• 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
Anagram said:
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.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly. Conrad retired from the senate last year. Pretty level headed guy, a democrat in a very red state who know how to work with people across the aisle.
 
Middleground said:
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?
Click to expand...

Most of the problem centers around campaign finance reform. It use to be one could donate any amount to the candidates and the parties. There were no pacs or super pacs used to get around this or a person or pac running his supposedly advocacy or information commercials that are nothing less than campaign commercials for one side or the other. No money bundlers etc. It seems to me the more limits, changes, rules etc. that congress tried to place on the money in politics only led to more loopholes and end runs around the law to what we have now.

I think we were much better off when only candidates and parties were involved. But that is just my opinion. Now we have so many outside groups running their ads in behalf of the parties and candidates one doesn't know how to take all of this.
 
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...

That, more than anything else, is the biggest problem we face.
 
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...

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't vote for a family member if they associated themselves with today's democrat party.
 
Middleground said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because they have nothing to do with each other. Banks receive their low rate at the discount window because they put up a huge amount of collateral, their assets are easily defined which reduces risk, and the loans are for incredibly short periods of time usually less than 24 hours. It is primarily used to cover temporary shortfalls that result from daily activities. In fact I'm not sure if a bank has ever defaulted on such borrowing. Students on the other hand borrow for very long periods of time and usually have nothing to guarantee the loan, they also have a historically high default rate in the double digits. Cutting student interest rates to below inflation is a surefire way to encourage colleges to jack up their prices to match families access to these funds. It will cause temporary relief and entrench a longer term problem. It's populism and its wrong.

If you want to address student loans do it seriously. If you want to offer up debt relief do it overtly. She was engaging in chicanry, taking advantage of peoples feelings towards 'Wall Street' and 'Big Banks' to push a deeply flawed agenda. I wont vote for her.
 
Gipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL, I can't believe that you actually believe all of that crap. :roll:
 
Paschendale said:
That, more than anything else, is the biggest problem we face.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Big money controls our election system. election day boils down to a choice of one bunch of corporations, wall street firms etc on one side backing a candidate and another bunch of corporations, wall street firm etc on the other side. So we vote to decide which of these folks will have the inside tract to favorable legislations, tax breaks, government contracts and the like. The candidate are just the face of these people. sad but true. Then you have all these corporations and wall street firms who donate huge chunks of money to both parties and candidates. Like they really cares who wins, regardless of the winner, the winner owes them big time.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Please stay on topic.
 
I find it fascinating that so far Rand Paul is neck and neck with Ted Cruz. I did not expect that at all. I also find it interesting that so few people picked Christie, who seems to get more ire from conservatives. Admittedly, poll has not been up long, but I do find these early trends interesting.
 
Perotista said:
Most of the problem centers around campaign finance reform. It use to be one could donate any amount to the candidates and the parties. There were no pacs or super pacs used to get around this or a person or pac running his supposedly advocacy or information commercials that are nothing less than campaign commercials for one side or the other. No money bundlers etc. It seems to me the more limits, changes, rules etc. that congress tried to place on the money in politics only led to more loopholes and end runs around the law to what we have now.

I think we were much better off when only candidates and parties were involved. But that is just my opinion. Now we have so many outside groups running their ads in behalf of the parties and candidates one doesn't know how to take all of this.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Really spot on point.
 
Sherman123 said:
Completely agree. Really spot on point.
Click to expand...

Thanks, if only some of our elected leaders would take a few steps back and look at the rot they have brought us. Maybe it was better to not have done a dang thing.
 
Redress said:
I find it fascinating that so far Rand Paul is neck and neck with Ted Cruz. I did not expect that at all. I also find it interesting that so few people picked Christie, who seems to get more ire from conservatives. Admittedly, poll has not been up long, but I do find these early trends interesting.
Click to expand...

The amount of votes Rand Paul received is a good thing.
 
Puigb said:
The amount of votes Rand Paul received is a good thing.
Click to expand...

I am not making value judgments here, but I remind you this poll asks who you would NOT support.
 
Republicans Who I Wouldn't Want to Vote For:
-Ted Cruz
-Rand Paul

Democrats Who I Wouldn't Want to Vote For:
-Cuomo
-Warren

That being said, in politics, you sometimes have to make a choice. Should I be presented with Paul v. Cuomo/Warren/Clinton, then I'd probably pick Cuomo/Warren/Clinton. If I was presented with Huntsman/Christie/Bush/Rubio, then I would likely vote Republican. It's a value judgment I have against libertarianism/Tea Partyism. I probably wouldn't compromise on that like I was willing to in '12.
 
How about Darrel Issa??
He is a fine example of what today's GOP has morphed into!!
 
Elizabeth Warren needs to stay right where she is until she becomes Majority Leader..
Sen. Warren scares the living hell out of the GOP every single day they wake up..
 
Redress said:
I am not making value judgments here, but I remind you this poll asks who you would NOT support.
Click to expand...

I know what the poll asks.

And like I said, the amount of votes Rand Paul is receiving is a good thing.
 
The only person on the list I like at all is Elizabeth Warren. I won't vote for a Republican unless the party changes drastically (which won't happen within three years). I will probably end up holding my nose and voting for a Democrat I don't have much enthusiasm for to keep the Republican from winning because we have a rigged two party political system.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
The only one I'd consider is Elizabeth Warren. I don't like all of her positions, and it would kind of depend on what some of her presently unknown positions are. But the ones I know and don't like aren't deal-breakers for me, and I've been impressed with how she's held up in congress even if I don't always like what she's standing up for. That last point is the one that's important for me.
Click to expand...

Fauxchontas is the last one I would consider voting for. Even worse than blow hard brain dead Biden
 
Gipper said:
Yeah...THAT'S the reason...
Click to expand...

That's a sound reason-its why I won't ever vote for a Dem because no matter who it is-we will get more Quotamayors or Kagans
 
Sherman123 said:
Good poll. I'm a Republican voter but I would not vote for Ted Cruz and most likely would not vote for Rand Paul (a strong case would need to be made to me on a host of issues) I'm also very unlikely to vote for Joe Biden as I have serious reservations on his ability to achieve legislative victories and his foreign policy stance. I could conceivably vote for Clinton or Cuomo depending on how they ran their campaign if the GOP selects a bad candidate (Cruz, Perry, etc). My ideal candidate is Christie or Jeb, though I'd take others.

The only candidate on there that would drive me to back the Republican under any circumstance would be if Elizabeth Warren won the nomination. She genuinely angers & frightens me. I would do more than I probably ever have in any election to support her opponent.
Click to expand...

Cuomo's idiocy in NYS with magazine limits permanently disqualifies him IMHO from ever being in office of any kind
 
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...

lets see

1) she is a classic wealthy dem who demonizes wealthy corporate fat cats while craving to be one herself

2) her Lieawatha nonsense was pathetic. Its more likely she was related to people who drove NAs on the "trail of tears" than being a Native American

3) she apparently played the affirmative action card to get some of her jobs

4) she is a gun hating twit

5) she thinks government should have more control over private property. She essentially is a welfare socialist twit
 
Surtr said:
I honestly don't see anyone in the poll who's worth voting for.
Click to expand...

well step up to the plate and tell us who you want to see as an option
 
pbrauer said:
I would not vote for any Republicans. Reason: Judge picks.
Click to expand...
Translation: I talked my emotionally vulnerable girlfriend into killing our baby because the little bastard would have been a temporary inconvenience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom