• 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!

If These Were The 2016 Presidential Candidates...

If These Were The 2016 Presidential Candidates...

  • Jeb Bush

    Votes: 11 20.0%
  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 18 32.7%
  • Gary Johnson

    Votes: 12 21.8%
  • I don't/wouldn't vote

    Votes: 2 3.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 12 21.8%

  • Total voters
    55
Get rid of money in politics and you get rid of the 2 party system. Put a very low cap on how much one person (or entity) can contribute to a campaign and all the sudden a third party has a chance. When you get giant corporations donating unlimited amounts of money to one candidate or the other (and in a lot of cases to both candidates) then a lesser known third party candidate has no chance in hell.

Votes win elections, but when those votes are based on media exposure and how well someone knows a candidate, then money talks.
 
Are you kidding? Hillary is far right. She's a warmonger, corporatist, fascist, and her husband passed DOMA into law. She seriously couldn't be further from socialist ideals, or liberal ideals for that matter.

Ehhh.. Newsflash 95% of politicians in the US are corporatists. Are they fascists tho? No. However she is more liberal than all 3 of those candidates and that is why i would vote for her if it was those choices.
 
Duh.



Not all of them, Hillary is though.
In what ways are Hilary Clinton a fascist?


She has a "D" next to her name, that's about as liberal as she gets.
She is "liberal" (in the modern American since o the world) when it comes to gay rights, reducing sentences for drugs, fighting income inequality, universal healthcare, McCain Feingold Act, getting rid of electroal college, pro Roe v Wade, more pro green energy and believes in climate change...
 
In what ways are Hilary Clinton a fascist?

In what ways is she not?



She is "liberal" (in the modern American since o the world) when it comes to gay rights,

Her husband signed DOMA into law with her full support.

reducing sentences for drugs

Reducing sentences on drugs is still fueling a victimless crime which is, arguably, not liberal at all.

fighting income inequality

Her policies create larger gaps in income equality. Supporting corporatism and cronyism kind of negates all that income equality rhetoric she spews.

What about foreign policy? She's a neocon. Liberals are pro-peace and against unnecessary military intervention. She'd be a Bush 3.0(Obama is 2.0)
 
In what ways is she not?
Pretty sure she doenst believe in totalitarianism. Dont think she thinks everything should be in service of the state...
I mean c'mon you claim she is a fascist, explain to us how she is a fascist.

Her husband signed DOMA into law with her full support.
She is for gay marriage and gay rights NOW.



Reducing sentences on drugs is still fueling a victimless crime which is, arguably, not liberal at all.
Its a start.



Her policies create larger gaps in income equality. Supporting corporatism and cronyism kind of negates all that income equality rhetoric she spews.
She supports increasing taxes on the rich.


What about foreign policy? She's a neocon. Liberals are pro-peace and against unnecessary military intervention. She'd be a Bush 3.0(Obama is 2.0)
Most liberals are about that. She is not a neocon. Just because she voted for the war that does not make her a neocon. Notice how im not saying she is "great". Im saying she is the most liberal out of those people listed and i would vote for her if it was those 3 candidates.
 
She is for gay marriage and gay rights NOW.
Why?
Why did she change?
Because it was expedient. She has no principles. She simply checks the polls and pretends to agree with the majority.
 
Why?
Why did she change?
Because it was expedient. She has no principles. She simply checks the polls and pretends to agree with the majority.

Pshhh. Because she is a political actor. Thats why. When the vast majority of your voting bloc moves to favor a policy you move with that bloc.
 
To say that someone has no principles is a pretty bold statement.

You just admitted that she shifts her view with her voting block, and that she's just a political actor. That's called having no principles.
 
You just admitted that she shifts her view with her voting block, and that she's just a political actor. That's called having no principles.

Many people flip flop on issues. I would still say that they have some principles anyways.
 
Because in Ron Paul's universe, we don't need to operate in the rest of the world for anything. Trade agreements, military agreements, flight agreement...nothing. We've got everything we need right here.

It would be sad day indeed if America found itself having to depend on it's own resources. It is our privilege, nay, destiny to take from other's to quench our needs. The rest of the world will just have to understand. We are Americans. :roll:

I remember Ron Paul getting boo'd at the debates for telling the GOP audience some sad truths they could not accept. That took courage even if it fell on deaf ears. I think Ron Paul does have some baggage that's hard to get around. It would make for media fodder and endless and useless debate.

Not sure he could deliver the whole package to unite a GOP base. He's way too honest. I wouldn't recommend running him but I would vote for him over Hillary.
 
It would be sad day indeed if America found itself having to depend on it's own resources. It is our privilege, nay, destiny to take from other's to quench our needs. The rest of the world will just have to understand. We are Americans.

I remember Ron Paul getting boo'd at the debates for telling the GOP audience some sad truths they could not accept. That took courage even if it fell on deaf ears. I think Ron Paul does have some baggage that's hard to get around. It would make for media fodder and endless and useless debate.

Not sure he could deliver the whole package to unite a GOP base. He's way too honest. I wouldn't recommend running him but I would vote for him over Hillary.

Local economies can be stable, but it's international trade that tends to result in the thriving of economies and cultures. It has its pitfalls to be sure, but completely insulated economies (and again, cultures) are stagnant.
 
Local economies can be stable, but it's international trade that tends to result in the thriving of economies and cultures. It has its pitfalls to be sure, but completely insulated economies (and again, cultures) are stagnant.

Yeah, you right. I can't say that I am totally familiar of some of the thing's Ron Paul has said and done in his past. And, we have to admit, he's a funny looking little fellow with some communication methods that make a lot of people uncomfortable. He's certainly no dashing person jumping out of the cockpit or dunking a basketball. The "image" is just not there.

The few years I have paid attention to him, he has said some things I totally agree with. Kinda of like it used to be when I was staunchly republican. I think he might be the best bet to bring out the middle from both sides. Now that Christie's defunct. (Or, is he?????)

I would vote for Pee Wee Herman over Hillary. Well, maybe not. I'd probably just go fishin'.
 
You just admitted that she shifts her view with her voting block, and that she's just a political actor. That's called having no principles.

Jesus if that ain't some tea party logic. If she works with members from across the aisle is she selling out her base too?

Views change and evolve with the times. If the President comes up, with the director of the CIA in tow, and informs you that country X is about to develop nuclear weapons and use them on Israel and America, should you continue supporting the war effort for "principle" when the whole thing turns out to be a croc of ****? How many lives were lost in Vietnam because the politicians had to maintain the "principle" that the US was right all along and that the tens of thousands of dead where not in vain? Was Bobby Kennedy a flip flopper sans principle when he chose to oppose the war after initially being supportive of the American presence? Or was his a common-sense response to the situation and facts on the ground?

America's defining political philosophy is, and has been, Pragmatism. It's why there are 6 states in New England when 1 would do. Why we have a federalized system of government that has more redundancy than anywhere else. The tea party forgot that, I feel, when they were shutting down the government and threatening to default on the Full Faith and Credit of The United States for some principle that they didn't make clear. Our full faith and credit, never blemished, almost ruined...to make some dumbass point about princples. It almost brings tears to my eyes.

Anyways, I digress. I am going to vote for the next President of the United States, and I think she'll be fantastic.
 
Local economies can be stable, but it's international trade that tends to result in the thriving of economies and cultures. It has its pitfalls to be sure, but completely insulated economies (and again, cultures) are stagnant.

Ron Paul has been consistently against any protectionist policies and is quite anti-populist on that front. One of the things he threw at Republicans, as Capn America mentioned, was that the embargo on Cuba has been a complete failure and waste of time and that he would immediately end all restriction on trade when elected. He said this in Miami, no less. Not saying I like Paul, but he was always consistent on free market principles.

He should not be wholly blamed for the GOP turning into a toxic mix of Dixiecrat Libertarianism: a disgusting conglomeration of states rightists and anti-regulators who offer nothing but small minded, retro-fitted throwbacks to the xenophobic hordes still looking for ways to win elections by keeping blacks out whilst blaming hispanic workers for the end of the middle class.

To think that used to be the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower. Instead, today's GOP looks more like the bastard child of Barry Goldwater and George Wallace.
 
If Ron Paul was in charge back during WWII we would've never invaded Germany and there wouldn't be a Jew left alive today. He would've said "not our problem."
 
Back
Top Bottom