• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For Every One: Who Would You NOT Consider Voting For In 2016 [W:58]

Who would you NOT consider voting for in 2016? Pick all that apply

  • Total voters
    108
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yeah, and this is why I'm cautious about it.

But I think Warren has a little more going for her than he did. Warren has been under substantially more fire over a substantially longer period of time than Obama ever was before he was president. She seems almost congenitally oblivious to pressure.

That doesn't mean she might not do an about-face if elected. She certainly could. But so far she's toughed it through more, and for longer, than Obama ever did.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd consider that a positive. The uninformed populace don't take that into consideration. That's why they elected a man who was a United States Senator for all of about 37 seconds to the highest office in the land.

I can easily see Warren selling snake oil, knowing that fools are more interested in unfulfillable dreams than actual goals.
 
I didn't check his name but I have serious reservations about Joe Biden as a candidate.

I would consider him but he's not at the top of my list.

There are better people out there.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Companion poll to my last two, this one for every one. Who out of the listed people would you not consider voting for at all in 2016? It is a multiple choice poll so pick all that apply. The choices are from those who got the most votes in the other two polls I recently did.

Please be patient while I add the poll.
Click to expand...

Interesting, the first five in your poll are a definately no. Now I like Biden, as a senator and VP that is and I wouldn't vote for him for president. Rubio I have reservation with. So that leaves me Bush, Christie and Huntsman that I would consider voting for, but not the rest. Personally if I had to choose the nominees, it would be Democrat Governor Jay Nixon Missouri or Kent Conrad of North Dakota vs. Tennessee's Lamar Alexander or Indiana's Mitch Daniels.
 
Middleground said:
I was not one of them. But another point... do you truly believe that an elected President can do their own thing? The Washington lobby is much more powerful. Not even Jesus would get his way, I think.
Click to expand...

Clinton did. Did a hell of a job too. He milked a tech bubble with increased capital gains taxes that normally wouldn't fly, but did quite well at that given time with the given circumstances. He also functioned well with a Congress that was a Republican supermajority for a good chunk of his tenure.

Obama should be taking notes with a huge f'n pad.
 
Perotista said:
Interesting, the first five in your poll are a definately no. Now I like Biden, as a senator and VP that is and I wouldn't vote for him for president. Rubio I have reservation with. So that leaves me Bush, Christie and Huntsman that I would consider voting for, but not the rest. Personally if I had to choose the nominees, it would be Democrat Governor Jay Nixon Missouri or Kent Conrad of North Dakota vs. Tennessee's Lamar Alexander or Indiana's Mitch Daniels.
Click to expand...

I would love if they were the nominees. We'd most likely end up with a pretty good president no matter which of them won, although I don't know much about Conrad.
 
Middleground said:
I don't know how anyone can dislike Warren. She's passionate about doing what is right for the American people and not special interest. That is rare in politics.
Click to expand...

Because many of us find her to be frighteningly left wing and demagogic. I was mortified by her commentary on student loans a few months ago when she railed in front of the cameras about how they should be treated the same as banks at the federal discount window. She is an intelligent women who knows full well why the two are not equivalent and why it didn't make sense. It was about taking a shot across the bow and riling people up by invoking the dreaded banks. This concerns me.
 
Middleground said:
I was not one of them. But another point... do you truly believe that an elected President can do their own thing? The Washington lobby is much more powerful. Not even Jesus would get his way, I think.
Click to expand...

No, you realize each of the presidential nominees spent a billion dollars each trying to win the presidency. That is a lot of corporate, wall street firm, huge money big men donors that they owe their election to. That is a lot of favors, then if a president doesn't go along with that those folks want, all they have to do is threaten to give their money to his opponent or opposite political party if a lame duck. Such is our election system.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yeah, and this is why I'm cautious about it.

But I think Warren has a little more going for her than he did. Warren has been under substantially more fire over a substantially longer period of time than Obama ever was before he was president. She seems almost congenitally oblivious to pressure.

That doesn't mean she might not do an about-face if elected. She certainly could. But so far she's toughed it through more, and for longer, than Obama ever did.
Click to expand...

If you read about her history, you'll see that trying to change the status quo on many issues dealing with the middle class has pretty much become her mission. And by mistake, too. At one time she was representing bug business going after the middle class and after a while, she saw a pattern that completely changed her though process and opinions. That the people she was going after were not cheats but were victims of circumstance. Like not being able to pay for medical bills. That epiphany has lead her to where she is now.
 
Gipper said:
Clinton did. Did a hell of a job too. He milked a tech bubble with increased capital gains taxes that normally wouldn't fly, but did quite well at that given time with the given circumstances. He also functioned well with a Congress that was a Republican supermajority for a good chunk of his tenure.

Obama should be taking notes with a huge f'n pad.
Click to expand...

How did his healthcare reform go?
 
Gipper said:
Make it Kennedy. Clinton raised capital gains taxes, but Kennedy lowered the corporate tax by the largest amount in history (at that time). Also, JFK nailed hotter bitches.

Marilyn Monroe or Monica Lewinsky - you choose.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




They're both hot numbers.
 
I'd vote for either Christie or Huntsman if either of them make it that far.

I'd also consider an as yet unnamed "dark horse" candidate, potentially from either party (think moderate/conservative Western Democrat, like a Jon Tester or an Evan Bayh).

Of the rest of the folks named in this poll, or any other "big name" figures from either party who could potentially be seen as running (even if only as a long shot, think Palin, Jindal, Bloomberg, etc...) I'd again vote for the libertarian third-party candidate as I did in 2012.
 
Perotista said:
No, you realize each of the presidential nominees spent a billion dollars each trying to win the presidency. That is a lot of corporate, wall street firm, huge money big men donors that they owe their election to. That is a lot of favors, then if a president doesn't go along with that those folks want, all they have to do is threaten to give their money to his opponent or opposite political party if a lame duck. Such is our election system.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a HUGE part of the problem. Funny enough, when Carter ran in 1976, he did not raise one dime. Amazing how things have changed in such a short period, eh?
 
Sherman123 said:
Because many of us find her to be frighteningly left wing and demagogic. I was mortified by her commentary on student loans a few months ago when she railed in front of the cameras about how they should be treated the same as banks at the federal discount window. She is an intelligent women who knows full well why the two are not equivalent and why it didn't make sense. It was about taking a shot across the bow and riling people up by invoking the dreaded banks. This concerns me.
Click to expand...

Her major concern for the US is the health of the people. Without the middle class, the US is screwed and tattooed. and it's no surprised that with each passing day, that class is getting smaller and smaller. We have a similar problem in Canada, too, though not quite as bad.
 
I don't think I could vote for Cruz or Paul; just too divisive and unwilling to work with other leaders who aren't in lock step with them IMHO. However, I'm always willing to listen and could be convinced otherwise. 2016 is still 3 years away.
 
Redress said:
Obama is not the topic. Can we please stick to the topic?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Some people take every chance that they find to attack Obama.

I believe that they are wasting their time and energy.

They should be posting comments about who and what they support.
 
Last edited:
Middleground said:
Her major concern for the US is the health of the people. Without the middle class, the US is screwed and tattooed. and it's no surprised that with each passing day, that class is getting smaller and smaller. We have a similar problem in Canada, too, though not quite as bad.
Click to expand...

I think she has very bad recipes for ensuring either a sustained recovery or increased prosperity. The example I gave was to highlight that I think she is a populist at heart with a populists policy prescriptions for government.
 
From the list, I would not vote for Biden or Warren under any circumstances. From the Republican side, I would click on Bachmann and Santorum, if they were mentioned.
 
Middleground said:
This is a major change. And with major change, problem will be aplenty. If you don't think special interest is fighting tooth and nail for this failure, then I have a bridge to sell you. Give it time. There is a lot wrong with Obamacare but it's truly a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

How can you blame special interests? We're talking about the "grand opening" of this beneficial, benevolent, ground-breaking legislation that's supposed to do all this good and help all these people. Also, if that didn't do the trick, he even made it illegal not to do it.

Now you have all these people - people clamoring for all this great "change" and for "hope" - getting the promise sold to them, and actually choosing to break the law and get fined instead of getting this oh-so-great thing that Obama is providing. That's pretty damning, if you ask me.

All this shows me is how democracy is an abject failure, ruined by the "rights" of the intellectually bereft.
 
Sherman123 said:
I think she has very bad recipes for ensuring either a sustained recovery or increased prosperity. The example I gave was to highlight that I think she is a populist at heart with a populists policy prescriptions for government.
Click to expand...

And what is wrong with that? Frankly, I think it's a most pleasant change from most politicians.
 
Gipper said:
How can you blame special interests? We're talking about the "grand opening" of this beneficial, benevolent, ground-breaking legislation that's supposed to do all this good and help all these people. Also, if that didn't do the trick, he even made it illegal not to do it.

Now you have all these people - people clamoring for all this great "change" and for "hope" - getting the promise sold to them, and actually choosing to break the law and get fined instead of getting this oh-so-great thing that Obama is providing. That's pretty damning, if you ask me.

All this shows me is how democracy is an abject failure, ruined by the "rights" of the intellectually bereft.
Click to expand...

Gipper... despite the glitches, it will happen. New operating systems suck **** until the bugs are ironed out.
 
Sherman123 said:
I think she has very bad recipes for ensuring either a sustained recovery or increased prosperity. The example I gave was to highlight that I think she is a populist at heart with a populists policy prescriptions for government.
Click to expand...

She was looking for the same interest rates that were granted to big banks. How do you feel about the low interest they are charged?
 
Middleground said:
Gipper... despite the glitches, it will happen. New operating systems suck **** until the bugs are ironed out.
Click to expand...

It also helps when competent people tackle the project, instead of it being given in no-bid contracts to your wife's roommate.

Man, I wish I knew Barry or Chelle growing up. I'd be in like Flynn, baby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom