US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[George S]

Cruz is pro-theocracy.

There is an ad.

 

[ZiprHead]

Palin?!

It would be novel, that's for sure. A novel disaster, that's for certain. But a novelty nonetheless.

But a boon to comedy writers everywhere.

 

[angelo]

Since the Bush era, the stand up comedians are experiencing a draught of material.

 

[Jarhyn]

From Hillary's recent exposure and overtly "political" bendt, I would much rather see a Warren candidacy. She's just more honest and likable. Everything I've ever seen of Hillary reeks of lust for power and control. Every time I've ever heard her self righteous pontificating it makes me want to hurl. I seriously doubt that she has an honestly good, apolitical bone in her body
That said, I'd vote for her before I would vote for any of the people the teapublicans are fielding.

It's shaping up to be the kind of year where I just don't want to vote, because I refuse the choice between douche and turd.

 

[angelo]

Surely the Republicans can field a decent candidate, not the shite they're showing so far.

 

[SimpleDon]

From Hillary's recent exposure and overtly "political" bendt, I would much rather see a Warren candidacy. She's just more honest and likable. Everything I've ever seen of Hillary reeks of lust for power and control. Every time I've ever heard her self righteous pontificating it makes me want to hurl. I seriously doubt that she has an honestly good, apolitical bone in her body
That said, I'd vote for her before I would vote for any of the people the teapublicans are fielding.

It's shaping up to be the kind of year where I just don't want to vote, because I refuse the choice between douche and turd.

Hillary was Wall Street's Senator and will make them feel very comfortable in a contest between her and any of the Republicans. They couldn't lose. This is another reason to hope for another Democrat to come forward, hopefully.

Wall Street is a complete artifice, a politically created fabrication. They depend on political control and politicians to direct more and more money to them away from wages and away from productive investments in this country.

We need a Democratic party that will stand up to Wall Street, one that has a positive pro-worker political agenda, not just a negative, blue dog conservative, box in the Republicans political strategy.

 

[ZiprHead]

Surely the Republicans can field a decent candidate, not the shite they're showing so far.

They probably could. There are sane Republicans out there. The Republican voters would not nominate them though.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Surely the Republicans can field a decent candidate, not the shite they're showing so far.

They probably could. There are sane Republicans out there. The Republican voters would not nominate them though.

Whenever I hear people say that, I feel like Big Bird talking about the Snuffaluffacus. Everyone's always talking about how he's around, but he managed to just leave before I show up, so I never get to see any evidence of him.

 

[Terrell]

They probably could. There are sane Republicans out there. The Republican voters would not nominate them though.

Whenever I hear people say that, I feel like Big Bird talking about the Snuffaluffacus. Everyone's always talking about how he's around, but he managed to just leave before I show up, so I never get to see any evidence of him.

Good point, you'd think that Big Bird would get a camera & take a picture. He could prove that Aloysius Snuffleupagus exists

 

[George S]

Surely the Republicans can field a decent candidate, not the shite they're showing so far.

They probably could. There are sane Republicans out there. The Republican voters would not nominate them though.

Sane, but conservative. They want the old days as it was in the 60s and 70s.

The young people I talk with, the under 30 generation, are social liberals and find the progressives as nuts in thinking handouts help, and the republicans for sounding antiquated.

 

[arkirk]

Surely the Republicans can field a decent candidate, not the shite they're showing so far.

I rather doubt that.

Good Republican candidates ended with Lincoln.

 

[arkirk]

From Hillary's recent exposure and overtly "political" bendt, I would much rather see a Warren candidacy. She's just more honest and likable. Everything I've ever seen of Hillary reeks of lust for power and control. Every time I've ever heard her self righteous pontificating it makes me want to hurl. I seriously doubt that she has an honestly good, apolitical bone in her body
That said, I'd vote for her before I would vote for any of the people the teapublicans are fielding.

It's shaping up to be the kind of year where I just don't want to vote, because I refuse the choice between douche and turd.

As her hubby Bill would say: I feel you pain! I have been feeling that pain now for about 30 years. Almost without exception I have voted 3rd party for the last 20 years. I think voting for her is voting for a corporatist, a war hawk, and a general all around bitch. As long as you take the menu these two parties provide, you really are just choosing between douche and enema. I can't bring myself to vote for the douche.

 

[bilby]

From Hillary's recent exposure and overtly "political" bendt, I would much rather see a Warren candidacy. She's just more honest and likable. Everything I've ever seen of Hillary reeks of lust for power and control. Every time I've ever heard her self righteous pontificating it makes me want to hurl. I seriously doubt that she has an honestly good, apolitical bone in her body
That said, I'd vote for her before I would vote for any of the people the teapublicans are fielding.

