the ladder one climbs the easier your job becomes. Also, you're thinking of communism. Your money isn't going to be divided equally among the population, there are just higher taxes.

hmmm nope that was still communism.

look up any news article covering a random public shooting. Do they call them a criminal? No, they call them "mentally disturbed". The difference is how to media plays it in definition. Criminal = people the media expects to commit a crime.

If I had a lot of pent-up aggression and low morals I could at this very moment go to my father's gun case and shoot up whatever i please. Because it's there. It's accessible. Even with a lock; it's in my home, in the room over. The issue with low gun control is that people who should not have access to guns probably already have one in their home, or could buy it at the store down the street. Also, can i just re-fricking-iterate: NOBODY IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR GUNS FOR THE LOVE OF G O D.

??????? people don't just run around with guns shooting at people???? the majority of people with guns who have ill intent have a plan or at least a general objective. Why would you get shot? Why is your family going to be shot? Don't dehumanize criminals as if they're literal animals - they have the same capacity for thought as you do.

You may not care what I think, but what about what Bill Nye thinks? Is he not credible?

hmm it's almost like I have a brain and capacity for thought - something very unlike the parasite in a person's uterus.

 

Though I could write a lot on this issue, I choose not to for the soul fact of the controversy involved I'd rather watch it and see what you all have to say. For now anyways.