If the election was tomorrow, who would you vote for?

glamourmom

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 2:06 pm

Amarante wrote:

Cruz and Rubio for starters. Have you read their positions on various government programs?

I'm not sure whom I like and I haven't visited any sites or done any extensive research. I do watch the debates so I'm posting based on that.
hopefully by creating a lower tax code and the like, many people won't rely so heavily on programs or lie in order to be on the programs.

Raisin

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 2:10 pm

I deliberately left the other republican candidates out of the poll. I know they are all more attractive then Trump. (I hope). I'm curious if Trump will cause republicans to vote democrat.

Amarante

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 2:13 pm

glamourmom wrote:

Unlikely since the tax code would be lowered for the 1%. Those who are working class, middle class or "poor" would not have significant tax benefits.

We should start taxing the obscene profits of hedge fund managers (for example). Their compensation in the millions and millions is taxed at a highly favorable rate because it is termed "investment income" while a poor shlub who works for their money is taxed at a higher marginal rate.

I have tremendous respect for Warren Buffet who is for REAL tax reform that would actually cost him money. He has admitted that his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income than he does because of the favorable tax treatment for the very rich.

mirror

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 2:27 pm

Amarante wrote:

Why the animus against Hilary?

As far as her record, she was a successful Senator and Secretary of State.

I prefer Sanders because he s more f a populist but in terms of policies that are important to me regarding woman's rights, the safety net fr social welfare polices, healthcare, womans choice, social issues, environment, economy, tax policy, I support her decisions more than any Republican in the race.

Hillary held fundraisers for Hamas.

anon for this

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 2:30 pm

I mostly agree with Amarante also. I prefer Clinton to Sanders because she's more experienced and her ideas more practical. It looks like Clinton will be the Democratic candidate but I hope Sanders will support her (if Christie could support Trump then anything can happen).

And I definitely don't want someone like Trump or Cruz choosing the next two or more Supreme Court Justices.

Amarante

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 2:34 pm

mirror wrote:

Hillary held fundraisers for Hamas.

I can find no credible article verifying that statement. If you could please provide me with a link, I would appreciate it.

Maybe

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 2:37 pm

Trump , he owes nothing to special interest groups

allthingsblue

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 2:56 pm

Amarante wrote:

Really - genuinely curious since neither of those are significant to me in any way

Was WMD an outright lie, or was it a terrible mistake on bush's part? Meaning did he lie to us knowingly or did he make a mistake? (I was too young when this happened to understand the details.)
In Benghazi, Hillary lied to us. She covered up the fact that it was a terror attack. This scares me because it's very much like Obama's strategy: deny Muslim terror, stick your head in the sand when it comes to ISIS and Iraq and Syria.
As for the email scandal, I don't want to vote for someone who already has a history of lies. I feel a president should be someone I look up to, not someone I have to second guess everything he or she says. She lies about her email server, constantly changing her answer when asked about it. And she may have been hiding something. I don't know- sounds shady to me.
Bernie on the other hand (seems to) tell(s) it like it is.
I wouldn't vote for trump either. He may be telling the truth, but his truth is too close to fascism for me to be comfortable. And he doesn't have a plan at all, which scares me.

Iymnok

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 3:06 pm

Why is a third party candidate not an option?

FranticFrummie

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 3:11 pm

Hillary and Hamas:

https://www.google.co.il/webhp.....hamas

Bernie Sanders and J Street:

https://www.google.co.il/webhp.....treet

Google is your friend, Democrats are NOT.

November

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 3:13 pm

Raisin wrote:

I deliberately left the other republican candidates out of the poll. I know they are all more attractive then Trump. (I hope). I'm curious if Trump will cause republicans to vote democrat.

Actually, I believe, based on polling, voter turnout and exit polling, that you are going to see the exact opposite. Democrats, especially those called Reagan Democrats and an amount of African Americans (see YouTube sensations Diamond and Silk among others), who are feeling disenfranchised from the Democratic party, are going to vote for Trump. As it is, he is not a straight down the line Republican. That's why the party doesn't want him. He has both said positives about Planned Parenthood and negatives about GWBush with regard to keeping us safe before 9-11. People in this country want jobs and want to feel safe, and he's talking about those issues. The Democrats are touting numbers that just don't pass the sniff test with many Americans, and are bringing in huge amounts of immigrants from Muslim countries which is changing the fabric of our country.
Moreover, many Democrats do not want another Clinton, and find Hillary not only unlikable but also dishonest. Benghazi is a huge sticking point, as is her illegal use of her own email server for sensitive messages (acting above the law) plus her record as head of the State Dept, which gave us ISIS, the war in Libya, etc.
Yes, I will vote for Trump.

Amarante

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 3:26 pm

allthingsblue wrote:

Certainly key players in the Bush Administration lied and selectively "listened" to certain stuff and ignoring others because Cheney and the other hawks wanted a war as part of their NeoCon foreign policy strategy. At best, Bush's administration was incompetent to the highest degree - disregarding warnings on 9/11 and plunging into a massively destructive and counterproductive war based on faulty intelligence.

Clinton didn't lie about Benghazi but provided best information then available from the CIA. Exonerated after Congressional hearings on this charge.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/wo.....47996

While congressional investigations determined the initial CIA review was an honest mistake, Republicans have seized the switch in explanation as an opportunity to blame the Obama administration of a cover-up for failing to protect Americans. The controversy reached such high fever pitch, it forced Rice to withdraw her name from consideration for secretary of state.

Also when has Obama denied Muslim terror? I think he has been quite clear on the subject and denounced it. He almost immediately called Benghazi an act of terror. The only issue in the first days was whether it was an organized act of terror or a random act of terror.

If anyone doesn't support someone based on their policies or beliefs, that's understandable. But one should at least not be relying on inaccuracies in assessing people.

Most recently with regard to the San Bernardino shooting:

Obama, speaking in the symbolic surroundings of the Oval Office, unequivocally told millions of television viewers in prime-time that last week's mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, was a terrorist attack by a couple who had gone down the "dark path of radicalization" and embraced a "perverted" form of Islam.

"This was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people," Obama said. "Here's what I want you to know. The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us."

"We will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless," Obama said, calling on Congress to take action to outlaw anyone on a terrorist "no fly list" from buying weapons and asking lawmakers to pass a final authorization for U.S. armed forces to wage war on the group.

“As groups like ISIL grew stronger amidst the chaos of war in Iraq and Syria and as the Internet erases the distance between countries, we see growing efforts by terrorists to poison the minds of people,” Obama said Sunday.

And in an appeal that will likely anger conservatives, Obama demanded tougher gun control, saying it was a key part of combating ISIS. He said it is currently too easy for people who want to harm Americans to buy guns.

"Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon? This is a matter of national security," Obama said, and also argued it should be harder to buy powerful assault weapons like those used in the San Bernardino attacks that killed 14 people.

Amarante

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 3:32 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

Hillary and Hamas:

https://www.google.co.il/webhp.....hamas

Bernie Sanders and J Street:

https://www.google.co.il/webhp.....treet

Google is your friend, Democrats are NOT.

Confused as the first site was an article discussing her disagreement with Jon Stewart regarding his relatively benign view of Hamas. She is taking a hard line towards Hamas so it would seem to refute her being a friend of Hamas or accepting donations.

Again, please cite a reputable source regarding her accepting funding from Hamas. It's not something I have ever read or heard about and I am pretty much a political junkie and I am NOT a super Hilary supporter but will vote for her because in the end she represents more of what it important to me than any other candidate except Sanders who will not be the nominee.

The cynic in me doesn't believe it because it would be an act of unbelievable political stupidity for a Democrat (or any American politician) to take money from Hamas. I'm not even getting into the legality of funding from the organization.

Maya

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 3:37 pm

anon for this wrote:

Same. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.

November

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 3:41 pm

Talk about relying on inaccuracies, did you totally miss the email that Hillary sent to her daughter saying that the attack at Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack, and she told this to the head of Libya as well. Then she turned around and stated to the country and to the families that the blame for the spontaneous attack was on a video maker whom they arrested. We all knew she was lying then. That was not based on the intelligence. The nature of the attack was too sophisticated to have been spontaneous. We knew it. Just like President Obama's first instinct regarding the shooting in San Bernadino was that it was a workplace incident. That reminded us of Fort Hood. We all know these things and don't appreciate being lied to or told untruths or partial truths. It's as if these people have an agenda that is not keeping us safe of telling us the truth. That he got there a week later only makes us question why not start with the truth and go from there?

Maya

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 3:57 pm

November, I know you're a very staunch Trump supporter, so I dont feel like I need to be defending my choices to you, of all people Smile

November

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 4:13 pm

Maya wrote:

November, I know you're a very staunch Trump supporter, so I dont feel like I need to be defending my choices to you, of all people Smile

That's funny since I was actually responding to Amarante's long post, which I didn't quote because it was so long, which called on people to rely on accurate information. Of course you don't owe me any explanation for your choices! It could be ssomething obscure or emotional or something you don't even feel like putting into words.
And to set the record straight, I am not a staunch Trump supporter. I liked many of the candidates who just didn't make it very far. I am being realistic in saying why I think Trump has garnered so much support (not from me but in general). And I see a phenomenon of Democrats not really coming out strongly to vote and the opposite with Republicans.
To be honest, Trump makes me very anxious. He doesn't offend me as much as I just don't know what his true platform will be as a world leader. It's a leap of faith to support him, but I feel it's the best chance that the Republicans have at this moment in time.

Maya

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 4:15 pm

Oh I thought you were responding to me. Sorry about that.
Either way, seems like the entire country is scr*wed.

Raisin

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 4:18 pm

Iymnok wrote:

Why is a third party candidate not an option?

this is a theoretical scenario. Smile

yogabird

Wed, Mar 02 2016, 4:23 pm

Maya wrote:

Same. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton.

I also think she's the best of the lot between the 3 of them. Very Sad.