It's shaping up to be the kind of year where I just don't want to vote, because I refuse the choice between douche and turd.

As her hubby Bill would say: I feel you pain! I have been feeling that pain now for about 30 years. Almost without exception I have voted 3rd party for the last 20 years. I think voting for her is voting for a corporatist, a war hawk, and a general all around bitch. As long as you take the menu these two parties provide, you really are just choosing between douche and enema. I can't bring myself to vote for the douche.

You would if you were smart enough to notice that you will get one or the other regardless.

Failing to choose the lesser of two evils is self destructive and irrational. 'no evil at all thanks' isn't one of your options.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

As her hubby Bill would say: I feel you pain! I have been feeling that pain now for about 30 years. Almost without exception I have voted 3rd party for the last 20 years. I think voting for her is voting for a corporatist, a war hawk, and a general all around bitch. As long as you take the menu these two parties provide, you really are just choosing between douche and enema. I can't bring myself to vote for the douche.

You would if you were smart enough to notice that you will get one or the other regardless.

Failing to choose the lesser of two evils is self destructive and irrational. 'no evil at all thanks' isn't one of your options.

If we must choose between a lesser of two evils, then how are we ever going to get to the point where we can vote against evil?

A vote is considered an endorsement, and your vote doesn't come with a tag saying "I didn't actually vote for you I voted against the other guy." If a candidate gets a majority of the votes, and every single vote was actually a vote against the other guy, it is still interpreted as votes for that guy. Every time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You would if you were smart enough to notice that you will get one or the other regardless.

Failing to choose the lesser of two evils is self destructive and irrational. 'no evil at all thanks' isn't one of your options.

If we must choose between a lesser of two evils, then how are we ever going to get to the point where we can vote against evil?

Won't. But it'd help keep two more "Unitary Executive" Alitos from being put on the bench.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yeah. No, it won't.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah. No, it won't.

In English this time?

 

[bilby]

You would if you were smart enough to notice that you will get one or the other regardless.

Failing to choose the lesser of two evils is self destructive and irrational. 'no evil at all thanks' isn't one of your options.

If we must choose between a lesser of two evils, then how are we ever going to get to the point where we can vote against evil?

Gradually.

A vote is considered an endorsement, and your vote doesn't come with a tag saying "I didn't actually vote for you I voted against the other guy." If a candidate gets a majority of the votes, and every single vote was actually a vote against the other guy, it is still interpreted as votes for that guy. Every time.

It doesn't matter what a vote is 'considered'. A non-vote is considered an endorsement of both candidates.

Long periods with a right-wing government pull both parties to the right; long periods of left-wing government pull both parties to the left. It is a slow process; but it is observable.

Voting is only a small part of the picture. Not voting isn't part of the picture at all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If we must choose between a lesser of two evils, then how are we ever going to get to the point where we can vote against evil?

Gradually.

A vote is considered an endorsement, and your vote doesn't come with a tag saying "I didn't actually vote for you I voted against the other guy." If a candidate gets a majority of the votes, and every single vote was actually a vote against the other guy, it is still interpreted as votes for that guy. Every time.

It doesn't matter what a vote is 'considered'. A non-vote is considered an endorsement of both candidates.

Long periods with a right-wing government pull both parties to the right; long periods of left-wing government pull both parties to the left. It is a slow process; but it is observable.

Voting is only a small part of the picture. Not voting isn't part of the picture at all.

Odd, we had 16 years of Democrat rule in the White House since 1992, and the nation's voting habits have shifted right. It took 100,000+ dead Iraqis (well more like 10,000 dead/maimed US soldiers) for the Republicans to lose control of Congress.

 

[bilby]

Gradually.

A vote is considered an endorsement, and your vote doesn't come with a tag saying "I didn't actually vote for you I voted against the other guy." If a candidate gets a majority of the votes, and every single vote was actually a vote against the other guy, it is still interpreted as votes for that guy. Every time.

It doesn't matter what a vote is 'considered'. A non-vote is considered an endorsement of both candidates.

Long periods with a right-wing government pull both parties to the right; long periods of left-wing government pull both parties to the left. It is a slow process; but it is observable.

Voting is only a small part of the picture. Not voting isn't part of the picture at all.

Odd, we had 16 years of Democrat rule in the White House since 1992, and the nation's voting habits have shifted right. It took 100,000+ dead Iraqis (well more like 10,000 dead/maimed US soldiers) for the Republicans to lose control of Congress.

Well it's a good thing that the President of the United States is the only elected position in your government, and that the Executive branch of government is the sole power in the land; because otherwise your point would be badly flawed.

Perhaps the reason that the Republicans maintained control of Congress has something to do with the lack of people voting for the fractionally less evil alternatives?