Presidential Candidates Debate

[Jeremie Boop]

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

So you'd vote against someone who you agree with on the issues, because you don't care for them as an individual?

It never ceases to amaze me hoe people can fail to understand what is at stake here...

It's no different than people voting for someone because of their race/color/sex or just to vote against someone else. Which possibly happens much more than any of us would really like to know. I'll just not vote instead of voting against someone because I don't agree with either of them.

[drmevo]

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

So you'd vote against someone who you agree with on the issues, because you don't care for them as an individual?

It never ceases to amaze me hoe people can fail to understand what is at stake here...

Well, what if you follow your line of logic to the extreme - would you vote for a neo-Nazi or someone like that just because you agreed with more of their policies than the other side? There's clearly a line somewhere. 

Edited September 30, 2016 by drmevo

[David in FL]

 

8 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Well, what if you follow your line of logic to the extreme - would you vote for a neo-Nazi or someone like that just because you agreed with more of their policies than the other side? There's clearly a line somewhere. 

 

I've stayed out of the fray this time, and will back off now too, except to say again, too many people don't understand what's at stake here.

 

17 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

It's no different than people voting for someone because of their race/color/sex or just to vote against someone else. Which possibly happens much more than any of us would really like to know. I'll just not vote instead of voting against someone because I don't agree with either of them.

Yep.  Equally silly.

[jkelley9]

37 minutes ago, David in FL said:

So you'd vote against someone who you agree with on the issues, because you don't care for them as an individual?

It never ceases to amaze me hoe people can fail to understand what is at stake here...

9 times out of 10 I would agree with you. However, I'm split. Also, at the risk of sounding a little ignorant... I feel like it's a little foolish to assume that both of front-runners (especially) are saying what they're actually going to do. We all know it's horse crap. Pool your voters and stay within a tolerance of your party lines.

The issue I have to DT is that he is a PRIME, PERSONAL, and BUSINESS example of just this. He'll tell you exactly what you want to hear and then stab you in the back. He'll tell you it's not about him... but it's ALL about him. If I genuinely feel that way, with a substantial degree of confidence... wouldn't it be foolish for me to vote for him despite my issues? It's not like I side with his issues 95%. I'm fairly split to begin with.

HC, in my mind, is the lesser of two evils here.

23 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Yep.  Equally silly.

I'm sorry, but I think this is brutally ignorant, and also assumptive. 

I'm not choosing a candidate because they're pro choice or pro life... or their race/religion or any other bogus parameters. 

The fact I've said what I'll do shows that I do care about what's at stake. What's at stake are issues, and an issue needs a resolution or at least a motivation for resolution. NOT just "what they say." That's absurd. 

Do you honestly believe DT is saying what he actually thinks and WOULD do... on a lot of the issues...?

[David in FL]

16 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

9 times out of 10 I would agree with you. However, I'm split. Also, at the risk of sounding a little ignorant... I feel like it's a little foolish to assume that both of front-runners (especially) are saying what they're actually going to do. We all know it's horse crap. Pool your voters and stay within a tolerance of your party lines.

The issue I have to DT is that he is a PRIME, PERSONAL, and BUSINESS example of just this. He'll tell you exactly what you want to hear and then stab you in the back. He'll tell you it's not about him... but it's ALL about him. If I genuinely feel that way, with a substantial degree of confidence... wouldn't it be foolish for me to vote for him despite my issues? It's not like I side with his issues 95%. I'm fairly split to begin with.

HC, in my mind, is the lesser of two evils here.

I'm sorry, but I think this is brutally ignorant, and also assumptive. 

I'm not choosing a candidate because they're pro choice or pro life... or their race/religion or any other bogus parameters. 

The fact I've said what I'll do shows that I do care about what's at stake. What's at stake are issues, and an issue needs a resolution or at least a motivation for resolution. NOT just "what they say." That's absurd. 

Do you honestly believe DT is saying what he actually thinks and WOULD do... on a lot of the issues...?

I believe that they will both do as they say, and they are polar opposites.  One is free-market conservative, the other is liberal socialist.

I can't understand how anyone could honestly understand either one and still be "split" between the 2.

But in case anyone still doesn't get it, this election is about one thing only.  The Supreme Court.  Vote how you want the Supreme Court to look like for the next 20 years.  That's all there really is to it. 

[14ledo81]

5 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I believe that they will both do as they say, and they are polar opposites.  One is free-market conservative, the other is liberal socialist.

I can't understand how anyone could honestly understand either one and still be "split" between the 2.

But in case anyone still doesn't get it, this election is about one thing only.  The Supreme Court.  Vote how you want the Supreme Court to look like for the next 20 years.  That's all there really is to it. 

Agreed. Easily the biggest issue for me.

[JonMA1]

15 minutes ago, David in FL said:

So you'd vote against someone who you agree with on the issues, because you don't care for them as an individual?

It never ceases to amaze me hoe people can fail to understand what is at stake here...

I don't care which issues Trump or Hillary claim to support, neither of them have enough character to tell the truth - much less be President. And it's not like that bar has been set very high.

Character matters to some of us.

I can't wait for one of my Trump-supporting friends to blame me for handing the White House to Hillary (by voting 3rd party). The deal was sealed months ago when that nut-job became the republican nominee.

[Gunther]

9 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

I don't care which issues Trump or Hillary claim to support, neither of them have enough character to tell the truth - much less be President. And it's not like that bar has been set very high.

Character matters to some of us.

I can't wait for one of my Trump-supporting friends to blame me for handing the White House to Hillary (by voting 3rd party). The deal was sealed months ago when that nut-job became the republican nominee.

1.  If character matters, then you won't vote for any of the 4.

2.  Your 3rd party vote is gonna hurt Hill more than Trump so go for it brother.

Edited September 30, 2016 by Gunther

[David in FL]

8 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

I don't care which issues Trump or Hillary claim to support, neither of them have enough character to tell the truth - much less be President. And it's not like that bar has been set very high.

Character matters to some of us.

I can't wait for one of my Trump-supporting friends to blame me for handing the White House to Hillary (by voting 3rd party). The deal was sealed months ago when that nut-job became the republican nominee.

Whatever you think, or want, one or the other is going to be president.  Period.  One of them is going to be nominating 3 Justices to the Supreme Court.  Climb on any high horse you like, but the bottom line is, whichever candidate wins, whoever voted for anyone other than the other "real" candidate, will have contributed to their victory, and to the Supreme Court makeup that results.  It's that simple.

[Hardspoon]

Why do people give a shit if a candidate is more "honest"? Sure, you don't want someone who's a complete liar, but I don't think candidness is even in the top 10 traits required to be a successful and effective politician.

I think it's just a way for people to vote for who they like more, without admitting it.

[JonMA1]

9 minutes ago, Gunther said:

1.  If character matters, then you won't vote for any of the 4.

2.  Your 3rd party vote is gonna hurt Hill more than Trump so go for it brother.

Agree to some extent with #1. But Trump and Hillary are on another level.

You're simply wrong about your second point... "brother." I'd have voted for any of the other Republican candidates. So would a lot of republicans, IMO.

2 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Whatever you think, or want, one or the other is going to be president.  Period.  One of them is going to be nominating 3 Justices to the Supreme Court.  Climb on any high horse you like, but the bottom line is, whichever candidate wins, whoever voted for anyone other than the other "real" candidate, will have contributed to their victory, and to the Supreme Court makeup that results.  It's that simple.

"high horse"... really? I'm glad you like your candidate, Dave. Good luck with him.

3 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Why do people give a shit if a candidate is more "honest"? Sure, you don't want someone who's a complete liar, but I don't think candidness is even in the top 10 traits required to be a successful and effective politician.

I think it's just a way for people to vote for who they like more, without admitting it.

You're asking why people give a shit about honesty? You're right, we should care more about how they look.

Damn, that doesn't help.

[Hardspoon]

Just now, JonMA1 said:

You're asking why people give a shit about honesty?

I am asking why people give a shit about perceived relative honesty between two individuals, when assessing their actual honesty is basically impossible, and both are (by definition) engaged in a profession that does not reward nor require honesty.

2 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

You're right, we should care more about how they look.

If those are the only two choices, that's probably just as good! 

Anyway, I wasn't trying to attack anyone personally - the "honesty" thing is just a pet peeve of mine.

[David in FL]

9 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Agree to some extent with #1. But Trump and Hillary are on another level.

You're simply wrong about your second point... "brother." I'd have voted for any of the other Republican candidates. So would a lot of republicans, IMO.

"high horse"... really? I'm glad you like your candidate, Dave. Good luck with him.

You're asking why people give a shit about honesty? You're right, we should care more about how they look.

Damn, that doesn't help.

I'll make this easy for you.  Do you want a Supreme Court that believes in fiscal conservative principles, or fiscal socialist principles.  For the former, vote for Trump.  For the latter, vote for anyone else.

I didn't vote for a Trump in the primaries.  I think there were better conservative candidates,  but in the general election, there are only two candidates who can possibly win.   As I said, and sadly, you're demonstrating the point.  There are too many who just don't understand simple pragmatism.

[JonMA1]

11 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Anyway, I wasn't trying to attack anyone personally - the "honesty" thing is just a pet peeve of mine.

I understand your point that all politicians are dishonest to some degree. They promise the world during campaign speeches and often fail to deliver. It stopped surprising me long ago. As I posted earlier, I just feel like these two are way worse than typical.

Just now, David in FL said:

I'll make this easy for you.  Do you want a Supreme Court that believes in fiscal conservative principles, or fiscal socialist principles.  For the former, vote for Trump.  For the latter, vote for anyone else.

I didn't vote for a Trump in the primaries.  I think there were better conservative candidates,  but in the general election, there are only two candidates who can possibly win.   As I said, and sadly, you're demonstrating the point.  There are too many who just don't understand simple pragmatism.

Thanks for making it easy for me 'cause I'm too st-st-st-stupid to think for myself.

You think I'm happy with the prospect of liberal justices, changes to the 2nd amendment, bigger government, higher taxes, and 4 more years of "Obama"? You're right, there's nothing pragmatic about my decision other than to send a message to those who were so desperate for change that they'd offer this asshole as a candidate. You want to blame me for what happens, that's your opinion. I have a different one.

I really, really, really dislike Hillary and cannot vote for her, but I just don't trust this guy. I don't know what he would do if he got in. He was a democrat a few years ago, now he's just #@%ing insane.

[saevel25]

34 minutes ago, David in FL said:

I'll make this easy for you.  Do you want a Supreme Court that believes in fiscal conservative principles, or fiscal socialist principles.  For the former, vote for Trump.  For the latter, vote for anyone else.

You cant guarantee Trump will nominate a fiscally conservative judge. 

[Hardspoon]

2 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

As I posted earlier, I just feel like these two are way worse than typical.

Fair enough. I tend to think they're just worse at hiding it!

 

[JonMA1]

1 minute ago, Hardspoon said:

I tend to think they're just worse at hiding it!

 

I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head.

[David in FL]

28 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You cant guarantee Trump will nominate a fiscally conservative judge. 

Certainly.  Even more, I can guarantee that Hillary will nominate activist socialist judges.