[POLL] Who are/would you vote for United States President?

[Nightwish]

liberals are more likely to support evolution and climate change.

You're still writing it wrong. No one supports climate change (well, maybe people in Alaska...). And I don't think people support evolution either, they just believe in it and then go on with their lives since nature doesn't really care.

 

[Lacius]

We could debate on whether the intended moral was what I said or you said, but the truth remains the same; when comes choice, the wrong will always be chosen, just for the sheer fact that all the options available are all wrong.
It's like you are taken hostage, the ones who have taken you hostage give you a choice. "There are 7 fruits here. One of them is not poisonous. Choose wisely, because the fruit you choose, you will be forced to eat."
It's a 1/7 chance; 6 idiots, and one ray of hope for change. How many people in the world, or in the world of politics, do you think is capable of really not being either an idiot or a fool (a turd sandwich or a douche), to make the right change needed for a country? It's like finding a needle in a haystack. A 1 in a million chance to choose the right candidate in this situation.
Think about it, only idiots run for politics, because they either want to be a hero or be worshiped. And trying to be a hero just means you are trying to prove something to the world, that you're not just worthless, and when everyone else sees you as a hero, you see yourself as a hero too, because how in the world would 6-7 billion people be wrong?
So you're choosing between essentially the same thing.

TL;DR... for anyone chosen as candidate, America is inevitable to get fucked up.

Your argument fell apart when you left out public service as a reason why one might run for office.

 

[RevPokemon]

You're still writing it wrong. No one supports climate change (well, maybe people in Alaska...). And I don't think people support evolution either, they just believe in it and then go on with their lives since nature doesn't really care.

In hindsight, yes you are right. of course no one supports climate change, I meant to say they agree with the consensus that evolution is real and climate change is happening. I need to remember not to post when I only have had 4 hours of sleep.

Your argument fell apart when you left out public service as a reason why one might run for office.

Of course there are some people who truly run for doing common good out of there hearts (I feel seen best in the local level), but the issue is that many politicians are career politicians who do it for their own reasons such as those that were mentioned. Likewise for others it is more or less the same such as 1. to help the party, 2. personal gain, 3. status which I feel is sad. I also could go into how term limits would be a good thing but I digress.

 

[Lacius]

In hindsight, yes you are right. of course no one supports climate change, I meant to say they agree with the consensus that evolution is real and climate change is happening. I need to remember not to post when I only have had 4 hours of sleep.


Of course there are some people who truly run for doing common good out of there hearts (I feel seen best in the local level), but the issue is that many politicians are career politicians who do it for their own reasons such as those that were mentioned. Likewise for others it is more or less the same such as 1. to help the party, 2. personal gain, 3. status which I feel is sad. I also could go into how term limits would be a good thing but I digress.

I don't know when the term "career politician" became an insult, but being a career politician isn't necessarily a bad thing, and he or she could still be running for office, at least in part, for selfless reasons.

As for term limits, I only think they're appropriate for the executive branch of a government. When it comes to the people who actually write bills, it can take years to learn the ropes, and I don't want a congressperson term limited out of office right when he or she is getting the hang of things and beginning to be effective. Otherwise, we have a bunch of congresspeople who can all vote for or against bills but can't write them very well.

 

[RevPokemon]

I don't know when the term "career politician" became an insult, but being a career politician isn't necessarily a bad thing, and he or she could still be running for office, at least in part, for selfless reasons.

I will admit I think some of the view that is an insult comes from the reputation of certain long serving members such as McCain, Kennedy, Biden, and Young who are all disliked by certain political people. But I think some people dislike it due to the fact that when someone serves in politics so long that it becomes a career, it no longer would be its original purpose of regular people serving to have their voices heard.

As for term limits, I only think they're appropriate for the executive branch of a government

Unrelated but just for my own information and a little insight, what about for governors who are term limited?

When it comes to the people who actually write bills, it can take years to learn the ropes, and I don't want a congressperson term limited out of office right when he or she is getting the hang of things and beginning to be effective. Otherwise, we have a bunch of congresspeople who can all vote for or against bills but can't write them very well.

I understand that, but I feel it also depends on how long the term limit would be. I personally feel that maybe 12 years or so would be a good limit and one where you could get some bills done depending on the party of you and how congress is at the time. Plus I think that stopping people from say the Reagan Era (it is weird to think how long those people have been around) from staying in the 25+ year range would ultimately help the system.

 

[Lacius]

I will admit I think some of the view that is an insult comes from the reputation of certain long serving members such as McCain, Kennedy, Biden, and Young who are all disliked by certain political people. But I think some people dislike it due to the fact that when someone serves in politics so long that it becomes a career, it no longer would be its original purpose of regular people serving to have their voices heard.



Unrelated but just for my own information and a little insight, what about for governors who are term limited?


I understand that, but I feel it also depends on how long the term limit would be. I personally feel that maybe 12 years or so would be a good limit and one where you could get some bills done depending on the party of you and how congress is at the time. Plus I think that stopping people from say the Reagan Era (it is weird to think how long those people have been around) from staying in the 25+ year range would ultimately help the system.

I don't know why it's wrong for politics to become a career. A teacher isn't called a career teacher just because he or she has been teaching 30 or 40 years, and doing something for a long time doesn't inherently take away from any of the original public service intentions.

As for governors, that's the executive branch.

 

[grossaffe]

I don't know why it's wrong for politics to become a career. A teacher isn't called a career teacher just because he or she has been teaching 30 or 40 years, and doing something for a long time doesn't inherently take away from any of the original public service intentions.

As for governors, that's the executive branch.

Politics is supposed to be a service, not a career. Politics is something where the longer you're in it, the better you can game the system and the more power you can amass. Career politicians are easier for Lobbyists to sink their claws into. And career politicians are more detached from the people whom they rule serve as they've been too long removed from being one of them. Plus with career politicians, you're stuck with a bunch of old people who don't understand new technology writing the laws governing said technology. Career politicians are bad news. A career in politics is generally for those into power acquisition, not those looking to serve their fellow man.

 

[Foxi4]

Politics is supposed to be a service, not a career. Politics is something where the longer you're in it, the better you can game the system and the more power you can amass. Career politicians are easier for Lobbyists to sink their claws into. And career politicians are more detached from the people whom they rule serve as they've been too long removed from being one of them. Plus with career politicians, you're stuck with a bunch of old people who don't understand new technology writing the laws governing said technology. Career politicians are bad news. A career in politics is generally for those into power acquisition, not those looking to serve their fellow man.

"Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so." - Gore Vidal

Being a politician is not a career, it's a duty. Politicians are not rulers, they are servants. They are beneath us, not the other way around, and they should not use their political power to amass wealth as their political power was given to them, not earned. It's not a "job", being a politician is being a mouthpiece for your constituents. They're briefly enjoying a position that's supposed to be respectable, but the respect it once inspired is all but lost at this point.

 

[The Catboy]

I am honestly shocked so many people support Trump. I'm sorry, but are people trolling or are people real being serious about this? He's not leadership material, he's crude, vulgar, and can't even hold his own against a News reporter, the hell makes you think he's fit to run the country? What makes him fit to sit in a room with other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who can't even handle questions from FOX to handle questions from other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who doesn't even think before he speaks to speak to other World Leaders? Does he really seem like a fit leader to run our country?
Clinton may not be the best the Democrats have to offer, but at least she can hold her own and has some form of dignity.

 

[Foxi4]

I am honestly shocked so many people support Trump. I'm sorry, but are people trolling or are people real being serious about this? He's not leadership material, he's crude, vulgar, and can't even hold his own against a News reporter, the hell makes you think he's fit to run the country? What makes him fit to sit in a room with other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who can't even handle questions from FOX to handle questions from other World Leaders? Do you really want a man who doesn't even think before he speaks to speak to other World Leaders? Does he really seem like a fit leader to run our country? Clinton may not be the best the Democrats have to offer, but at least she can hold her own and has some form of dignity.

Mrs. Clinton has "some form of dignity"? Are we talking about the same person, the woman who lightheartedly jokes about leaking a bunch of intelligence?



"My computer was hacked? Like, with a hatchet? Wipe my drive? Like, with a cloth?" - idiot.

By the way, it's the crudeness and vulgarity of Trump that's appealing to some people - it's an advantage, not a detriment. He speaks in public in the same way he would speak in a pub, and that kind of sincerity is something some people crave at this point as they're sick of politicians who consistently act like robots and run everything through PR machines. A no-nonsense approach isn't necessarily a bad one. If Trump really wasn't able to hold aces up his sleeve in negotiations, he wouldn't be a billionaire.

