• 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!

2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

What will you do?

  • Not vote

    Votes: 5 4.9%

  • Vote for Clinton

    Votes: 33 32.4%

  • Vote for Bush

    Votes: 28 27.5%

  • Undecided

    Votes: 4 3.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 32 31.4%
  • Total voters
    102
faithful_servant said:
So you could have the most qualified person in the world running for office and if she was part of a "dynasty", you wouldn't vote for her??
Click to expand...
"Most qualified" is a relative term. It isn't necessarily that impressive... though in certain circumstances it could be critical if the other viable candidate is a complete moron.

Speaking generically.
 
If indeed it comes down to a Clinton-Bush choice then it only serves to demonstrate what a shallow political pool the big fish are swimming in.
 
faithful_servant said:
So you could have the most qualified person in the world running for office and if she was part of a "dynasty", you wouldn't vote for her??
Click to expand...

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.
 
lizzie said:
OMG what a nightmare scenario! :lol:

I honestly don't know how I'd vote. I know that a libertarian has no chance of winning
Click to expand...

It is true then what they say..... every cloud has a silver lining.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Personally, I don't have a say in the matter even though the President of the United States has a definite impact on Canada and other nations in the world.

That said, I find it remarkable that so many posters here are so hung up on the familial relationship of these two candidates and ignore the fact they are individual people in their own right with minds of their own and skills/talents/intelligence of their own that aren't governed by some cloned gene attached to their last name. People made the mistake of voting for Obama for what he represented rather than what he is/was and you see what a mess that got you into. Why are you so fixated on irrelevant stuff and not focused on who these two people are and what their policies/programs/governing styles will be?

And as I've posted many times before, Jeb Bush is by far the most competent, intelligent, serious, even tempered, candidate in any party and he'd be a fantastic President.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Perotista said:
It probably was. I have all sorts of things like that I keep track of. Usually I post this thing to show the dissatisfaction of the electorate with both parties. It is sad when both parties unfavorables are 60% or more. But even if one hates both parties, what is one going to do on election day? Stay home? I didn't and have voted third party in five of the last six elections.

The problem is the Democrats and the Republicans have a monopoly on our election system. Both parties write the election laws as a mutual protection act and those special interests etc. who donate their millions upon million donate only to the two major parties. So any third party is starting about a billion dollars or more behind the big two.
Click to expand...

Need somebody like Ross Perot to break in and play the game in a unconventional manner.
 
faithful_servant said:
2 1/2 pages of responses and only two that had anything to do with why people would choose one over the other based on the person's qualifications (one pro-Clinton, one pro-/anti-Jeb). Have we gotten so pathetic that we can't honestly look at candidates based on their qualifications and have to look at them based on anything except their qualifications?
Click to expand...

Both are more of the same. Honestly they both are more of the same and both suck.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Need somebody like Ross Perot to break in and play the game in a unconventional manner.
Click to expand...

Yep, a billionaire who would use his own money to counter the billions corporations, wall street, special interests lobbyist give to the Republicans and Democrats. A man who has a vision for America that would catch the peoples fancy, perhaps some solutions to a couple of issues that the people want solved but both the Republicans and Democrats refuse to do so as the issues are worth more as campaign issues to them.

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%. Back when Perot ran those who identified/affiliated with the two major parties were at 68% of the electorate while 30% identified themselves as independents. Today the two major parties are down to 51% while independents have grown to 47%.

Yes, I do think if the right man came along with a strong message and vision the American people would latch onto him pretty darn fast. All the indicators are in place.
 
Ron paul 2016
 
Perotista said:
Yep, a billionaire who would use his own money to counter the billions corporations, wall street, special interests lobbyist give to the Republicans and Democrats. A man who has a vision for America that would catch the peoples fancy, perhaps some solutions to a couple of issues that the people want solved but both the Republicans and Democrats refuse to do so as the issues are worth more as campaign issues to them.

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%. Back when Perot ran those who identified/affiliated with the two major parties were at 68% of the electorate while 30% identified themselves as independents. Today the two major parties are down to 51% while independents have grown to 47%.

Yes, I do think if the right man came along with a strong message and vision the American people would latch onto him pretty darn fast. All the indicators are in place.
Click to expand...
I agree, I think it is quite possible, Romney could have done that, and could again. The Pauls??? not a chance, I liked his dad, But this kid is no RON.
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
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%.
Click to expand...

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.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Are you purposefully ignoring all I said?
Click to expand...

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...
 
faithful_servant 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...
Click to expand...

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?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Between those two I would have to go 3rd party. I could not in good conscience vote for another Bush or another Clinton.
Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:
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?
Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:
I'll match that with your blissful ignorance at the risk of aristocracy based on key families in political power.
Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:
No, that is still not it but enjoy the ignorance of thinking we are not developing one hell of a problem here.
Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:
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.
Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:
Are you purposefully ignoring all I said?
Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:
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?
Click to expand...

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".
 
PirateMk1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not to diminish your sentiments, but could you indicate what part of Jeb Bush's governorship of Florida was "less than stellar" and "sucks"?
 
faithful_servant said:
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".
Click to expand...

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."
Click to expand...

Now, do we want to have a serious discussion on the matter or are you still stuck?
 
OrphanSlug said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
faithful_servant said:
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.
Click to expand...

I already said no, family alone is not disqualify someone... several times if you could read.
 
doniston said:
I agree, I think it is quite possible, Romney could have done that, and could again. The Pauls??? not a chance, I liked his dad, But this kid is no RON.
Click to expand...

If it is done, I think it will be done by someone completely off the horizon or over it. Sort of like Perot who came out of nowhere and actually took the lead in the polls at one point back in 1992.
 
Dragonfly said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it is very true. But here is the rub, the two major parties are very adept at convincing those who would vote for third party candidates that doing so is a wasted vote, they say no third party candidate can win. Better to vote for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate. Besides you know where the money lies, with the two major parties. Keep in mind in 2012, Romney spent a billion dollars, Obama spent a billion dollars, Gary Johnson who was next in line spent approximately 3 million. Third party candidates can't compete when they are being outspent 2 billion to 3 million.

It is my opinion the only wasted vote is one who votes for either a Republican or Democrat.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I already said no, family alone is not disqualify someone... several times if you could read.
Click to expand...

You made a very qualified mention of it one time, as I pointed out, but you kept bringing up the same argument about "family dynasties" and "aristocracy" in almost every post. So excuse me for thinking that you're only issue was the "family dynasty"/"aristocracy" issue. Most people having this kind of discussion would have brought up reason to not vote for either of these two other than "family dynasty"/"aristocracy", but that was your ONLY argument.
 
faithful_servant said:
You made a very qualified mention of it one time, as I pointed out, but you kept bringing up the same argument about "family dynasties" and "aristocracy" in almost every post. So excuse me for thinking that you're only issue was the "family dynasty"/"aristocracy" issue. Most people having this kind of discussion would have brought up reason to not vote for either of these two other than "family dynasty"/"aristocracy", but that was your ONLY argument.
Click to expand...

Still... it was not my only argument.
 
Perotista said:
If it is done, I think it will be done by someone completely off the horizon or over it. Sort of like Perot who came out of nowhere and actually took the lead in the polls at one point back in 1992.
Click to expand...
we might have had that third party if Perot had taken a back seat and turned the reins over to another qualified person, His personality literally stopped the party from success. of course, that is just MY personal opinion I was sorry that the party failed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom