If it comes down to Clinton and Trump, who would you vote for?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by SurfDoctor, Dec 2, 2015.

  1. Tim D

    Tim D Member

    The issue with Libertarians is they agree on pretty much nothing. The anarchist do not agree with statists(which is a really bad insult..never call a libertarian a statist) and the ideas and the party can not move forward. How can an organization that wants to rid the country of the EPA, FDA and many other government entities. How can they think more oversight(bigger government) is needed here. The whole premise of Libertarianism is to be for smaller government and personal freedom.
  2. Shawn Ambrose

    Shawn Ambrose New Member

    If it comes to that - I'm going 3rd party. Clinton is crooked (cattle futures, Whitewater, Benghazi, Travelgate, Clinton Foundation, e-mails, etc); and Trump is a pompous a$$.
  3. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I think it's more that libertarians agree on something like 90% of things, but squabble counter-productively about the remaining ten percent. It's like two people driving from New York City arguing for 1500 miles about whether to stop in Fort Lauderdale or go on to Miami.
  4. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member Staff Member

    I'd vote for Chelsea.
  5. Randell1234

    Randell1234 Moderator Staff Member

    I would vote for Trump!
  6. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    I think more important than who becomes POTUS is which party controls the US Senate.
  7. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    That's interesting: why do you think so?
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    If I could wave a magic wand, I'd make Mitt Romney the next President.

    But, given the likely choices, I'd vote for Trump over Clinton any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. As for Bernie Sanders, someone should throw a net over him.
  9. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    If I could vote: Clinton. Especially if The Donald is the alternative.
  10. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    Going by history the odds are that the next President will be a republican (DDRRDDRRRDRRDDRRDDDDD).
    So having a Democratic Senate (I doubt the house will change party) should ensure that there is a body that can prevent one party controlling all (even if that results in gridlock).
  11. jhp

    jhp Member

    Gridlock is good.
  12. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    That logic is so tortured it belongs at a CIA black site.

    Well, I do agree that gridlock is the least harmful realistic outcome.
  13. plumber

    plumber Guest

    I feel the same way..there has been a lot of looking the other way by the obama administration on the police/law enforcement problems in this country. I mean can we we at least force the minimum standards to be raised to at least require an associates degree?

    I'm voting for trump because I live in Texas and I hope he will do something about illegal immigrants. As a poor Houston resident I can tell you we are truly being overwhelmed. When my children can't even been seen at the er because there are three hundred illegals streating it like their personal doctor. Or my son's music class is canceled because the need to shift to esl programs. We really can't handle anymore people here. I hope someone stops this madness.
  14. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    [QUOTE=plumber;478134 I mean can we we at least force the minimum standards to be raised to at least require an associates degree?

    That won't go over to well with the mostly (if not all) Republican dominated police unions. The unions would never allow it, and the police unions are among the most powerful. They have big war chests, and a lot of political clout.

  15. jhp

    jhp Member

    Police, and their education is a State matter, not Federal.

    There are many police departments which require some college level education.

    Problem is, who is going to start work for, for example, $52K in Baltimore, or $32K in Detroit? Once they have a degree, they could go private sector and make 50 to 75% more starting out.
  16. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    "Donald Trump defends Vladimir Putin over Alexander Litvinenko murder"

    The Donald should be disqualified for the high office, right there.

    On the other hand, Hillary, while widely disliked by a vocal minority of no doubt sincere people, was never conclusively linked to anything any sleazier than any other seasoned pol (even relatively clean ones like Romney or McCain), knows her stuff, and shares in Slick Willy's tradition of policy wonkery and results-getting (and not just by marriage). Also, she is married once, producing a boring but seemingly well-adjusted daughter - even in the face of Slick Willy's rather pathological slickwillery. Also, first female leader of the free world.

    No. Damn. Contest. Hillary-2016.
  17. Ian Anderson

    Ian Anderson Active Member

    In some states the way to get immediate attention in the ER is to call 911 and have the paramedics take you there.
  18. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    What results has she gotten, especially not by marriage?
  19. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Hmmm... Wikipedia page on "Hillary Clinton" seems like a good start.

    Keep in mind that Hillz married a fellow law student, whose subsequent, rather spectacular, success is attributable in part to her. Even discounting that (though I can't imagine why), for a political spouse of such a heavyweight, she accumulated quite a resume on her own right. Does any other candidate beat her on this? Sanders, perhaps.

    But of course, she lacks executive experience of someone like Rubio or people skills of Cruz. And she never bankrupted a casino.
  20. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I didn't ask what jobs she held, I asked what policy successes did she have because of them. As for contributing to her husband's success, I remember in the first year of the Clinton administration it was all "two for the price of one!" with her being the administration's point person for health care reform. But that flopped, and her role was subsequently downplayed.

Share This Page