 

[Lacius]

Politics is supposed to be a service, not a career. Politics is something where the longer you're in it, the better you can game the system and the more power you can amass. Career politicians are easier for Lobbyists to sink their claws into. And career politicians are more detached from the people whom they rule serve as they've been too long removed from being one of them. Plus with career politicians, you're stuck with a bunch of old people who don't understand new technology writing the laws governing said technology. Career politicians are bad news. A career in politics is generally for those into power acquisition, not those looking to serve their fellow man.

"Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so." - Gore Vidal

Being a politician is not a career, it's a duty. Politicians are not rulers, they are servants. They are beneath us, not the other way around, and they should not use their political power to amass wealth as their political power was given to them, not earned. It's not a "job", being a politician is being a mouthpiece for your constituents. They're briefly enjoying a position that's supposed to be respectable, but the respect it once inspired is all but lost at this point.

Again, the imposed limitation on time seems arbitrary to me, and length of service doesn't necessarily conflict with the job description of public service. I also don't think making a career out of politics necessarily leads to a lot of the things listed above. In addition, to go back to my previous analogy, I can say many of these same things about old teachers who don't understand new technology. That doesn't make them ineffective teachers.

Mrs. Clinton has "some form of dignity"? Are we talking about the same person, the woman who lightheartedly jokes about leaking a bunch of intelligence?

In all fairness, the idea that she maliciously or negligently leaked intelligence is a joke.

By the way, it's the crudeness and vulgarity of Trump that's appealing to some people - it's an advantage, not a detriment. He speaks in public in the same way he would speak in a pub, and that kind of sincerity is something some people crave at this point as they're sick of politicians who consistently act like robots and run everything through PR machines. A no-nonsense approach isn't necessarily a bad one. If Trump really wasn't able to hold aces up his sleeve in negotiations, he wouldn't be a billionaire.

Do we want someone to be president who speaks like he would in a pub without thinking first?

 

[The Catboy]

Mrs. Clinton has "some form of dignity"? Are we talking about the same person, the woman who lightheartedly jokes about leaking a bunch of intelligence?



"My computer was hacked? Like, with a hatchet? Wipe my drive? Like what, with a cloth?" - idiot.

By the way, it's the crudeness and vulgarity of Trump that's appealing to some people - it's an advantage, not a detriment. He speaks in public in the same way he would speak in a pub, and that kind of sincerity is something some people crave at this point as they're sick of politicians who consistently act like robots and run everything through PR machines. A no-nonsense approach isn't necessarily a bad one. If Trump really wasn't able to hold aces up his sleeve in negotiations, he wouldn't be a billionaire.

Wow, a joke, so bad. Trump also called all the Mexicans entering the US, "Rapists" and "murders," saying, "they are sending their worst." Then accused all entering Refugees of terrorism.
Being crude and vulgar is not a selling point for a World Leader. That may fly with some people, but it's not going to fly with a group of World Leaders.
And if it's all a PR stunt, then he's making a complete mockery of the Presidential system and making a complete mockery of the US. We are already seen as loud vulgar trash, we don't need a President to appease that stereotype.

 

[Foxi4]

Whether she did it maliciously or not is not of any importance - fact of the matter is that she's an idiot. E-mail is not "new technology", it's been around since the dawn of the Internet. She's out of touch with reality and shows no remorse over her quite frankly reckless behaviour.

As for Trump and Mexicans, he specifically talks about illegal aliens. He has no issue with people entering the country legally, so beating that strawman to death isn't doing anything.

As for whether you'd want a president who addresses the public in the same fashion he would address someone privately then yes, that is what you want.

 

[grossaffe]

Again, the imposed limitation on time seems arbitrary to me, and length of service doesn't necessarily conflict with the job description of public service. I also don't think making a career out of politics necessarily leads to a lot of the things listed above. In addition, to go back to my previous analogy, I can say many of these same things about old teachers who don't understand new technology. That doesn't make them ineffective teachers.

A teacher teaching a class on a technology they don't know is an ineffective teacher. A politician passing laws on a technology they don't understand is a harmful policy-maker.
Also your previous analogy breaks down because the profession of teaching reaps minimal benefits. It's not a profession that rewards greedy self-interest, but rather a profession that people choose to take on even though the pay is a pittance. It neither grants them money nor power, so it does not attract the greedy and the power hungry.

 

[Foxi4]

A teacher teaching a class on a technology they don't know is an ineffective teacher. A politician passing laws on a technology they don't understand is a harmful policy-maker.
Also your previous analogy breaks down because the profession of teaching reaps minimal benefits. It's not a profession that rewards greedy self-interest, but rather a profession that people choose to take on even though the pay is a pittance. It neither grants them money nor power, so it does not attract the greedy and the power hungry.

A teacher is similar to a politician, however the scale is different. Teachers and students create a microcosm with similar relations to politicians and constituents. A teacher with an outdated skill set creates a generation of youths with outdated skills who, by extension, are unemployable and have wasted their time in school. That teacher should not be teaching, he or she should be retired or in active training. I'm a teacher by trade, although I don't work in my field, and the first thing we were taught was to never stop learning as the world around us changes and so should the material we teach and our means to convey it. Similarly a politician who has no idea how the world works can only push it backwards, back into his or her comfort zone, never forwards, and the range here is the entire nation, thus the damage is much larger in scale.

 

[Lacius]

A teacher teaching a class on a technology they don't know is an ineffective teacher. A politician passing laws on a technology they don't understand is a harmful policy-maker.

Duration of time in politics isn't correlated with a better or worse understanding of technological issues. There are plenty of rookie legislators who are idiots on the issue of technology, and there are plenty of veteran legislators who are not.

Also your previous analogy breaks down because the profession of teaching reaps minimal benefits. It's not a profession that rewards greedy self-interest, but rather a profession that people choose to take on even though the pay is a pittance. It neither grants them money nor power, so it does not attract the greedy and the power hungry.

Teaching comes with a paycheck and other perks. One could easily argue that a veteran teacher is doing it for the paycheck and retirement coming his or her way, not for the kids. However, duration of service doesn't necessarily mean that's the case.

 

[The Catboy]

Whether she did it maliciously or not is not of any importance - fact of the matter is that she's an idiot. E-mail is not "new technology", it's been around since the dawn of the Internet. She's out of touch with reality and shows no remorse over her quite frankly reckless behaviour.

As for Trump and Mexicans, he specifically talks about illegal aliens who statistically commit 75% of crimes committed by residents of Mexican origin, at least from what I've read, he has no issue with people entering the country legally, so beating that strawman to death isn't doing anything.

As for whether you'd want a president who addresses the public in the same fashion he would address someone privately then yes, that is what you want.

At this point, I am honesty sad to see you like this.
First, with the emails. Cool, she's outdated, doesn't disqualify her from office. If anything only shows that she needs a few computer lessons. Of course you ignore Trump's extremely reckless behavior and language.
I would like to see these statistics, with some actual creditable sources.
He's not your buddy at the pub, he's suppose to be a World leader. And no, I would much rather have a person hold a civil conversation if they are going to be the leader of my country. Not someone who just says the first thing that pops into their head. Not to mention you've yet to address the fact that he can't even handle questions from News reports. He can barely hold a debate within his own party, what the hell makes you think he's going to hold his own with World leaders?

 

[JohnGT]

trump is winning. you are all bunch of idiots.

 

[Lacius]

Whether she did it maliciously or not is not of any importance - fact of the matter is that she's an idiot. E-mail is not "new technology", it's been around since the dawn of the Internet. She's out of touch with reality and shows no remorse over her quite frankly reckless behaviour.

First, she's shown remorse about a thousand times. Don't get disingenuous in an attempt to win an argument. Second, while what she did with email wasn't the smartest decision, it wasn't actually reckless.

As for Trump and Mexicans, he specifically talks about illegal aliens who statistically commit 75% of crimes committed by residents of Mexican origin, at least from what I've read, he has no issue with people entering the country legally, so beating that strawman to death isn't doing anything.

No, Trump is engaging in pandering, fear-mongering, and demagoguery. If you think this is an issue about crime, you've been duped. He was very clear the other night about how he wants to deport all illegal immigrants (2 million in the first hour of his presidency), build a wall, end protections for Dream Act kids, and even impose new limits on legal immigration. His talk about crime is a scapegoat, and while we've had our disagreements, I figured you were level-headed enough to not buy into this.

trump is winning. you are all bunch of idiots.

By every measure, Trump is behind in the polls nationally and in just about all of the swing states. He could definitely turn things around between now and November, particularly with a strong debate performance, but it's not looking good for Trump right now.

 

[Foxi4]

This is something that interests me - what's wrong with deporting illegal immigrants? They're in the country illegally, they're breaking the law. Every country I can think of has an aggressive policy against residents who entered the country illegally, deportation is an everyday occurrence, what's the outrage? There are two options - either they become citizens and thus begin contributing to the system in taxes and in exchange become protected by the law of the land or they have to leave. You don't even have VAT, so their monetary contribution to the system is non-existent outside of states with a sales tax.