+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: Who are you voting for in 2016? (/thread-26.html)
Who are you voting for in 2016? - MillsT_98 - 05-07-2016
Assuming Trump and Clinton will be the nominees, I am interested in who everyone would vote for during the U.S. presidential election in 2016. I'm only including 3 options, with two of the options being the two main candidates and the other being a third party or write-in candidate. If you're planning to vote third party/write-in please post who you're voting for in the thread. I'm not going to include an option for not voting at all because some people can't vote in the U.S. election (that doesn't count as people choosing consciously not to vote) and I only want to see who people would vote for if they did.
Update: I set the poll results to public, so users can see who's voting for who.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Kinser79 - 05-07-2016
I'll be voting for Trump. Mostly cause I hate Shillary with the passion of a thousand burning suns, and a third party vote is a vote for Shillary.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Galen - 05-07-2016
(05-07-2016, 01:02 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'll be voting for Trump. Mostly cause I hate Shillary with the passion of a thousand burning suns, and a third party vote is a vote for Shillary.
The fact that the neocons are all going for Clinton is a point in your favor. I would feel better if I knew why Trump is running. Professional politicians are easy to figure out where their motives are concerned. It has been very hard to work out why the Donald is running and I still don't have an answer. It could be for altruistic motives which I trust much less than naked self-interest.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Kinser79 - 05-07-2016
(05-07-2016, 04:19 AM)Galen Wrote:(05-07-2016, 01:02 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'll be voting for Trump. Mostly cause I hate Shillary with the passion of a thousand burning suns, and a third party vote is a vote for Shillary.
The fact that the neocons are all going for Clinton is a point in your favor. I would feel better if I knew why Trump is running. Professional politicians are easy to figure out where their motives are concerned. It has been very hard to work out why the Donald is running and I still don't have an answer. It could be for altruistic motives which I trust much less than naked self-interest.
Yes, altruism being self-deception or something like that...
I'm not sure why he picked now, why not 2000 when it was rumored he would on the Reform Party. I do know he's been dissatisfied with the status quo for quite a while, he's had political views contrary to the majority of Republicans and Democrats since the 1980s and almost all of them of an isolationist, America first bend. The only reason I can come up with his timing is he was waiting for the time to be right. Like Churchill is reputed to have said "You can count on the Americans to eventually do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted all other options."
The right thing of course being:
--Secure the boarders and ports of entry
--Disentangle from the entangling alliances
--Withdraw US forces from foreign countries unless those countries pay us for defending them
--Stop trying to be the world's policeman
--Establish trade relations that are favorable to US industries
--Build up the internal infrastructure to facilitate more efficient industry and commerce.
The only reason I can come up with is he's had it up to his eyeballs in the cuckold-ery that's been happening for decades. Unlike Cruz, Jeb, Shillary, or any of the others (excepting Sanders, but with Sanders I think the message was right the methods though were post-seasonal) I do come away with a sense that he is genuinely a patriot in the sense that he's not going to sell America out to the Chinese or whomever else. I've not sensed that from any political candidate for President since George H. W. Bush. W might have had a measure of it, but it was outweighed by his obvious stupidity.
He is the only candidate in my lifetime to have actually said that he loves the people who are voting for him, supporting him and so on and it come off as he's completely genuine. Yeah, Bill had "I feel your pain" but it came off to me as shaking babies and kissing hands.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Galen - 05-07-2016
(05-07-2016, 05:41 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Yes, altruism being self-deception or something like that...
He is the only candidate in my lifetime to have actually said that he loves the people who are voting for him, supporting him and so on and it come off as he's completely genuine. Yeah, Bill had "I feel your pain" but it came off to me as shaking babies and kissing hands.
You may be right.
One thing is certain. If there was any real dirt on him then it would have been used by now. I just don't like his generally statist approach but I recognize that he might actually be the best choice available at the present time.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - pbrower2a - 05-07-2016
Never let the unachievable Perfect become the accomplice in the destruction of the Good.
Hillary Clinton.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Odin - 05-07-2016
I live in a safely Blue state so I can vote for a 3rd party candidate for president without "Nader Guilt". Straight Dem in all the other races.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Kinser79 - 05-07-2016
(05-07-2016, 07:29 AM)Galen Wrote:(05-07-2016, 05:41 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Yes, altruism being self-deception or something like that...
He is the only candidate in my lifetime to have actually said that he loves the people who are voting for him, supporting him and so on and it come off as he's completely genuine. Yeah, Bill had "I feel your pain" but it came off to me as shaking babies and kissing hands.
You may be right.
One thing is certain. If there was any real dirt on him then it would have been used by now. I just don't like his generally statist approach but I recognize that he might actually be the best choice available at the present time.
I think anyone actually running for President would have to take at least a moderately statist approach, otherwise why bother running for president?
I agree with you on the dirt. I fully expect mud to be slung at Hillary the second Bernie supsends his campaign. Division in the Dems is working in the GOPs favor right now, buying them time to kill the #NeverTrump bowl-movement. Those who really feel that way will defect to the Dems, pulling it ever further right, and and disrupting the party more.
As I've said above, I see a new political divide emerging on the basis of libertarianism-authoritarianism rather then left-right. Such is probable nature of mature capitalist democracy.
(05-07-2016, 09:12 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Never let the unachievable Perfect become the accomplice in the destruction of the Good.
Hillary Clinton.
Unfortunately Hillary is neither perfect, nor good. But if you want someone who is exactly like George W. Bush except with a vagina and being able to speak in complete sentences by all means vote for her. I'll be laughing when Daddy paints the White House Gold and builds the wall. Maybe if you're lucky he'll allow people to buy engraved bricks for the wall
(05-07-2016, 12:38 PM)Odin Wrote: I live in a safely Blue state so I can vote for a 3rd party candidate for president without "Nader Guilt". Straight Dem in all the other races.
Voting for a third party is the same thing as voting for Shillary--not that it matters in Minnesota.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - MillsT_98 - 05-08-2016
I went offline right after I put up the poll, so I'm voting now. I'm gonna put my vote in for Hillary.
Although I really like Bernie Sanders and his message, I doubt he's gonna get the nomination, but if he did I would vote for him instead of Hillary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if she doesn't do nearly all of the things Bernie said he would do I still believe she has the potential to at least carry out things like healthcare and education reform.
I distrust all of the GOP candidates even though Trump is way different from any of the others and is not part of the Establishment so therefore I will not be voting for him. We need a Democrat in the White House or else the Republican majority in Congress will undo everything Obama has done.
I won't be voting for any third party candidates or put Bernie as a write-in because that'll take away votes from someone who has a greater potential to win. That really says something considering Wisconsin's a battleground state.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Eric the Green - 05-08-2016
I voted for Hillary here, thinking of this poll as if I lived in Virginia or Florida etc. I don't know if I will actually be voting for her for real.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - MillsT_98 - 05-08-2016
I have some things to say about Trump:
(05-07-2016, 05:41 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'm not sure why he picked now, why not 2000 when it was rumored he would on the Reform Party. I do know he's been dissatisfied with the status quo for quite a while, he's had political views contrary to the majority of Republicans and Democrats since the 1980s and almost all of them of an isolationist, America first bend. The only reason I can come up with his timing is he was waiting for the time to be right. Like Churchill is reputed to have said "You can count on the Americans to eventually do the right thing, but only after they have exhausted all other options."
The right thing of course being:
--Secure the boarders and ports of entry
--Disentangle from the entangling alliances
--Withdraw US forces from foreign countries unless those countries pay us for defending them
--Stop trying to be the world's policeman
--Establish trade relations that are favorable to US industries
--Build up the internal infrastructure to facilitate more efficient industry and commerce.
