News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

Calliegirl said:
And that's why I'm not a Libertarian. I can't live my life always thinking me, me, me, who cares how it affects others.

I don't think it's selfish to do what is safe for everyone, rather than only being concerned with myself. I have a list of wonderful animal activists who I would prefer as president that I could write in, but that isn't realistic. They aren't going to win. I need to do what I can to help make sure the future for a lot of people isn't going to be destroyed. So, I'm going to use common sense and vote for Hillary instead of some idealistic nonsense that's going to get us Trump.
Click to expand...

Libertarians aren't all about me, me, me and I'm certainly not all about me, me, me. And Johnson is for a safety net for those that need it. But I'm not rich enough for Republicans to care about or poor enough (or childed enough) for Democrats to care about, so Libertarian it is. I've been following Gary Johnson for a while, voted for him last time in fact, and he is the candidate that I agree with the most on the majority of topics. Besides, he's not batshit crazy like the other two.

I'm not trying to change your or anyone else's mind. Just tired of the "wasted vote" line.
 
Jeremy said:
I'm sure Republicans wouldn't mind a Libertarian in there at all to try to help fulfill their fiscal wish list... Same tax rate for the rich as the lower middle class... Repeal the ACA and cut Medicare/Medicaid by 50%, privatize Social Security, gut Welfare, etc. Libertarians share the same fiscal wet dreams as Republicans that much is for absolute certain. The difference between the Libertarians and the Republicans is that the Libertarians actually stay out of our bedrooms, our medicine cabinets, and our uterus's (well not MY uterus, but you know what I mean). If I'm to vote my conscience, the Libertarians really blow it. The Democratic platform is the full package, despite anything Hilary has allegedly done.
Click to expand...

He was elected governor running as a Republican in a heavily Democratic state. I'd say he's liked by people from both sides.

I'd like to see the same tax rate for all. I am tired of getting taxed more because I didn't reproduce, for one thing. The democrats lovely social programs did nothing for me when my job was outsourced. Only ones who got any help were the singles with kids. Housing assistance, food assistance, schooling paid for. The rest of us got "sorry, better luck next time".

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Stay out of my wallet (not like there's much there anyway) and stay out of my bedroom. Sounds like a good plan to me.
 
Last edited:
President Obama has deported more people than any other president. Hillary Clinton will continue to deport undocumented immigrants, tearing apart families. President Obama continued and escalated his predecessor's drone policy, slaughtering an untold number of innocent people, many of whom were children, in predominately Muslim countries. Hillary Clinton will continue bombing civilians with drones. Police will continue to kill and brutalize citizens without consequence, disproportionately affecting people of color.

If Hillary Clinton does not get my vote in November, it is because she chose not to earn it.
 
For me a wasted vote as one that doesn't matter and won't affect anything.

This election I don't really think of 3rd party votes as wasted votes, more as a vote that gets us closer to Trump getting into office. :(
 
You guys need to overthrow the whole lot of those kleptocrats... both parties are equally bad.
Same as in NZ we also have extremely corrupt rich people running NZ into the ground.
Australia is also run by some particularly vile wealthy people. All need to go.

America should be run by the American people, not the thieves who dont care.
 
Freesia said:
You guys need to overthrow the whole lot of those kleptocrats... both parties are equally bad.
Same as in NZ we also have extremely corrupt rich people running NZ into the ground.
Australia is also run by some particularly vile wealthy people. All need to go.

America should be run by the American people, not the thieves who dont care.
Click to expand...
"Kleptocrats," I love it! Can I use that??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freesia
Wolfie said:
Libertarians aren't all about me, me, me and I'm certainly not all about me, me, me. And Johnson is for a safety net for those that need it. But I'm not rich enough for Republicans to care about or poor enough (or childed enough) for Democrats to care about, so Libertarian it is. I've been following Gary Johnson for a while, voted for him last time in fact, and he is the candidate that I agree with the most on the majority of topics. Besides, he's not batshit crazy like the other two.

I'm not trying to change your or anyone else's mind. Just tired of the "wasted vote" line.
Click to expand...

Wolfie said:
He was elected governor running as a Republican in a heavily Democratic state. I'd say he's liked by people from both sides.

I'd like to see the same tax rate for all. I am tired of getting taxed more because I didn't reproduce, for one thing. The democrats lovely social programs did nothing for me when my job was outsourced. Only ones who got any help were the singles with kids. Housing assistance, food assistance, schooling paid for. The rest of us got "sorry, better luck next time".

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Stay out of my wallet (not like there's much there anyway) and stay out of my bedroom. Sounds like a good plan to me.
Click to expand...

Good job! Sounds like it is mostly about you after all. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
Spang said:
If Hillary Clinton does not get my vote in November, it is because she chose not to earn it.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Freesia said:
You guys need to overthrow the whole lot of those kleptocrats... both parties are equally bad.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Jeremy said:
Good job! Sounds like it is mostly about you after all. :D
Click to expand...

You're right. I should pay for years on end but not be able to get any help when needed. You are likely a socialist with 10 kids living on the government dime.

I can also make generalizations about someone I don't know at all.
 
Last edited:
Wolfie said:
Yep.



Yep.



You're right. I should pay for years on end but not be able to get any help when needed. You are likely a socialist with 10 kids living on the government dime.

I can also make generalizations about someone I don't know at all.
Click to expand...

Did I hurt your feelings? :sob:
 
Wolfie said:
I'd like to see the same tax rate for all.
Click to expand...


Wolfie, the Libertarian agenda is more than just lowering taxes. They want to gut the gov't to the point where it would only be responsible for infrastructure and defense. Their agenda also includes the elimination of all regulations, to create a "pure capitalism" business environment.

Sure, the welfare queens would be cut off, but so would public school funding, consumer protections, and employee safety via OSHA, social security, medicare, medicaid, funding for hospitals, national parks, pollution laws etc, etc.

They want to roll back employment practices to those at the dawn of the industrial revolution where employees were de-facto indentured servants with no rights or protections.

I could go on and on with examples, and the negative impact of a limited gov't - but in summary they want to live in an environment where corporations can do what they want, when the want, how they want, to who they want, without any legal repercussions.

It would be a Utopian dream for those already wealthy or in power, but a dystopian nightmare for the rest of us.

Be careful what you wish for.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
beancounter said:
The truth is that there are plenty of checks and balances to prevent such things.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm. It seems as though you've done a 180 since I pointed out that Bernie wouldn't be able to get a more progressive agenda passed than Hillary would, considering that the House will remain Republican for at least another decade (and probably for several more decades - due to the gerrymandering of Congressional districts, which the Republicans did with extreme success), and the Senate, even if the Dems were to gain a majority, won't have a majority of liberal Dems.

Of course, Supreme Court appointments are a much bigger deal than most people seem to realize - that's really where any POTUS has the most lasting influence.

In this election, though, with Trump, there is an awful lot that's at stake, because he is likely to do anything. Even what he's saying now, as a candidate, is having repercussions around the world. Just read the English language versions of news publications from around the world.

It's no wonder that Russia is so invested in helping to tilt the election in his favor.
 
Jeremy said:
Did I hurt your feelings? :sob:
Click to expand...

No. It takes more than some random person on the Internet that I don't even know to hurt my feelings.

beancounter said:
Wolfie, the Libertarian agenda is more than just lowering taxes. They want to gut the gov't to the point where it would only be responsible for infrastructure and defense. Their agenda also includes the elimination of all regulations, to create a "pure capitalism" business environment.

Sure, the welfare queens would be cut off, but so would public school funding, consumer protections, and employee safety via OSHA, social security, medicare, medicaid, funding for hospitals, national parks, pollution laws etc, etc.

They want to roll back employment practices to those at the dawn of the industrial revolution where employees were de-facto indentured servants with no rights or protections.

I could go on and on with examples, and the negative impact of a limited gov't - but in summary they want to live in an environment where corporations can do what they want, when the want, how they want, to who they want, without any legal repercussions.

It would be a Utopian dream for those already wealthy or in power, but a dystopian nightmare for the rest of us.

Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

I know what they stand for and specifically what Johnson stands for and what he has done as governor. I didn't just jump on the bandwagon because I can't stand the thought of voting for either of the Clump duo. I've identified more as a Libertarian than either of the main two parties for a while now, though I never vote just by party anyway. And of course all Libertarian candidates don't agree on all things, just like any other party. I'm all for smaller government. IMO government wastes way more money than they use wisely. (My state is a CLASSIC example of a too-big government out of control). And some things are just none of government's business and they need to butt out. (Marriage, abortion, etc.) Funding for hospitals has already taken a hit thanks to the ACA (I work for one as do several family members. We see what goes on behind the scenes. Obamacare is a freaking mess and once again, the folks who make too much for subsidies to buy a plan but don't make enough to pay for a plan without help get screwed, as is the case with most government-funded programs). Johnson supports allowing insurance companies to compete across state borders. Increased competition would lower costs. I've always thought it's stupid to tie health insurance to a job (if you're lucky enough to land a job with decent insurance) or the government (if you meet their requirements. There are MANY people who can't qualify for Medicaid but also can't afford insurance on their own). And Johnson supports having a safety net for those who need it. Also social security is a joke, has always been. I'm all for letting younger people keep more of their own $$$ to invest for themselves. Of course there still has to be a plan in place for those too old to do that now and who have already paid plenty into SS. Anyway I am rambling here because I'm in a hurry to leave the house, plus I realize I am wasting my time because I don't expect to convince many/any here to vote Libertarian. :p But I don't think a Johnson presidency would be a nightmare. I don't see how it could be any worse than what some of us are living right now, and I expect it would be much better.
 
Last edited:
Spang said:
You are aware that this is a racist term, right?
Click to expand...

Only if you assume all of them are of a certain race. "Welfare queens" come in all colors. It's not a term I really use but don't consider it racist.

And before anyone gets mad, I am NOT saying everyone on welfare is an abuser of the system. But abusers do exist and are more common than some people realize or will admit.
 
You may not consider it to be a racist term, but the origination and historical use of the term does not support your view. Just read the wiki article on "welfare queen." It provides a good summary.
 
Wolfie said:
Only if you assume all of them are of a certain race. "Welfare queens" come in all colors. It's not a term I really use but don't consider it racist.
Click to expand...
Some people don't consider the Earth round, but it is. The term "welfare queen" is rooted in racism, designed to divide low-income white people and Black people.

This article will better explain it (I highly recommend reading all the words):
In 1976 — just eight years after King’s call for unity among all poor people — Ronald Reagan launched his second unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination. In his campaign, he repeatedly trotted out the now infamous “Welfare Queen” story.
Click to expand...

[W]hile the Reagan administration congratulated themselves on the economic expansion, poor people were still struggling. But Reagan had given poor whites someone to blame for their suffering: the Welfare Queen. He never said she was Black. He didn’t have to.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t Reagan’s fault that social programs had to be cut. The “welfare queens” made him do it. Poor whites were still poorer, but at least they weren’t criminals, and that distinction was critical in their minds.
Click to expand...
 
Top Bottom