RE: US elections general thread

RE: US elections general thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

US elections general thread

Jeb Bush

2% (1)

Donald Trump

31% (12)

Marco Rubio

0% (0)

Ben Carson

2% (1)

Ted Cruz

10% (4)

John Kasich

5% (2)

Bernie Sanders

34% (13)

Hillary Clinton

13% (5)

Total Votes : 38

(last vote on : 3/21/2016 6:14:52 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: US elections general thread (2/20/2016 6:08:43 PM)
In theory, this is a boost for Rubio, but this election seems to defy conventional wisdom

Phydeaux -> RE: US elections general thread (2/20/2016 6:57:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Prediction: Jeb Bush drops probably after south carolina, perhaps after nevada, if he doesn't get at least a 3rd place showing in either. And I don't see that happening, although trump has been inserting foot in mouth gratuitously. Bush is out of money - and republicans DO NOT WANT ANOTHER BUSH. Get OFF THE PUBLIC TROUGH. GO HOME. No wait. We don't want you either. Take hillary on a nice vacation As expected.. bush drops. But the big news is really rubio.... Cruz really has demonstrated the limit of his appeal. SC was his likely strongest battleground....

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: US elections general thread (2/20/2016 7:05:56 PM)
quote: Cruz really has demonstrated the limit of his appeal. SC was his likely strongest battleground. Yeah Trump managed to steal away enough of the religious nuts.

BamaD -> RE: US elections general thread (2/20/2016 9:31:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Cruz really has demonstrated the limit of his appeal. SC was his likely strongest battleground. Yeah Trump managed to steal away enough of the religious nuts. Trump is still getting his 30-35 percent of the vote, the more people drop out the worse it is for him. I would like to see 3 more quick drop-outs but it will not happen.

Greta75 -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 2:20:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire @greta75 declares Marco Rubio got 0 votes in here! Lol! Poor dude! Man his supporters gotta represent a little! I declare "her" sock and in no position to sit in judgement - perhaps "her" computer got hacked at least the wretched urchin is real @greta75 But Marco Rubio still truly got 0 vote here. Stroll up and look at poll results and see I speak nothing but the truth!

Greta75 -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 2:23:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Yeah Trump managed to steal away enough of the religious nuts. I honestly don't know why religious nuts love Trump. He praised Planned Parenthood! So amazing feat to get religious right votes, despite openly praising Planned Parenthood! That is a feat! Even the Pope declaring him not christian enough has not helped! Ha!

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 10:38:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Cruz really has demonstrated the limit of his appeal. SC was his likely strongest battleground. Yeah Trump managed to steal away enough of the religious nuts. Trump is still getting his 30-35 percent of the vote, the more people drop out the worse it is for him. I would like to see 3 more quick drop-outs but it will not happen. I agree, but he won several counties in what was supposedly strongly evangelical territory.

BamaD -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 10:46:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: Cruz really has demonstrated the limit of his appeal. SC was his likely strongest battleground. Yeah Trump managed to steal away enough of the religious nuts. Trump is still getting his 30-35 percent of the vote, the more people drop out the worse it is for him. I would like to see 3 more quick drop-outs but it will not happen. I agree, but he won several counties in what was supposedly strongly evangelical territory. Would you agree that more than 35% of the voters in those areas do not qualify as evangelicals? The fact remains that when someone drops out their supportes go to someone other than Trump. It remains to be seen if this keeps happening and if it happens soon enough to make a difference.

ifmaz -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 10:49:01 AM)
FR If your preferred candidate does not get the nod from their respective party, would you still vote for the party? For instance, if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic Party's candidate, would you still vote for Hillary just to be in-line with your party, would you choose a different candidate, or would you not vote?

Lucylastic -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 11:35:08 AM)
For me, it would have to be someone to the left of kasich in this race so far. so no, I would vote party, none of the others are sane. But I dont have a vote, so its moot.

BamaD -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 11:52:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz FR If your preferred candidate does not get the nod from their respective party, would you still vote for the party? For instance, if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic Party's candidate, would you still vote for Hillary just to be in-line with your party, would you choose a different candidate, or would you not vote? Since even Trump is better than Hillary or Sanders, yes.

ifmaz -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 12:59:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz FR If your preferred candidate does not get the nod from their respective party, would you still vote for the party? For instance, if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic Party's candidate, would you still vote for Hillary just to be in-line with your party, would you choose a different candidate, or would you not vote? Since even Trump is better than Hillary or Sanders, yes. Seeing as you've apparently missed the point: if Trump doesn't get the Republican party vote, would you still vote Republican, opt not to vote, or choose a different (eg third party) candidate?

BamaD -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 1:56:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz FR If your preferred candidate does not get the nod from their respective party, would you still vote for the party? For instance, if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic Party's candidate, would you still vote for Hillary just to be in-line with your party, would you choose a different candidate, or would you not vote? Since even Trump is better than Hillary or Sanders, yes. Seeing as you've apparently missed the point: if Trump doesn't get the Republican party vote, would you still vote Republican, opt not to vote, or choose a different (eg third party) candidate? No, I did get the point, Trump is not my first choice, or even my second.

ifmaz -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 3:00:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz FR If your preferred candidate does not get the nod from their respective party, would you still vote for the party? For instance, if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic Party's candidate, would you still vote for Hillary just to be in-line with your party, would you choose a different candidate, or would you not vote? Since even Trump is better than Hillary or Sanders, yes. Seeing as you've apparently missed the point: if Trump doesn't get the Republican party vote, would you still vote Republican, opt not to vote, or choose a different (eg third party) candidate? No, I did get the point, Trump is not my first choice, or even my second. So you'd still vote for Trump even though you disagree with his views?

BamaD -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 9:44:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz FR If your preferred candidate does not get the nod from their respective party, would you still vote for the party? For instance, if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic Party's candidate, would you still vote for Hillary just to be in-line with your party, would you choose a different candidate, or would you not vote? Since even Trump is better than Hillary or Sanders, yes. Seeing as you've apparently missed the point: if Trump doesn't get the Republican party vote, would you still vote Republican, opt not to vote, or choose a different (eg third party) candidate? No, I did get the point, Trump is not my first choice, or even my second. So you'd still vote for Trump even though you disagree with his views? Since Hillary or Sanders would be the option yes. It isn't that I would vote Rep no matter what, it is that Hillary and Sanders are much worse than trump. Who would I vote for, Truman?

Greta75 -> RE: US elections general thread (2/21/2016 10:31:29 PM)
Although I can't vote in the US, but if the the same situation happen in my country, I always vote the better of the worst, and this better of the worst may be a candidate not be representing the party I usually support. To me, it's important to vote. Because, people in the past fought for our democracy today, for our right to choose our leaders, and we should all vote! If you don't care who wins, give someone you care about, your vote. Ask them who they want, and put that in!

hot4bondage -> RE: US elections general thread (2/22/2016 8:08:54 AM)
Isn't that how we keep getting stuck with people who don't really represent us? Combine that mentality with the privileges of incumbency, name-recognition, and having the "right" height and hairdo and most elections are pretty much over before they begin. But there is no perfect candidate, and we can't clone ourselves yet, so how do we get past these pitfalls? This might not work for everybody, but this is my litmus test... If a candidate doesn't support BOTH the First AND Second amendments, they don't get my vote. That tends to weed out all the partisan hacks immediately, so I have a lot more time and patience to look at their record on other issues before I get bored to tears. Sometimes I have to walk out of the polls without choosing a candidate for every office, especially local where my vote actually means something, but who's fault is that? Mine, or all of the good people who didn't run? Probably a little of both to be honest, but in a democratic republic we are all ultimately responsible for this mess in one way or another, so why not make some effort to actually be represented? I would add that if you weed out candidates this way, you're only left with people to vote FOR, not AGAINST. That's the way it should be! Yeah, you basically disenfranchise yourself sometimes, but what's the point of having any say if you don't say what you mean? "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil." --Jerry Garcia

Greta75 -> RE: US elections general thread (2/22/2016 8:50:05 AM)
Your theory does not make sense. By not voting, the country could land up with the worst of the worst of those 2. The least you can do is, vote for the least worst. Because not voting at all means, you are giving up your right to want to have a say who you want to choose. And it will not ensure that future people you dislike will stay away from elections. Voting will at least ensure the one you dislike the most at last place, does not get to rule! It's still a step of asserting your opinion. I don't understand why would people not vote. In my country, voting is compulsory. If you choose not to vote, you lose your right to vote ever again. It's a declaration of, you don't care about your voting duties and caring about having a say of choosing a leader for the country. Of course you can appeal to have yourself reinstated if you have a really good reason for not voting, other than, you hate all the candidates available.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: US elections general thread (2/22/2016 9:23:45 AM)
Forced to vote?? And you think your country represents freedom? Jeeeez Greta. Every time you come up with this sort of repressive law, it just shows how much freedom you clearly DON'T have! It might also explain why a third of your country choose NOT to be a Singaporean resident so they are not subject to such dictatorship. I think every 'democratic' vote should always have a 'None of the above' option. If that is the winner, the whole process should be scrapped and started again until a clear choice of the people is represented rather than a 'best of the worst' Hobson's choice.

hot4bondage -> RE: US elections general thread (2/22/2016 2:09:05 PM)
I see what you're saying, but I don't see what good it does. And don't get me wrong, I vote every time. I just don't vote for candidates who oppose my most fundamental beliefs. Isn't it less harmful to cast an inconsequential ballot than a counter-productive ballot?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875