Who will you vote for this US Presidential election?
Displaying poll results.42720 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8476 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7022 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Donald Trump is evil (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't forget about last year's interview when he stated that all illegal aliens are rapists and murderers. He then cited a Fusion Article that stated 80% of women coming to the US from Central and South America are raped along the way. When Don Lemon clarified that the article was about women being raped, not about illegal aliens, Trump replied, "Well, somebody's doing the raping, Don! I mean somebody's doing it! Who's doing the raping? Who's doing the raping?"
Trump was trying to stir up hatred against a group of people using half-truths and outright lies in order to gain an advantage in the election. In addition he went on record stating that we should not accept any refugees from Syria because there are terrorists among them. He also stated that we should ban any Muslims from entering the country. Just my opinion, but all that puts him over the 'evil' line in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that both major party candidates are totally unsuitable for this position, I'm surprised that they still have most of the /. votes in this poll.
Sigh, I guess the two-party delusion runs deep in the US of A. You clowns almost deserve it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He never said that all of the illegal immigrants are rapists. He said that a lot of them are, and a lot of them are drug dealers and criminals. He's not wrong.
I would like to see some citation to back that up.
Also, are we defining "a lot of them" as an absolute number? Or a large percentage? Or are we leaving it vague so I can claim anywhere from 2% to 98% depending on which position I am defending at the moment?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> I would like to see some citation to back that up.
Here ya go:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015... [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh good grief. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Everyone only seems to want to hear what Trump said from Clinton allied sources, or, waits for Clinton minions to explain to them what they just heard Trump say.
"It's only common sense, just common sense.." -Trump
There's way too many people walking around America who will not survive an extended loss of electricity, or know what to do without an "authority" directing your labors and providing your needs.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see some citation to back that up.
I'd like to see some citation to back that up he said "ALL illegal immigrants are rapists." I'm not voting for the guy, but I see this come up time and again, but nobody can point out a direct quote or piece of writing by Trump where he states it. The things he does & says are bad enough, you don't need to make up anything additional.
Re:Donald Trump is evil (Score:4, Informative)
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.
Note that he makes a clarification that he assumes that some are good people, but that the border guards tell him that we are not getting the good people. In addition he implies that even the legal immigrants are bringing drugs and crime.
Re: (Score:2)
...so why are you choosing to totally ignore all the VERY much worse things that Hillary has done?
Who said I was ignoring her evil acts? Do you jump to conclusions often? Is that an Olympic sport where you are from?
Where did I state that Clinton wasn't evil? I stated why I thought Trump was evil, but this is not an either-or situation.
Just because I believe that Trump is evil, does not mean that I am pro-Clinton.
Re: (Score:3)
And so we get to the crux of why the Left hates Trump.
Not being in the USA, I am able to inform you that the USA has no left wing!
You have your "right wing", although just how right they are is a separate discussion.
Those who you call "liberal" will certainly pass for liberal away from your 4.5% of humanity. It's just that you seem to have a different definition of what that actually means from most of the planet.
To make it clear. There are three generalisations - Left, Liberal and Right. You have probably rarely even seen someone who says they are left win
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I can understand you disliking Trump or whatever positions he's taken but why do you label him "evil"? He's basically a joe sixpack type millionaire.
He's basically a classic robber baron from the 1800s. Take the worst and most embarrassing parts of American history that we'd hoped we were finally starting to work past, put them together in a person, and you come out with Donald Trump. He's an uncomfortable reminder that the values that claimed this country for us are the very same ones that could just as easily destroy it.
Re: (Score:2)
Voting against Trump is no excuse for voting for Clinton. They're both evil. Determining which one is more evil is a pointless exercise. Trump has disagreeable moral opinions unacceptable to a majority of Americans. Clinton has a reprehensible record of moral atrocities on a global scale unacceptable to humanity in general. If you people elect either one of these, you have no moral compass.
They may both be evil, but at least Hillary is competent and evil. Still, don't blame me, I'll be voting for Johnson.
Re: (Score:2)
>> but at least Hillary is competent and evil.
you really haven't researched her at all have you?
Just look into her performance as Secretary of State, stuff like the NAFTA agreement or any of the wars she started/was involved in.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you vote for someone else, you will get one of them, and are rating them 'equally evil'. First-past-the-post voting systems always pull to two choices, and that is what you have, so: Grow up. If you want better choices, then campaign for a better voting system. For now this is the one you have, and a protest vote is an act of self-harm.
Re:No. (Score:4, Informative)
The problem I have with your argument is that the challenges we have with our voting system aren't inherent to the voting system itself, but rather the 2 party system. The States being the ones who elect the electors to the Electoral College and those electors actually being the ones who elect the President and Vice President leaves plenty of opportunity for other outcomes approximating a coalition government in other countries. It's the party system that prevents those outcomes, not the system of voting. The Founders, particularly the much-beloved George Washington, were very clear on the evil of parties, but no one listened.
Nah, I think you have it backwards. The 2-party-system is a natural result of FPTP. The electoral college is another complication, but essentially is the same thing just at a larger scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You can get more than 2 parties but that's often as a result of special cases (eg Scottish nationalists) and even then the system tends to tip over to give one party a majority with only about 35% of the votes.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting against Trump is no excuse for voting for Clinton. They're both evil.
Trump and Clinton may both be corrupt but Trump worries me more.
Trump holds the constitution in contempt. He is opposed to "non discrimination based on religion sex, gender, national origin, etc". He wants to limit free speech, making it illegal for newspapers to criticize him. He wants to imprison his political rivals. He sees no faults in Putin. The only foreign leaders to endorse him are Putin and Kim Jong Un. He asks his followers to assassinate his rival. He asks foreign powers to hack her.
He sounds more and more like a dictator wannabe by the day. He's a white Robert Mugabe: in temperament, politics and ideals.
What do you think will happen 4 years from now if we have a crisis. Perhaps a war or a terrorist attack? What are the odds a President Trump would allow free elections to occur?
"My fellow Americans, I am postponing the election to preserve the safety of the citizens until such a time it is safe for the population".
Clinton is a corrupt bitch. Trump is a threat to the constitution and democracy. I know which is worse. I know which one would be bad for America and which one would be potentially DEVASTATING for America.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps a war or a terrorist attack? What are the odds a President Trump would allow free elections to occur?
"My fellow Americans, I am postponing the election to preserve the safety of the citizens until such a time it is safe for the population".
Actually, I wouldn't put it past a President Clinton to do the exact same thing. Why else is she repeatedly blaming Russia for the email hacks and proposing a "no-fly zone" over Syria and Iraq?
I agree that Clinton is a corrupt bitch, but I also think that she would also be potentially DEVASTATING for America.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Nope.
Anyone who feels it necessary to point anything out as a womens or minorities right (as opposed to a human right) absolutely cannot be taken seriously.
Source: I am a strong independent black woman who don't need no man.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Call me crazy
Done and done. You are crazy.
I'd rather have policies that apply to just "people" as a whole instead of "only this one specific subset of people".
Tell you what. The day you can prove to me that your policies that are meant to be applied equally actually really do get applied equally in all major regions, I'll stop requesting policies that counteract discrimination and bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the same day you stop claiming your treasured victimhood?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Since you can't accurately cite the candidates actual policies, your opinion is irrelevant. But no, I don't want a president who wants to implement a more progressive tax code or maintain the status quo on regulations. That is what is killing this country's economy and needs to change. That alone disqualifies both women running and makes any other candidate better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate
https://www.commentarymagazine... [commentarymagazine.com]
>> that takes climate change seriously,
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co... [thegatewaypundit.com]
>> that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously,
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
>> that wants to implement a progressive tax code
http://www.realclearpolitics.c... [realclearpolitics.com]
>> and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
http://drrichswier.com/2016/09... [drrichswier.com]
Keep drinking the Hiliary koolaid dude.
Re: No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Citing opinion pieces as fact is flat wrong. There is no editorial review or fact checking, just people writing whatever they feel, regardless of how far from reality that is.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
A few quick observations from this election cycle:
- campaign finance fraud and electioneering that forced the DNC chair to resign
- a secretive conspiracy of paid protestors, agitators and rioters that led to the shutdown of a political event, interfering with free speech and the right for citizens to peacefully assemble
- A compromised attorney general that refused to recuse after a secretive tarmac meeting with a person related to an active investigation
- An FBI refusing to recommend any indictments were SAP level confidential information is leaked during the course of violating federal record keeping laws, where evidence was destroyed, perjury committed, and case for obstruction of justice could easily be made.
- leaked emails that provide substantial evidence of pay-for-play access to the secretary of state and millions of dollars in bribes
A vote for Clinton is one for the double standard where justice is not applied equally under the law, and critical organs of government cannot be relied upon to perform their function impartially in order to serve as checks and balances. Rules for thee, not for me. A Trump administration sees Trey Gowdy as attorney general, who systematically dismantled Clinton's lies. I do not believe any Gowdy would cover for Trump, neither would the FBI.
Re: No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Phrasing it eloquently doesn't actually make any of those things true though. For instance, there was nothing for the AD to recuse herself from - the FBI said there was no case to be made. The theory that the FBI was some how corrupted is pretty empty too, when you consider that Comes is not only widely respected for his integrity, but I'd also a registered Republican that was a Republican appointee. Additionally, Comey was pulled in front of Congress multiple times to explain the exact legal rationale,
Re: No. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I understand. You base your understanding on propaganda from the Washington post and all the other DNC surrogates who have all but broken their neck looking the other way on how the FBI investigation was conducted. Thanks to the Podesta email leak, we find out there was an active effort to 'clean up' the emails sent by President Obama himself, who also falsely claimed ignorance of HRC's email setup. Then you wonder why the immunity agreement for Mill's laptop had the stipulation that they could not consider as evidence emails after the date the records preservation order was issued, and why the laptop was destroyed afterwards. But, no intent! *facepalm*
Don't you even fucking dare compare the HRC email scandal to Patreas when we have no idea what the content of those top secret SAP emails were. For all we know, HRC's self-serving desire to avoid public scrutiny from lawful FOIA requests may have cost intelligence assets their lives, perhaps even ambassador Stevens himself and those around him.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but which particular third party candidate is that? Because it sure as hell isn't the Democrat nor Republican nominees.
Trump is to the left of clinton (Score:5, Interesting)
Even the WashingtonPost, who HATES HATES HATES Trump admits he is to the left of clinton on economics, trade, and foreign policy. Hard to believe but if you listen to what he says about cutting military spending by closing bases and dropping weapon systems, getting out of foreign alliances, ending trade deals, increasing tarrifs, and going after crony capitalism you would swear you were listening to Bernie Sanders and not the Republican cannidate for president.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I understand why people distrust Trump on "Women's Rights", what I don't understand is why HRC gets a free pass, at best she's a serial enabler to her Husband's sexual predations, at worst Bill fucked them physically and Hillary fucked them psychologically.
At least Trump doesn't blame the victims like Hillary does.
Re: (Score:3)
Go ask the Haitians what the Clintons take seriously....
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p... [donaldjtrump.com] I've looked him over, makes more sense than anything I've heard from Hillary.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shilling for Hillary is a full time job these days.
Ha! Telling people to look at policies of the candidates has become "shilling for Hillary" these days. Sort of how 'conspiring against Trump" consists of actually printing the things he says and does. (Johnson voter here.)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Can you tell me about Aleppo?
It's a pepper.
It's someone with a disease called lep'osy
Re:No. (Score:4, Informative)
It's funny how all the criticisms levelled at Trump get mirrored back at Clinton by his supporters.
He claims to stand for the common man, but is obviously part of the 1% and has been seen to screw his employees and customers every opportunity he gets. What Clinton said to Wall Street is just normal politician stuff.
Trump lies about everything, constantly. How many videos have we seen of him lying, followed immediately by archive footage of him contradicting himself? His entire campaign is post-factual, so far beyond truth that lying doesn't even matter any more. And like a child, he accuses everyone else of the same and threatens to sue them (but never follows through).
And yes, when Trump gets caught it's always someone else's fault. He claimed that he hand picked staff at Trump University, but when the scam became obvious suddenly he had no hand in the day to day operation or hiring process. Same with his racist property rental companies, they had his personal touch to ensure that they were the best apartments in the best locations right up until it became clear that they were not available to coloured people.
The argument that Trump hasn't broke any national security rules is bogus too. He hasn't had the chance. If he is careless enough to talk about grabbing women by their genitals to a journalist, what do you think he will let slip when he's President? Turns out his own email servers, the ones run by "the best people", are a joke security wise too.
Re:No. (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't for something as dangerous as maintaining an email server, but the FBI has investigated Trump for bribery and racketeering. There were the Mafia kickbacks he paid while building Trump Tower (mostly to get beneficial union treatment and ensure the unions didn't complain about his illegal workers.). There was the former mafia lieutenant and drug runner he gave exclusive helicopter charter rights to his casinos to (and a free apartment in Trump Tower). There were the times he direct business with the heads of two New York families.
Here's a source [wnyc.org] for one:
As for selling out the US, I don't even know where to begin. I don't know what "selling out the US" (or a moral equivalent) would be to someone with no government job, but I think working with the Mafia counts some (foreign organization that disrespects rule of law.) Using illegal immigrents to undercut Americans? Perpetuating financial scams on the American people?
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is ample evidence that Clinton engaged in pay for play.
We don't have evidence of that for Trump. He most likely is not for sale, but we know that Clinton is. I don't want to live in a 3rd world corrupt banana republic.
Missing option (Score:5)
Based on conversations with numerous people, there should be a "holding my nose and voting for..." option when it comes to both of the major party candidates.
My sister, who is very conservative, has said she is holding her nose while voting for Trump. My mom, who is very conservative, is choosing to not vote. Several of my coworkers are holding their nose and voting for Clinton.
I am sure there are people who really, truly like Clinton or who really, truly like Trump... but I've yet to meet them personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on conversations with numerous people, there should be a "holding my nose and voting for..." option when it comes to both of the major party candidates.
I'd like to see what they have in some other countries and a blank ballot vote counts towards a new election with different candidates.
Not really (Score:2)
I don't see anything as a missing option. Reality is that we will either have Trump or Clinton. If we had alternative voting it may be different, but probably not. People upset with the way the country is going should be voting Trump. People happy with the direction should vote Clinton. They both have major personal issues, and in my opinion one greatly outweighs the other, but the policies they are presenting are very different and will move the country in very different directions. READ THEIR PLATFO
That is correct (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen far fewer campaign signs posted than usual for a presidential election. Lots of nose-holding all around.
I live in a conservative area in Michigan, and there are a lot of Trump/Pence signs, but extraordinarily few Clinton/Kaine signs. In fact, I've seen more "Hillary for Prison" signs than I've seen Clinton/Kaine signs. I've also seen a few Johnson/Weld signs, but no Stein signs.
Don't blame me (Score:3)
Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bill N' Opus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you don't care enough about the massive amount of corruption in our system?
Dammit (Score:5, Funny)
I broke the first rule of Interwebs: Don't Read The Comments.
*sigh* Where are my blood pressure meds?
I'll be voting for Castle & Bradley (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty much. On some ballots they'll appear under U.S. Taxpayers' Party. Both names are deceptive imho. They believe that the Bible legally supersedes the Constitution, i.e. they literally want to implement Christian-branded Sharia law. Anybody of the persuasion that the Constitution supersedes all other authorities should not vote Constitution/Taxpayers' Party.
The other 3rd party nobody votes for is the Natural Law Party which seems to have something to do with the Socialist Party. My quick impression
Not Trump or Hillary (Score:2)
Hillary Clinton (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm an Australian so I don't get to vote, but it seems to me that the criticisms of Hillary come down to three factors:
1. She's a woman
2. She has breasts
3. She doesn't have a penis
In all other respects she perfectly fits the pattern expected of a presidential candidate. I have no idea why anyone would choose a thin-skinned ignorant megalomaniac instead of her.
Re: (Score:2)
She has been accused of many lies and what not that are as false as they come.
BUT, there is little doubt that she DID lie about her email server and why it was there. More importantly, she KNEW what she was up to.
I'm going to make my vote count (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going to make my vote count, by voting third party. The way I see it, I have three options,
1) Vote for Hillary Clinton: My vote for Hillary Clinton wouldn't count for anything, since my state is voting for Hillary Clinton anyways. This vote would only serve to help Mrs Clinton pretend she has a "mandate".
2) Vote for Donald Trump: My vote for Donald Trump wouldn't count for anything, since my state is voting for Hillary Clinton anyways. This vote would only serve to help Mr Trump pretend he has a "mandate".
3) Vote third party: My vote for third party won't count towards the election (neither would voting for Clinton or Trump), but at least it sends the message that we're getting tired of the Republicrat and Democan party, and that they most definitely do not have a mandate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
3) Vote third party: My vote for third party won't count towards the election...
That's not true. The higher percentage 3rd parties get, the easier it makes it for them the next time. For instance, several states have a rule that a third party's top of ticket needs to get a certain percentage of the overall vote just to have ballot access in the next election cycle. If they lose ballot access, then they have to spend thousands of man hours & tens of thousands of dollars to get back on the ballot. It puts them at a perpetual disadvantage. Your vote for a third party candidate helps t
Re: (Score:3)
There are far more Trump yard signs than Hillary signs in yards... but far fewer signs overall than any other election I can remember. I do have a few neighbors who seem to think Trump is great but most are just born into Republican families and don't know any different. They don't like Trump but they don't like Hillary either.
I filled out my absentee ballot today, dropping it off tomorrow. My issue is that I don't like Johnson either and didn't really learn enou
Lawrence Lessig (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary's promised to overturn Citizens United within her first 30 days in office if she's elected. Who knows if she'll keep it, but a promise is better than a wish...
Re: (Score:3)
My vote (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did think it was interesting to see how he might end up with electoral votes. I didn't look up popular vote predictions for him, is Johnson still in the lead for third place popular vote?
Johnson will get more votes that McMullin simply by virtue of being on the ballot in all 50 states. McMullin is only on the ballot in 14, and registered as a write in candidate in a handful of other states, IIRC. McMullin is more likely to get electoral votes though since some polls show him in the lead in Utah. Also, don't trust the polling data on Johnson. Several polls that show his "collapse" such as CNN's intentionally left out the 18-34 demographic, and most polls are still using land lines for pollin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've read a scenario where McMullen actually becomes President. Neither of the Big Two get 270, McMullen gets Utah, making him #3 in electoral votes, and the House picks him.
I can't see that really happening, but it is an interesting thought.
Vote SMOD. . . (Score:5, Funny)
. . .The Sweet Meteor of Death in 2016: solutions that ENDURE. . . .
#NoLivesMatter
Why I'm voting for Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not affiliated with either major party, but I usually vote Democrat. I vote for Obama when he initially won, but life has gotten noticeably worse under him. Healthcare costs and housing prices have risen an astronomical amount. The steps our country have taken over the past several years have been in the wrong direction, and Hillary would likely continue in that same direction. I want to see our next president work to control/reduce immigration, secure the borders, protect the 2nd amendment, repair relations with Russia, and put an end to nation building, which has been so popular with all of our previous presidents. While Trump is not perfect, I like that he isn't a traditional Republican so it kind of feels like a 3rd party vote.
Re: (Score:3)
Because Trump can totally fix housing prices ;).
I think people give the president way to much credit for good or bad prices on things. It's congress that builds policy and passes budgets to pay for things.
Your local city council probably has more to do with housing prices tbh.
If I bothered to vote at all (Score:2)
it would likely be for Trump for the following reasons:
Voting for Hillary is effectively saying " I'm cool with how things have been running for the past few decades. I love the Status Quo. Nothing quite like seeing the same bullshit over and over again from one administration to the next. " Is why the candidates LOVE the young voters. They don't have the experience to know that all politicians are full of shit and everything coming out of their mouth is nothing but a lie.
At this point, I don't care wh
11%? (Score:2)
Really? There are that many people on Slashdot who have never heard Johnson speak?
Yet no one's talking about Hillary's Corruption (Score:3, Insightful)
A this point there is so much evidence of corruption within the Clinton camp that we're virtually guaranteed a repeat of the 2000 presidential election. It doesn't mater how much the media try to incorrectly claim that looking at the Wiki Leaks emails is illegal, we all still read them. And there is multiple emails in there that show direct illegal activity by the DNC, all of Hillary's Superpac, Hillary's Campaign itself, as well as the US Justice Department who keeps refusing to push charges against her for her very illegal activity.
At the end of the day Donald Trump did one thing that was vitally needed, win or loose... and that the system really is rigged. And people won't forget that.
Bah... left out of a word when I posted. (Score:2)
Canadian Not Voting (Score:5, Interesting)
My mother was still a US citizen when I was born here in Canada, so I have a dual citizenship that I've never used for anything before. I don't think I'll start now.
I've always regarded US political affairs from within my igloo with interest levels ranging from moderate concern to complete disdain. I'm already acutely aware that Trump views Justin Trudeau as "Canada's Worst President Yet". He's not wrong - he's an awesome prime minister whom I voted for personally, but he's not what you United Statesians would call 'presidential'. This whole processes appears to be less about the issues and more about a popularity contest between two screw-ups, like some weird fringe reality television show.... Jerry Springer meets The Bachelor or something. And it all seems to hinge on "Who is the worst possible candidate?" - a question both sides seem to be asking about both candidates. What flavour of disaster do you want in the Oval Office? A racist compulsive liar with narcissistic personality disorder, or a smug two-faced politician who will indirectly provide Julian Assange with nuclear launch codes?
It's foolish to say US policy and political agendas don't influence Canada. Heck, even if someone puts up a wall on the northern US border, we're never even remotely shielded from the effects of decisions made in the States. But it's also not my home. I don't live there. I don't share many of their values or rights. So I've not really considered voting. I vote up here in all our elections and participate in our Canadian political processes.
So here's my question: Any other 'dual' US citizens in my position who feel this way, or maybe differently? What about US citizens who reside on US soil? Do you think people like me should throw in our two cents? (Canada doesn't have physical 'pennys' any more, but you know what I mean.) If I'm wrong to keep my nose out of it, set me straight.
Re: (Score:3)
US citizen, here:
Technically, as a US citizen, even if not a resident, you have owed the IRS tax payments for years - are you going to pay up? If not, then like Ted Cruz you should go to the trouble of renouncing your unused/unwanted citizenship (not particularly difficult.
If you have been paying your taxes, then the obverse of the Founders' motto "No Taxation Without Representation" is paying taxes gives you the right to complain, at least, even if, like citizens residing in US territories and possession,
Geography (Score:3)
I've always thought it funny that people think US and Canadians are so different. I think it is more about distance and geography than political lines (up until a point anyway) really. If you look along the northern edge of the US (which incidentally where 95% of Canadians live within close proximity), the people are not so different. Some of the accents are even pretty similar. Values also mirror those up top if you will. West costs is pretty liberal, prairies conservative, centrally and east coast a bit o
Hillary is still NOT a witch (Score:5, Insightful)
As usual, I focused on the "funny" and "insightful" comments, and was sorely disappointed.
In particular, I'm still looking for a single substantive reason for the rabid hatred some people exhibit towards Hillary Clinton. LOTS of accusations of all sorts of vile behavior up to and including murder. DECADES of intensive and highly motivated partisan investigations spending MILLIONS of your taxpayer dollars. NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. People hate her because they want to hate her. One of the smartest fellows I know says it's ultimately just misogyny, but he's an Australian, so what does he know?
Having said that, I don't much like her. She's a pretty typical lawyer, and probably a good one. A good lawyer will represent the clients' interests well and faithfully, though it's obviously a special challenge when your clients are all the citizens of a giant country like the USA. I didn't like the family name thing, but she's only related by marriage, and I can't believe anyone can match Dubya's abuse of a once proud family name. Actually, even in retrospect it's hard to see the Clinton name as much of a "brand".
However, in terms of potential presidential damage, I'm convinced that Trump and Pence have the potential to be FAR more harmful than Dubya and Cheney. Amusingly enough, that's exactly what one of their largest voting blocs wants. Trump-loving Government haters would be delighted if the federal government collapsed, and many of them entertain delusions of revolution. Sorry, but I'm for evolutionary change over revolution, even though there are times when it looks like the system is broken beyond repair. The problem is that the outcome is still uncertain, whether it's from evolution or revolution, but a revolution has to kill a lot of people before it earns the label. With evolution you can usually wait for the losers to die off without actually killing them.
Also, I hate liars, and Trump is clearly the YUGEST liar I've ever seen running for a major political office. I think the biggest lie is around his real goals. He should have just come out at Gettysburg and said, "My government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1% shall rule the earth." That's obviously what he wants in his black heart.
However, if I were a woman, I'm pretty sure it would be the sexual assault thing. Honest Abe's Republican Party has finally been rebranded by Con Man Donald. Now GOP stands for the Grab Our Pussies party.
Re:Hillary IS evil (Score:4, Insightful)
You are exaggerating each of your claims against Hillary to the point where is is not possible to distinguish between your claims and an outright lie. Notwithstanding, your last paragraph seems sane enough that some dialog might be possible, though I think I'm wasting keystrokes and time.
I think that Hillary is constrained by reality. Her decades of public service make that quite clear. She is not perfect and has an adequate number of flaws, though I don't count ambition as one of them. To fix the "ambition problem" with presidential politics would require a page-one rewrite of the Constitution. She has also made mistakes. So have you and I. She has even been foolish enough to acknowledge some of her mistakes in public, which is practically political suicide these days. However, I think you can only learn from your mistakes by first acknowledging them.
Trump is quite different. If you have studied his history, it is quite clear he is very greedy and heartless. He might even be a sociopath, though that is obviously not a disqualification for the presidency or even for "successful" corporate leadership these days. However my largest concern is that he is also stupid and easily manipulated, as was proven in all three debates (and in MANY of his business dealings over the decades, if you have looked into them). I have found extremely little evidence that he even understands his mistakes, though he sometimes appears to have gotten better at hiring smarter lawyers to protect him from himself.
I think that Hillary is probably a center right lawyer who doesn't much like change, but accepts that it will happen. She takes a gradualist, evolutionary approach to solving problems. I personally prefer evolutionary change over revolutionary change. The outcome of either approach is uncertain, but revolution leaves a lot of corpses behind, while evolution usually allows the losers to die off peaceably. The dead people don't care if things got better or worse.
I do not know what Trump really believes on ANY issue. He obviously panders to his audience, and he has made statements on every side of every issue. Because of the self-contradictions, it is absolutely certain that he is lying to many of his supporters, but each of them believes he is lying to the others. Though Trump frequently advocates revolution, I don't know if he believes that, but it is clear that many of his supporters want one (or more).
You raised the specific issue of war. As an honorably discharged veteran, the son of a 100% disabled veteran, and being named for an uncle who died fighting the fascists, I really don't like war. However, I do think there are some things you have to fight for, even at risk of an escalation to war. From the cowardly perspective, I suppose Trump is safer, because it would probably be easier to manipulate him so as to defeat America without any need for war.
No-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
I was originally a Sanders supporter, and I do also like the idea of breaking the two party duopoly... however, voting for a third party candidate in a national election is only a good idea if you don't live in a swing state and/or don't care about progressive policies at all. And I do. Beyond that, Gary Johnson is more pro-corporate than either Trump or Hillary, and Jill Stein has plenty of experience as a candidate but none holding actual political office. So here are my choices as I see them:
1. The candidate who is untrustworthy but qualified, Hillary. She will do a good job on civil rights, probably an okay job on workers' rights, and I expect her foreign policy to be very hawkish. She's a centrist: liberal on social issues, and much more conservative on economic and foreign policy issues. I am not a big fan of hers, especially after the questionable manner the DNC ran the primary (and how she said nothing about any of the ethical issues involved). However, she is running on a platform influenced by Bernie supporters and we have the ability to hold her to it. She is amoral but efficient and intelligent, traits that usually make for a decent head of state, even though I consider her a hypocrite and an opportunist.
2. The candidate who is both untrustworthy and unqualified, the Donald. Even if I grant for a minute that running a government is the same as running a business, which it actually isn't, Trump's business experience shows he's a terrible leader. Numerous bankruptcies, hundreds of employees and contractors that completed the work and never got paid, false advertising, the list goes on and on. Besides that, he's a hot mess, verbal diarrhea in a suit and toupee. The presidency calls for dignity and maturity, neither of which he possesses to any discernible degree. Even if it's true that he's only playing the bogeyman in order to make Hillary look better by comparison, and I admit it's a possiblity, that's not a good reason to elect such a bogeyman. He's not running a campaign, he's running a reality show where offensive is the new poignant. I'm not sure he even believes much of the hateful rhetoric he spouts... he's just pandering to the lowest common denominator in order to get as much free media coverage as possible. There's no such thing as bad publicity, right? Please don't even consider rewarding that kind of thinking. I realize it's tempting to elect the equivalent of a wrecking ball, if you happen to think the federal government is the source of all our problems, but realistically all that will happen is he'll get himself impeached within the first year. He has no support left in Congress, and it would only be a matter of time before one of his mistakes was big enough to qualify as a high crime. Make no mistake: He's in this for shits and giggles, and that should be terrifying to anyone paying attention.
As for Hillary, I still agree with Robert Reich: Bernie was the best candidate for the system we *should* have, and Hillary is the best candidate for the system we *do* have. She's well connected, she knows how to make deals, and she's been planning for her presidency for ages. Not that this makes me like her any better, but there's still only one person in this race that's truly qualified for the office, and it's her.
Trump would wreck the Constitution (Score:3, Informative)
Let's just leave aside for a moment most of the usual complaints about Trump, and focus on the US Constitution.
* Trump regularly promotes political violence at his rallies.
* Trump doesn't seem to understand the limits or checks on executive power.
* Trump has promised to use his executive power to prosecute and imprison his political adversaries.
* Some of his proposed policies are clearly unconstitutional, violating the first and fourth amendment rights of natural-born american citizens.
You get a real sense of his view of the Constitution from Donald Trump's desire to "interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted". But the Founders intended the constitution to be a living, changing document. They knew the system they were building had serious problems and would need to survive in a changing world, so they built in mechanisms for orderly revolution. That was the part of the genius of their work.
We tend to forget that the Presidential Oath doesn't say anything about protecting the people or the borders of the United States. The President's root purpose is to serve the Constitution. I think Trump is incapable of doing that.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." -- Presidential Oath of Office
It's all down hill from here (Score:3)
The chasm between rich and poor with rich out right buying politicians and the legal process is a contributor.
Just like Europe outlawing lead based paint in the 1940's, yet the US not following suite till 1978, or even from the 1990's you can watch the "7 dwarfs" perjurer themselves before congress stating "cigarette smoking does not lead to cancer... ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] )
Today, the corporate egregious behavior continues - We have 5300 workers of Wells Fargo being fired, while the executive in charge of the of the scam retires with a $124M payday. ( http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/1... [cnn.com] )
The paparazzi shamelessly hide behind any corner waiting to pounce on the "money shot", completely ignoring the human condition that at one time kept the people knowing an American President had polio and couldn't walk. Respect, honor, courage, truth, freedom - things that made the US great are just a veneer.
Search for the wrong things on Google and have MIB's at your door. ( https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com] )
The US is a militarily state owned by the oligarchy. Words like Freedom are meaningless as we deceive ourselves and future hiding behind past laurels.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah they just hate Hillary so much that they'd rather vote for a bigoted protofascist whose policies are so moronic that his election would immediately trigger a recession. Probably only around 10~15% of slashdotters are even remotely fascist.
I recently, finally, found out why it is that conservatives hate Hillary so much, what made them hate her in the beginning. It's because she was the first First Lady to stick her nose into politics instead of being a nice ornament and keeping her ass in the kitchen. Th
Re: (Score:3)
ROTFLMAO! I presume, then, that you've never heard of Eleanore Roosevelt [wikipedia.org], who was a working politician long before her husband started his first term, and continued to be a force in politics for decades after he died.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I learned something today. So not the first, but perhaps the first in recent memory. There are some interesting parallels, Eleanor also became the subject of a wide swath of conspiracy theories and a devil of the right (or perhaps I should say "less socially progressive") for her actions.
I also learned that the "knockout game" urban legend was just a rehash.
Re: Cliton, eh? (Score:2, Funny)
That seems a bit low.
Re:Trump (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, even Michael Moore [youtube.com] is saying that voting for Trump is like one giant f-you, and that it will feel good.
Re: Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein is an actual F-you to the two party system.
Re: (Score:3)
Voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein is an actual F-you to the two party system.
This. A thousand times this. Trump has given way too many signs that he'll just end up a puppet. Quote-mining him really can't be used to prove anything; the man barely pays attention to what he's saying himself, so you have to judge the whole picture and the whole picture tends to imply a pragmatic, lazy, airheaded man... not a radical who will shake things up. If he won it might be interesting to see what his stubbornness and outsider status could do but his vanity and incompetence are likely to torpedo
Re: Trump (Score:3)
Should get rid of state lines altogether so that we can vote on how LA conducts itself. The "no left turns" in Jersey are still kinda pissing me off as well.
Re: (Score:3)
I think they'll feel it more if Trump wins. I'm really shocked that Trump is doing this well in a slashdot poll. I figured she'd be at least 50 points ahead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But, as you can see if you click that Vox link above, the accusation is not that Stein herself is personally anti-vaccination. The accusation is that Stein panders to anti-vaccination crowd by sowing doubts about vaccination safety and validating their completely unfounded suspicions that the FDA is somehow working for shadowy corporations.
“Dr. Stein uses a common anti-vaccine dodge in which she denies that she’s anti-vaccine, but then repeats anti-vaccine tropes about vaccines not being tested the same way as other drugs (if anything, they’re tested more rigorously), corruption in big pharma, etc.,” David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and pro-science blogger explained to me.
Re: (Score:3)
"Actually, even Michael Moore [youtube.com] is saying that voting for Trump is like one giant f-you, and that it will feel good."
Yes, he did say that - in the segment when he was placating Trump voters so they wouldn't walk out but would sit down and listen to the rest of the show. And then he also proceeded for like 40 minutes to explain why that would be a bad idea and that Hillary is actually a better candidate than she is given credit for.
Voting for Trump because you don't like Hillary is like deciding
Re:Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect the vague sense that he's going to "wreck shit up", and in that regard I empathize, shit needs wrecking. I do not believe he is competent enough to do that, however, and his political power is going to derive primarily from Mike Pence who is connected enough to make things happen, just not necessarily Trump things. However Pence's documented beliefs either puts him up there with Baghdad Bob, or Satan, depending on whether you think he's a lovable idiot or evil incarnate. Satan is perhaps the great
Re: (Score:3)
Some of us actually pay attention to foreign affairs and knew EXACTLY what that brain fart of hers meant the moment she uttered it.
When you shed crocodile tears for a child on the other side of the planet, chances are that someone else's kid is going to die over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hands down Camacho would win.