View Poll Results: What will you do?

Voters
127. You may not vote on this poll
  • Not vote

    5 3.94%
  • Vote for Clinton

    38 29.92%
  • Vote for Bush

    42 33.07%
  • Undecided

    6 4.72%
  • Other

    36 28.35%
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 220

Thread: 2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

  1. #111
    Sage
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Coast - USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:46 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,561

    Re: 2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Back in Perot's two runs only 39% of the electorate said they would consider voting for a third party candidate, today according to Gallup that is up to 81%.
    You have no idea how much I WISH that was true, but I call extreme, feces-laden lying on the part of those taking the poll. (not calling Perotista a liar by any means)

    Time will tell, but I bet as sure as tonight's blood moon won't mean the rapture, or the end of times, that next presidential election cycle the vast majority of those polled, and those not polled will push either a D or an R button.

  2. #112
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,699

    Re: 2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    That is the part that is very debatable, from any family dynasty politician. Because of, I should be concerned. So should you if you were thinking rationally about the matter.
    So being from a family "dynasty" makes someone unqualified??
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  3. #113
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: 2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    So being from a family "dynasty" makes someone unqualified??
    Are you purposefully ignoring all I said?

  4. #114
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,699

    Re: 2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    Are you purposefully ignoring all I said?
    No, I'm trying to get a clear answer from you. The only thing you originally mentioned as a qualifier for your decision was that they were part of a "family dynasty." So I want to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. Is being part of a "family dynasty" all it takes for you to disqualify someone in your mind from holding office? I know that you're trying to back pedal and add to your original statement in order to cover your comments, but how about making this one point perfectly clear before we continue...
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  5. #115
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: 2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    No, I'm trying to get a clear answer from you. The only thing you originally mentioned as a qualifier for your decision was that they were part of a "family dynasty." So I want to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. Is being part of a "family dynasty" all it takes for you to disqualify someone in your mind from holding office? I know that you're trying to back pedal and add to your original statement in order to cover your comments, but how about making this one point perfectly clear before we continue...
    That is not the only thing I mentioned. I said we should be concerned about the nation if the best we can do is a 3rd Bush or a 2nd Clinton, then I said that is the sort of thinking that leads to aristocracy and dynasty. You are the one trying to get me to say something I did not say. A political family dynasty is a relevant concern. Should that be the only qualifier or reason to exclude? No, but it should be a consideration anyone rational would think about.

    How about being honest before we continue?

  6. #116
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,699

    Re: 2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    Between those two I would have to go 3rd party. I could not in good conscience vote for another Bush or another Clinton.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    To me the nation is in real trouble if the best we can do is another Bush and another Clinton, tells me that we have a real issue with a modern day aristocracy here.

    Seriously, this is the best we have to run this nation?
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    No, I would say that is a fantastic argument against and concern about aristocracy. It does not matter if we are talking about a 3rd Bush in office or a 2nd Clinton, there must be somoene out there that does not represent the polarization these families clearly bring to the table. Capabilities of course comes into play, not necessarily all one or the other but it would be moronic to not see the condition we are setting ourselves up for with political family dynasty after dynasty. In a way that also applies to the Kennedy's and several other families that have found a way that through family have a foot in the door to the political scene.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    I'll match that with your blissful ignorance at the risk of aristocracy based on key families in political power.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    That is still not the point, it is merely opinion that a 3rd Bush or 2nd Clinton would do well. Not one that I share, you compound that with my concerns for aristocracy and we have a clear reason to be concerned. One that you rather stupidly ignore.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    No, that is still not it but enjoy the ignorance of thinking we are not developing one hell of a problem here.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    That is the part that is very debatable, from any family dynasty politician. Because of, I should be concerned. So should you if you were thinking rationally about the matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    Are you purposefully ignoring all I said?
    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    That is not the only thing I mentioned. I said we should be concerned about the nation if the best we can do is a 3rd Bush or a 2nd Clinton, then I said that is the sort of thinking that leads to aristocracy and dynasty. You are the one trying to get me to say something I did not say. A political family dynasty is a relevant concern. Should that be the only qualifier or reason to exclude? No, but it should be a consideration anyone rational would think about.

    How about being honest before we continue?
    So here's everything you posted on this thread. You kept bringing up the "family dynasty" and aristocracy issues, but that was pretty much the end of it. Nothing about WHY, other than "family dynasty" and "aristocracy." My point is what should it matter who their relatives are or what those relatives have done?? What should matter is the person's qualifications. If you had a whole family of political geniuses who were truly bi-partisan and had only the best of the nation as their motivation, would you disqualify them in your mind based on nothing more than the fact that they were related?? Reading through your posts, it certainly sounds that way, but I'd like to get a clear and direct answer from you, just in case I'm misunderstanding all these posts about "family dynasty" and "aristocracy".
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  7. #117
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: 2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    Lets be blunt shall we? While their familial relationship does have large bearing because of the apple doesn't fall far from the tree thoughts, the fact is both of those twits have been in power with less than stellar results and both have shown they are more of the same. More of the same just sucks.
    Not to diminish your sentiments, but could you indicate what part of Jeb Bush's governorship of Florida was "less than stellar" and "sucks"?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  8. #118
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: 2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    So here's everything you posted on this thread. You kept bringing up the "family dynasty" and aristocracy issues, but that was pretty much the end of it. Nothing about WHY, other than "family dynasty" and "aristocracy." My point is what should it matter who their relatives are or what those relatives have done?? What should matter is the person's qualifications. If you had a whole family of political geniuses who were truly bi-partisan and had only the best of the nation as their motivation, would you disqualify them in your mind based on nothing more than the fact that they were related?? Reading through your posts, it certainly sounds that way, but I'd like to get a clear and direct answer from you, just in case I'm misunderstanding all these posts about "family dynasty" and "aristocracy".
    Clearly in that big effort you went through to find everything I said in this thread you apparently missed...

    "Capabilities of course comes into play, not necessarily all one or the other but it would be moronic to not see the condition we are setting ourselves up for with political family dynasty after dynasty."
    Now, do we want to have a serious discussion on the matter or are you still stuck?

  9. #119
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,699

    Re: 2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    Clearly in that big effort you went through to find everything I said in this thread you apparently missed...



    Now, do we want to have a serious discussion on the matter or are you still stuck?
    One phrase that ends with a qualification about exactly what I keep asking you isn't an answer. I could ask you again, but you'll just dance around the issue again.
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  10. #120
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: 2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    One phrase that ends with a qualification about exactly what I keep asking you isn't an answer. I could ask you again, but you'll just dance around the issue again.
    I already said no, family alone is not disqualify someone... several times if you could read.

Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •