if Trump is elected president ?

[BaLa]

Trump huh lol.
Well guess I have to make a decision quick.
With my green card expiring this year...

He might try to deport me after all all Germans are Nazis.

[Dan]

well,I will say one thing about Trump,how can he **** it up any worse than Obama has ?

[BaLa]

well,I will say one thing about Trump,how can he **** it up any worse than Obama has ?

Guess we will just have to wait and see.


Due to the great system..
Cali..is a lock for the Democrats


I can't vote myself

All I know about Trump is this.
He will be GREAT at everything.

[downhill]

well,I will say one thing about Trump,how can he **** it up any worse than Obama has ?

I hear that a lot. Despite the most do nothing congress in history... who have attempted to thwart anything he wants to accomplish unemployment is at 5 percent or so. Arguably that's a lot of low paying jobs but a feat non the less with a congress who refused to pay any jobs bills. We are out of Iraq but some might argue that was too soon. We are still struggling with the aftermath of a war we shouldn't have been in and he inherited.

There are lots of other decisions and accomplishments over the last seven years as being of great importance , like the nuclear agreement with Iran, new Wall Street regulations, the normalization of relations with Cuba, saving the American auto industry, ordering the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, ending discrimination against gays in the military and pushing for the legalization of same-sex marriage, and without a major scandal.

Again with a congress and especially a house that McConnell said they would oppose him on everything he wanted from day one. That's what he's had to put up with besides a Wall Street and super rich like the Koch brothers who have also opposed anything he's wanted to get done. For them Dan it's not about making the middle class better or our roads or electrical grid or fixing bridges.. it's about them making more money and that's it.

[Randy]

well,I will say one thing about Trump,how can he **** it up any worse than Obama has ?

Dan don't forget Obama had to clean up the major mess that G Dubya left behind! remember 2008?

[downhill]

How about that Trump guy! Remember when Sara Palin was the nutty one? Good times

[Debbie]

All I know is that I have to vote. I am NOT voting for Hillary.

[Humboldt]

All I know is that I have to vote. I am NOT voting for Hillary.

Hey Debbie
Hope you're well.

When I get dragged into political discussions with my friends, which I hate, it seems it's a choice between the lesser of evils.
That said, I know no one voting for him.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Hey Debbie
..., it seems it's a choice between the lesser of evils.
.

Each election...this seems to be more and more the case.
Decades ago it used to be a good competition...and you'd weight the benefits of each candidate.

and it slowly evolved with each election race into the we have now....it's so sad to have to thing "which is less evil than the other, which will do the LEAST damage?"

While I historically lean Republican in values, I've voted for, and enjoyed, some of the Democatric presidents we've had. I'm a firm believer that it's best for the country overall, in the long run, to alternate Rep and Dem POTUS. Keeps things "even" overall, instead of leaning too far in one direction if we'd have the same party term after term after term.

But this years candidates are simply too horrible. She Clinton is a career politician that really defines "the establishment, bought, behind the scenes deals purely for $ gain. Envelopes stuffed with money buy her and drive her decisions, not what is best for the country. And Trump...he's just a loose canon...while I agree with many of his ideas, yeah..he's just a loose canon. And his mouth and attitude will get us into more trouble than what some of the good ideas he's telling us, if they come to fruition, will actually do. (because he knows what America wants to hear).

[jeremyboycool]

well,I will say one thing about Trump,how can he **** it up any worse than Obama has ?

Things can always get worst.

[Philip]

I agree with most of what YeOldeStonecat said.. and despite all that I believe we still have to vote, otherwise our views don't count for anything and we just end up supporting the status quo.

[jeremyboycool]

I agree with most of what YeOldeStonecat said.. and despite all that I believe we still have to vote, otherwise our views don't count for anything and we just end up supporting the status quo.

Some might argue that voting for someone you don't want in the office is supporting the status quo.

[jeremyboycool]

Voting only works when you have adequate available options, but when you only have the choice of trash pile A or trash pile B, then your vote is pointless, and it is essentially a rigged election.

[Philip]

It is always pile A or pile B, granted, with variable degree of like/dislike.

[Syklops]

There are SO MANY replies here that I could quote and dissect, so in the interest of keeping it somewhat brief....

Our 2 choices for the next leader of the country are almost as bad as the '08 choices. Almost. Killery is an Ovomit puppet, and electing her would only exacerbate the horrific state of the nation thanks to that treasonous filth who squats in our White House now. She is a criminal, plain and simple, and has zero business even throwing her hat in the ring. I can not wrap my mind around why the Feds haven't arrested her and charged her with the numerous crimes she's committed, ever since Watergate.

Personally, (this is going to set a few people off, but it's what I believe) at this point, I don't think any woman should be POTUS. One bad bout of PMS and we'll have WWIII on our hands. Women react with their emotions, men do not, and to me, that is a recipe for disaster for our nation.

But Trump? Cripes....he may not be a criminal, but I don't believe he has what it takes to run this country, either. I loved most of what he said when he began his campaign, but he hasn't toned down his rhetoric; he hasn't learned how to speak to the public as a president should speak, and I believe he is too arrogant to recognize that inability or correct it.

That just brushes the tip of the iceberg regarding my opinion of the 2 "choices" we have for our next POTUS.

[jeremyboycool]

There are SO MANY replies here that I could quote and dissect, so in the interest of keeping it somewhat brief....

Our 2 choices for the next leader of the country are almost as bad as the '08 choices. Almost. Killery is an Ovomit puppet, and electing her would only exacerbate the horrific state of the nation thanks to that treasonous filth who squats in our White House now. She is a criminal, plain and simple, and has zero business even throwing her hat in the ring. I can not wrap my mind around why the Feds haven't arrested her and charged her with the numerous crimes she's committed, ever since Watergate.

Personally, (this is going to set a few people off, but it's what I believe) at this point, I don't think any woman should be POTUS. One bad bout of PMS and we'll have WWIII on our hands. Women react with their emotions, men do not, and to me, that is a recipe for disaster for our nation.

But Trump? Cripes....he may not be a criminal, but I don't believe he has what it takes to run this country, either. I loved most of what he said when he began his campaign, but he hasn't toned down his rhetoric; he hasn't learned how to speak to the public as a president should speak, and I believe he is too arrogant to recognize that inability or correct it.

That just brushes the tip of the iceberg regarding my opinion of the 2 "choices" we have for our next POTUS.

"Women react with their emotions, men do not"

That is just simply untrue. In fact I find that men react their with emotions far more often then women, and when they do, the are generally more aggressive, and more likely to start a fight.

[jeremyboycool]

It is always pile A or pile B, granted, with variable degree of like/dislike.

And I feel that is a pattern we need to break.

[Syklops]

"Women react with their emotions, men do not"

That is just simply untrue. In fact I find that men react their with emotions far more often then women, and when they do, the are generally more aggressive, and more likely to start a fight.

That is just simply untrue in your opinion. I have seen what I stated far more frequently than what you say. As far as which gender is more aggressive and likely to start a fight, you've apparently never been around any of my friends, cuz that is simply not true in my opinion. And in my experience.
But even though I don't agree with your opinion, I will fight to the death for your right to have and speak it.

And I feel that is a pattern we need to break.

And this we can agree wholeheartedly on.

[jeremyboycool]

That is just simply untrue in your opinion. I have seen what I stated far more frequently than what you say. As far as which gender is more aggressive and likely to start a fight, you've apparently never been around any of my friends, cuz that is simply not true in my opinion. And in my experience.
But even though I don't agree with your opinion, I will fight to the death for your right to have and speak it.




And this we can agree wholeheartedly on.

"That is just simply untrue in your opinion."

Men reacting emotionally is far more than just my opinion. Men react emotionally all the time, and most of the time its in some stupid testosterone filled flex of their ego.

"which gender is more aggressive"

98% of all violent crime in the US is committed by men. This is not an opinion, men are just naturally more aggressive then women

[Syklops]

"That is just simply untrue in your opinion."

Men reacting emotionally is far more than just my opinion. Men react emotionally all the time, and most of the time its in some stupid testosterone filled flex of their ego.

Now this statement I definitely need something to back it up. Or is this going too far off topic?

"which gender is more aggressive"

98% of all violent crime in the US is committed by men. This is not an opinion, men are just naturally more aggressive then women

I didn't think we were talking about violent crime. I have some stats of my own in regard to violent crime but they don't belong in this thread. And judging by your sig line, I don't think you'd like them much.

[jeremyboycool]

Now this statement I definitely need something to back it up. Or is this going too far off topic?




I didn't think we were talking about violent crime. I have some stats of my own in regard to violent crime but they don't belong in this thread. And judging by your sig line, I don't think you'd like them much.

" And judging by your sig line, I don't think you'd like them much."

For what it says, or for who said it?

[jeremyboycool]

Never thought I would ever have to prove men are more aggressive than women, but any ways,


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ho ... aggression

"In almost every society men are the ones who are overwhelmingly involved in wars, in all kinds of intergroup aggressions and intragroup homicide; they mobilize themselves in armies of violent fans, in criminal gangs, in bands of thugs, etc."

[jeremyboycool]

It seems to me, that we should worry more about a man starting a war, than a woman.

[Syklops]

It seems to me, that we should worry more about a man starting a war, than a woman.

Did you really just put that into print?

You did, I have it quoted.

Does it actually matter how or by whom a war is started??! You have GOT to be joking.

Easily one of the most absurd things I've seen anyone say on any board.

[jeremyboycool]

Did you really just put that into print?

You did, I have it quoted.

Does it actually matter how or by whom a war is started??! You have GOT to be joking.

Easily one of the most absurd things I've seen anyone say on any board.

Men are naturally more aggressive, and have historically had a greater role in wars than women. There is no shame is stating the truth; the shame would be in trying to pretend it is not true.

Feel free to quote me all you.

[Philip]

And I feel that is a pattern we need to break.

In countries where you have multiple parties fighting to get into Congress (some countries in eastern Europe had as many as 50 different partites in the same elections), you end up not knowing who you are voting for, and they all make coalitions with each other in order to get anything done, it's a huge mess as well. I can't imagine having 50 presidential candidates try to debate, even if there are multiple rounds/primaries they'd have to toss electoral votes to each other, trade favors etc. even more under the table than it is now.

As far as men vs. women for president, and their emotional state/capacity... I'd say we have to look beyond gender/race/religious generalizations and recognize each candidate for who they are. For a democratic country, we are one of the few that has never elected a woman president (not implying we should pick that particular one). Even countries like Pakistan have had a woman as a leader...

[jeremyboycool]

In countries where you have multiple parties fighting to get into Congress (some countries in eastern Europe had as many as 50 different partites in the same elections), you end up not knowing who you are voting for, and they all make coalitions with each other in order to get anything done, it's a huge mess as well. I can't imagine having 50 presidential candidates try to debate, even if there are multiple rounds/primaries they'd have to toss electoral votes to each other, trade favors etc. even more under the table than it is now.

As far as men vs. women for president, and their emotional state/capacity... I'd say we have to look beyond gender/race/religious generalizations and recognize each candidate for who they are. For a democratic country, we are one of the few that has never elected a woman president (not implying we should pick that particular one). Even countries like Pakistan have had a woman as a leader...

Maybe 50 is too many, but 2 is not enough.

[Philip]

While I support your opinion that two may be too few.. With multiple parties, they end up making coalitions (open or hidden) with each other to simply gain majority and outmaneuver the other parties. Those coalitions can happen even after elections, ending up taking away from voters' will and putting more power into politicians' reach. It can also obscure who you are actually voting for. Of course "too many" and "too few" can be argued.

On a speculative note, I imagine the first to split would be the Republican and Tea Party, essentially positioning the Republican party as a central party in the elections, capturing more of the independent vote. They'd then be forced to enter into a coalition with the Tea Party in order to gain majority in Congress.

[jeremyboycool]

In countries where you have multiple parties fighting to get into Congress (some countries in eastern Europe had as many as 50 different partites in the same elections), you end up not knowing who you are voting for, and they all make coalitions with each other in order to get anything done, it's a huge mess as well. I can't imagine having 50 presidential candidates try to debate, even if there are multiple rounds/primaries they'd have to toss electoral votes to each other, trade favors etc. even more under the table than it is now.

As far as men vs. women for president, and their emotional state/capacity... I'd say we have to look beyond gender/race/religious generalizations and recognize each candidate for who they are. For a democratic country, we are one of the few that has never elected a woman president (not implying we should pick that particular one). Even countries like Pakistan have had a woman as a leader...

"I'd say we have to look beyond gender/race/religious generalizations and recognize each candidate for who they are."

I just wanted to come back to this point. Our individual goal should be to be as objective as possible, but we still need to realize that gender/race/religion will impact the votes, will impact people's perception of the candidate and will have an influence on Americans once elected. And I think considering these influences is part of considering the candidate.

While being female may not be a good reason to elect Hillary, we do need to focus on ending the white male dominance of American politics and get more women into the higher offices, including President of the United States. This standard of white male Christians has gone on too long, and hinders potential minority leaders who could be much better at the job, which in turn is a disadvantage to us, the American people.

[Philip]

Everyone should be held to the same standards imho.. and religion should stay far from politics all together.

[jeremyboycool]

Everyone should be held to the same standards imho.. and religion should stay far from politics all together.

I am not disagreeing with that, I am simply saying we can't pretend these factors have no influence in our politics. People vote not just for political alignment, but also for race, gender and most certainly religious alignment. Race, gender, religion, and politics are all linked in America and if we want to understand politics we need to understand how they interact.

At any rate, I am not suggesting having different standards for female candidates, I am suggesting equal standards; which at this time, they don't have.

[downhill]

There are SO MANY replies here that I could quote and dissect, so in the interest of keeping it somewhat brief....

Our 2 choices for the next leader of the country are almost as bad as the '08 choices. Almost. Killery is an Ovomit puppet, and electing her would only exacerbate the horrific state of the nation thanks to that treasonous filth who squats in our White House now. She is a criminal, plain and simple, and has zero business even throwing her hat in the ring. I can not wrap my mind around why the Feds haven't arrested her and charged her with the numerous crimes she's committed, ever since Watergate.

I got as far as this and would like to point out it's this kind of person that Trump caters too. One who has believed EVERY single thing he's heard about the Clinton's/Obama's/Democrats/Liberals/ and all the hate rhetoric associated with it. If you want a scapegoat for why Trump you only have to look to the RNC, Teaparty, Fox News and hate radio. Serious..........

Crimes committed since Watergate huh . Lets see ....... they got married in 74 I believe. The year Nixon resigned.. I rest my case.......

[Syklops]

I got as far as this and would like to point out it's this kind of person that Trump caters too. One who has believed EVERY single thing he's heard about the Clinton's/Obama's/Democrats/Liberals/ and all the hate rhetoric associated with it. If you want a scapegoat for why Trump you only have to look to the RNC, Teaparty, Fox News and hate radio. Serious..........

Crimes committed since Watergate huh . Lets see ....... they got married in 74 I believe. The year Nixon resigned.. I rest my case.......

Ahh.....my first liberal.

The operative word there is "since". There have been countless crimes committed by that evil sub-human for decades. But, you're a liberal, so I know you'll keep drinking the Kool Aid and will ignore facts.

The liberal war-cry" "I have my opinion, don't confuse me with the facts."

If I've learned one thing in politics, it is that nothing I say will ever cause one of you types to even consider a different point of view; there is no point in any further discourse between us, so I'm going to save myself the aggravation and do what I do with all of your kind.

[jeremyboycool]

Ahh.....my first liberal.

The operative word there is "since". There have been countless crimes committed by that evil sub-human for decades. But, you're a liberal, so I know you'll keep drinking the Kool Aid and will ignore facts.

The liberal war-cry" "I have my opinion, don't confuse me with the facts."

If I've learned one thing in politics, it is that nothing I say will ever cause one of you types to even consider a different point of view; there is no point in any further discourse between us, so I'm going to save myself the aggravation and do what I do with all of your kind.

"The liberal war-cry" "I have my opinion, don't confuse me with the facts."

Bit of a hypocritical point. I mean, considering your earlier reply to me

[. . .] in your opinion. [. . .] that is simply not true in my opinion. And in my experience.
But even though I don't agree with your opinion, I will fight to the death for your right to have and speak it.

Plato talks about two types of people in The Republic, there are lovers of opinion and lovers of truth. As far as I am concern that is all this right left wing nonsense is, the truth is somewhere in the middle, but most people love opinion more than truth so they lean to the sides.

[Humboldt]

Ahh.....my first liberal.

The operative word there is "since". There have been countless crimes committed by that evil sub-human for decades. But, you're a liberal, so I know you'll keep drinking the Kool Aid and will ignore facts.

The liberal war-cry" "I have my opinion, don't confuse me with the facts."

If I've learned one thing in politics, it is that nothing I say will ever cause one of you types to even consider a different point of view; there is no point in any further discourse between us, so I'm going to save myself the aggravation and do what I do with all of your kind.

Not your first.

[jeremyboycool]

So it looks like he is changing his mind about how best to handle illegal immigrates. Maybe he starting to realize that is not just as simple as round them all up and deport them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -flop-yet/

[downhill]

Ahh.....my first liberal.

The operative word there is "since". There have been countless crimes committed by that evil sub-human for decades. But, you're a liberal, so I know you'll keep drinking the Kool Aid and will ignore facts.

The liberal war-cry" "I have my opinion, don't confuse me with the facts."

If I've learned one thing in politics, it is that nothing I say will ever cause one of you types to even consider a different point of view; there is no point in any further discourse between us, so I'm going to save myself the aggravation and do what I do with all of your kind.

Yeah we sure wouldn't want "facts" and truth to confuse the issues would we? You types.. laughs

[YeOldeStonecat]

. As far as I am concern that is all this right left wing nonsense is, the truth is somewhere in the middle, but most people love opinion more than truth so they lean to the sides.

You got that right.....it's gotten so bad, both sides are so extreme with lies and mudslinging...it's insane. The truth generally is around the middle of two extreme sides. or actually..the truth is a million miles away, either side here...left, or right, doesn't give a rats arse about the truth.
Which is why I prefer to see occasional changing of parties at the helm...keeps things properly centered and healthy over the long course. Except in recent times....as each side, left and right, has gotten too extreme.

And this candidacy race...just multiplies the extreme sides by a factor of a kajillion. The cool-aid drinking sheeple on either side refuse to acknowledge it. This years election is a flat out embarrassment for our country.

[Dan]

You got that right.....it's gotten so bad, both sides are so extreme with lies and mudslinging...it's insane. The truth generally is around the middle of two extreme sides. or actually..the truth is a million miles away, either side here...left, or right, doesn't give a rats arse about the truth.
Which is why I prefer to see occasional changing of parties at the helm...keeps things properly centered and healthy over the long course. Except in recent times....as each side, left and right, has gotten too extreme.

And this candidacy race...just multiplies the extreme sides by a factor of a kajillion. The cool-aid drinking sheeple on either side refuse to acknowledge it. This years election is a flat out embarrassment for our country.

yep ! there needs to be a new political party,I want to call it "republicrat".

I like a little from both camps.

[munahid]

If he is elected the world see hatred and get destroyed.He should not be elected