While I'm no fan of Hillary since she is a corrupt liar, she does preach a much better message/image for our country
Yes, she is and No she does not.
So, you are saying Trump preaches a better message/image for the country than HC? If thats's what you believe, please expand upon that rationalization.
Not even close. I am not a Trump guy; believe Hillary is a one way ticket to total disaster.
And by the logic presented above, I speak out against "A" therefore I must prefer "B"....
Are there more than two choices for President?....
I believe a "Wasted" vote, is one not cast.
That's why you were asked the question - to clarify you open ended position.
You are correct. There are more than 2 choices. However the other candidates have about zero chance of winning. The beauty in voting is that voters can vote for either of the 2 main party candidates or vote in protest / vote their conscience. However if one votes either of the latter 2 choices, they get what they voted for - a guaranteed loss.
As long as enough people think this way and never change their viewpoint, we will always be stuck with the 2-party system. If there were ever a cycle to try to break the cycle, this is it. If the overwhelming distaste the nation has for the two main party candidates isn't enough to to wake us up, I fear it will only get a lot worse before it gets any better.
Don't disagree with what you are saying, however I'm not sure what it will take for expansion of the system. In this cycle, the term "revolution" has been thrown about by both the Trump & Sanders supporters. For the most part they are still operating w/in the existing structure - Trump moreso than Sanders; but still both.
With the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United, it becomes even more difficult to expand the system and realistic alternatives. Sad to say but $$$$$ drives the system moreso than the people. It will take some sort of awakening and much greater participation & knowledge of the people for an alternative / realistic expansion beyond a minimal % points for 3rd part candidates like we have currently with Johnson & Stein. Perot was probably the closest we have seen achieve as an alternative.
I doubt we see this in our lifetimes. Beyond that...time will tell.
I dunno, I think it could happen faster than that. No one gave Trump a chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination and here we are, so anything is possible. The bigger problem as I see it is that the parties that Johnson and Stein are part of don't seem to have broad enough appeal so even if either one does ok in this election it will be difficult to maintain momentum. I do think it will need to start at a more local level with some significant progress in gaining seats in congress for any 3rd party to have a realistic shot at the White House, but that doesn't mean we should write it all off this time around.
On some level I do fear what happened the last two elections in Maine could happen on a national level, i.e. 3rd party, or as was the case in Maine independent candidate(s),could split the vote enough that one of the main party candidates wins without a majority and we end up with a president that more than half the country didn't want and gridlock becomes even more of an issue (if that is even possible).
[Edited on 8/2/2016 by gondicar]
The beauty in voting is that voters can vote for either of the 2 main party candidates or vote in protest / vote their conscience.
"The beauty in voting"...is very simple. it is called participation.
Period
Did anyone ever fix those faulty, fraud laden Diebold machines?
Not even close. I am not a Trump guy; believe Hillary is a one way ticket to total disaster.
How and why is her message worse than Trump's messages of hate and division?
The quickest, most effective way to unify people is to write half of them off as deplorable. That's the mark of a true, unifying leader. Calling millions of people deplorable is not hate speech, it's a sign of love.
Not even close. I am not a Trump guy; believe Hillary is a one way ticket to total disaster.
How and why is her message worse than Trump's messages of hate and division?
The quickest, most effective way to unify people is to write half of them off as deplorable. That's the mark of a true, unifying leader. Calling millions of people deplorable is not hate speech, it's a sign of love.
I have you written off as a moronic troll. Deplorable would be an upgrade for you. 😛
1. Preserve the 2nd Ammendment
2. Boost economy
3. Create jobs
4.Reform immigration
5. Strenghten military
6. Defeat Isis
7. Build a wall
8. Create a better energy policy
9. Rebuild Americas infrastructure
10. Repeal Obamacare
How?
How?
Bipartisanship!
How?
Bipartisanship!
LOL
Trump: All the women accusing me are lying.
Also Trump: All the women accusing Bill Clinton are telling the absolute truth.
The Donald Trump sexual assault claims expose the hypocrisy of his attacks on the Clintons
As a cascade of women come forward to accuse Donald Trump of sexual assault and harassment, the Republican nominee and his campaign have launched a hypocritical defense that is undermining what was supposed to be his offense for the rest of the campaign.
In a statement, Trump's campaign calls the five women to lob sexual assault allegations Trump's way a "character assassination," adding that it's a "new low" for media organizations to "reach back decades" to report these stories.
Yet reaching back decades to launch a character assassination against an opponent is exactly the Trump campaign's strategy against Hillary Clinton, using her and Bill Clinton's past to tarnish her image.
Before the second debate, the Trump campaign put forward women who had made sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton decades earlier, and tried to blame Hillary Clinton for mistreating them.
And even as the Trump campaign blasts Hillary Clinton for not believing her husband's accusers, the campaign is not giving Trump's accusers the same deference, saying they're lobbing false accusations.
Kellyanne Conway, Trump's campaign manager, even dredged up a past tweet Hillary Clinton sent that said "every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed and supported."
"RT if you agree," Conway wrote as she retweeted that tweet on Oct. 9, the same day Trump rolled out Bill Clinton's past accusers.
"'Every' the operative word here," Conway added.
Trump's television surrogates tried to dismiss his accusers, and got the same blowback for their hypocritical narrative.
If that's the Trump campaign's defense, there's no way they can try to discredit Trump's new accusers without looking desperate and hypocritical.
And Trump himself said he's done the things he's being accused of by these women.
In the 2005 Access Hollywood tape, Trump said he groped and kissed women without their consent.
"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait," Trump said in the tape.
Aside from the hypocritical attacks, Trump's strategy to go after Bill Clinton is even more risky given that Bill Clinton is far more popular than Trump himself.
For example in Pennsylvania, a key swing state that Trump needs to win, Bill Clinton enjoys a 52% favorable rating — a number that rises to 59% in the crucial suburban areas of the state.
Trump, on the other hand, is viewed favorably by only 40% — and 28% in the suburbs of the state.
Trump: All the women accusing me are lying.
Also Trump: All the women accusing Bill Clinton are telling the absolute truth.
The Donald Trump sexual assault claims expose the hypocrisy of his attacks on the Clintons
As a cascade of women come forward to accuse Donald Trump of sexual assault and harassment, the Republican nominee and his campaign have launched a hypocritical defense that is undermining what was supposed to be his offense for the rest of the campaign.
In a statement, Trump's campaign calls the five women to lob sexual assault allegations Trump's way a "character assassination," adding that it's a "new low" for media organizations to "reach back decades" to report these stories.
Yet reaching back decades to launch a character assassination against an opponent is exactly the Trump campaign's strategy against Hillary Clinton, using her and Bill Clinton's past to tarnish her image.
Before the second debate, the Trump campaign put forward women who had made sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton decades earlier, and tried to blame Hillary Clinton for mistreating them.
And even as the Trump campaign blasts Hillary Clinton for not believing her husband's accusers, the campaign is not giving Trump's accusers the same deference, saying they're lobbing false accusations.
Kellyanne Conway, Trump's campaign manager, even dredged up a past tweet Hillary Clinton sent that said "every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed and supported."
"RT if you agree," Conway wrote as she retweeted that tweet on Oct. 9, the same day Trump rolled out Bill Clinton's past accusers.
"'Every' the operative word here," Conway added.
Trump's television surrogates tried to dismiss his accusers, and got the same blowback for their hypocritical narrative.
If that's the Trump campaign's defense, there's no way they can try to discredit Trump's new accusers without looking desperate and hypocritical.
And Trump himself said he's done the things he's being accused of by these women.
In the 2005 Access Hollywood tape, Trump said he groped and kissed women without their consent.
"I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait," Trump said in the tape.
Aside from the hypocritical attacks, Trump's strategy to go after Bill Clinton is even more risky given that Bill Clinton is far more popular than Trump himself.
For example in Pennsylvania, a key swing state that Trump needs to win, Bill Clinton enjoys a 52% favorable rating — a number that rises to 59% in the crucial suburban areas of the state.
Trump, on the other hand, is viewed favorably by only 40% — and 28% in the suburbs of the state.
Absolutely. Part of Trump's empire is his ownership of "the truth" as it pertains to these women & everything else imaginable that goes against him. Add this to the long list of excuses that he's throwing into his reasons for a rigged system to justify / support his upcoming loss. Afterall, a good businessman gets ahead of the rollout - in this case the rollout of his eventual loss.
What do you believe he will accomplish as President?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/
Read the positions. He will deal with immigration, stop the flow of illegals across our borders, implement good refugee screening policies, lower tax brackets, etc. etc. He will do all these things if you let him.
What do you believe he will accomplish as President?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/
Read the positions. He will deal with immigration, stop the flow of illegals across our borders, implement good refugee screening policies, lower tax brackets, etc. etc. He will do all these things if you let him.
Economists have already pointed out that his tax plan would balloon the debt much higher than what it is today. Add his plan to increase military spending far beyond what it is today and you have an economic disaster. Remember this is a guy who lost over $900 million in one year. He claimed it was depreciation. How does a guy whose money is mostly invested in real estate have that amount of losses in one year? I don't trust him with my tax dollars. Actually, I don't trust him with anything.
While I'm no fan of Hillary since she is a corrupt liar, she does preach a much better message/image for our country
Yes, she is and No she does not.
So, you are saying Trump preaches a better message/image for the country than HC? If thats's what you believe, please expand upon that rationalization.
Not even close. I am not a Trump guy; believe Hillary is a one way ticket to total disaster.
And by the logic presented above, I speak out against "A" therefore I must prefer "B"....
Are there more than two choices for President?....
I believe a "Wasted" vote, is one not cast.
That's why you were asked the question - to clarify you open ended position.
You are correct. There are more than 2 choices. However the other candidates have about zero chance of winning. The beauty in voting is that voters can vote for either of the 2 main party candidates or vote in protest / vote their conscience. However if one votes either of the latter 2 choices, they get what they voted for - a guaranteed loss.
As long as enough people think this way and never change their viewpoint, we will always be stuck with the 2-party system. If there were ever a cycle to try to break the cycle, this is it. If the overwhelming distaste the nation has for the two main party candidates isn't enough to to wake us up, I fear it will only get a lot worse before it gets any better.
Don't disagree with what you are saying, however I'm not sure what it will take for expansion of the system. In this cycle, the term "revolution" has been thrown about by both the Trump & Sanders supporters. For the most part they are still operating w/in the existing structure - Trump moreso than Sanders; but still both.
With the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United, it becomes even more difficult to expand the system and realistic alternatives. Sad to say but $$$$$ drives the system moreso than the people. It will take some sort of awakening and much greater participation & knowledge of the people for an alternative / realistic expansion beyond a minimal % points for 3rd part candidates like we have currently with Johnson & Stein. Perot was probably the closest we have seen achieve as an alternative.
I doubt we see this in our lifetimes. Beyond that...time will tell.
I dunno, I think it could happen faster than that. No one gave Trump a chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination and here we are, so anything is possible. The bigger problem as I see it is that the parties that Johnson and Stein are part of don't seem to have broad enough appeal so even if either one does ok in this election it will be difficult to maintain momentum. I do think it will need to start at a more local level with some significant progress in gaining seats in congress for any 3rd party to have a realistic shot at the White House, but that doesn't mean we should write it all off this time around.
On some level I do fear what happened the last two elections in Maine could happen on a national level, i.e. 3rd party, or as was the case in Maine independent candidate(s),could split the vote enough that one of the main party candidates wins without a majority and we end up with a president that more than half the country didn't want and gridlock becomes even more of an issue (if that is even possible).
It's possible, and I'd get ready for that no matter who wins. Trump will never be viewed as legitimate and the Clintons aren't going to change, except maybe become even more brazen. Corruption issues will be a constant distraction as long as she is in office while stories of Trump's terribleness will be the same. Either scenario is a recipe for GRIDLOCK.
What do you believe he will accomplish as President?
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/
Read the positions. He will deal with immigration, stop the flow of illegals across our borders, implement good refugee screening policies, lower tax brackets, etc. etc. He will do all these things if you let him.
Economists have already pointed out that his tax plan would balloon the debt much higher than what it is today. Add his plan to increase military spending far beyond what it is today and you have an economic disaster. Remember this is a guy who lost over $900 million in one year. He claimed it was depreciation. How does a guy whose money is mostly invested in real estate have that amount of losses in one year? I don't trust him with my tax dollars. Actually, I don't trust him with anything.
I don't know which economists have said his tax plan would increase the debt, or what they were considering the other expenditures would be. I do know he will not continue sending tons of money overseas to other countries, so the budget we have now, which is what the economists have to work with (those figures), will not be the budget he will have. He will change where money is appropriated and the amoounts we send to foreign countries. He has said that other countries should pay something towards the help we are giving them, militarily and otherwise. We provide foreign aid, plus military back up to many countries, what do they give us in return?
This is one of the reasons he wanted other countries to have their own weapons (even nuclear) programs, so that they can defend themselves instead of us having to rush to their rescue, let them fight their own battles. NATO will be re-vamped, changed. How many countries do we support thru NATO, and what do those countries give us in return?
Our military and the money spent/budgeted there needs to go to defend OUR country, not everybody else's. Example, the amount of money and troops sent by other NATO countries to help us fight our war in Afghanistan was a joke, some would send 500 troops, big deal. Then when they were threatened with having attacks in their own country, they would take their troops home. What kind of policy is that? How much do we spend every day over there? Has there been any infrastructure improvements so that the country can sustain themselves? Not much different in any other country we have bombed, we bomb them, then leave the rubble for them to deal with. They have no money, so we send foreign aid so they can rebuild the country we destroyed.
A Trump administration will not send our troops all over the globe to do the dirty work of dictators afraid of their own populace. They covertly call us and say, can you come over and deal with these insurgents threatening us? NATO should not be doing that. If someone like Hitler seeks to rise and tromp thru every country fine, then you need all hands on deck from all countries, but that is not what we have today.
There is a huge amount of money going to Washington in the form of tax dollars. Trump will change where those dollars are allocated, he will fix America first. That is what America needs.