That may be just what we need right now, but I have no idea how Trump's gonna do all of that. I still remember him saying he was going to "bomb the shit out of ISIS" if I remember correctly. He also seems too pro-big business to actually want to build up the commercial infrastructure and address economic inequality. I hope he isn't just running for the presidency in his self-interest (make himself richer). The fact that he is a billionaire businessman with no real political experience gives off the vibe that he's just there to support his business peers and take money for himself and these other corrupt businesses. If he's actually running for reasons outside this and actually has an isolationist, pro-American view that supports bringing domestic jobs back here and supports economic equality (and also provides education and healthcare reform), I may support him. But unfortunately, I don't.
(05-07-2016, 03:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As I've said above, I see a new political divide emerging on the basis of libertarianism-authoritarianism rather then left-right. Such is probable nature of mature capitalist democracy.
That may very well happen. I just don't know which party would take which side.
(05-07-2016, 03:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Unfortunately Hillary is neither perfect, nor good.
She may not be perfect but I still believe she's the better of the two candidates. I'm still wary of Trump.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - pbrower2a - 05-08-2016
Considering what ISIS is, "bombing the $#!+ out of ISIS" is a near certainty no matter who the next President will be.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Kinser79 - 05-08-2016
(05-08-2016, 04:24 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: I have some things to say about Trump:
That may be just what we need right now, but I have no idea how Trump's gonna do all of that. I still remember him saying he was going to "bomb the shit out of ISIS" if I remember correctly.
Assuming that Isis remains a problem bombing the shit out of their oil production facilities should be a top priority. Hit them where they eat. I actually think getting together with the Russians on this may be a good idea. Putin gets his Assad regime client state, ISIS gets crushed problem solved. That of course requires a POTUS and S.o.State that isn't antagonistic to Russia's other concerns.
Quote:He also seems too pro-big business to actually want to build up the commercial infrastructure and address economic inequality.
There isn't much that the President can do about economic inequality. It doesn't matter if that president is HRC, Donald Trump, or even FDR. As for building up the commercial infrastructure, you do realize that big business uses said commercial infrastructure, right? Working on that provides no conflict of interest for the Big-Biz set. And hell it would even put some people to work immediately and it has to be done anyway.
Quote:I hope he isn't just running for the presidency in his self-interest (make himself richer).
How would being President make him richer? Congress is in control of the purse strings, and I'm pretty sure that since he has billions of dollars at hand he could use 400K that is the President's salary to wipe his ass with. I'm not seeing a way that running for president doesn't actually cost him money.
Quote:The fact that he is a billionaire businessman with no real political experience gives off the vibe that he's just there to support his business peers and take money for himself and these other corrupt businesses.
That would be conceivable if and only if he got them all together to form a conspiracy with thousands of people to make sure that they all publicly spew hatred at him and his campaign. Conspiracies do happen, I'll grant that, but one of such proportions would fall apart the second someone got drunk at a cocktail party in the presence of a waiter.
Quote:If he's actually running for reasons outside this and actually has an isolationist, pro-American view that supports bringing domestic jobs back here and supports economic equality (and also provides education and healthcare reform), I may support him. But unfortunately, I don't.
Daddy has been talking about Isolationism since the 1980s, he's been against NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP and all other so-called trade deals since at least the 1990s. The man used to pall around with Ross Perot, if you remember what he said about NAFTA--well it happened.
As for bringing back economic equality that can happen by controlling the supply of labor (IE expelling the illegals and enforcing our border laws) and fixing the trade deals that destroyed US manufacturing.
Quote:(05-07-2016, 03:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As I've said above, I see a new political divide emerging on the basis of libertarianism-authoritarianism rather then left-right. Such is probable nature of mature capitalist democracy.
That may very well happen. I just don't know which party would take which side.
Actually we do already. The PC Speech Police, the perpetually offended, and the Regressive Left are all on the side of the Democrats. From the noise made by the right authoritarians they will start fleeing to the Democratic Party. This will leave the GOP cleansed with only the social libertarians around. To completely alter the party will take between 4-6 years, two terms of President Trump would be 8, so 2024 could be the start of the 1T, but most likely the last gasps of the 4T.
Quote:(05-07-2016, 03:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Unfortunately Hillary is neither perfect, nor good.
She may not be perfect but I still believe she's the better of the two candidates. I'm still wary of Trump.
If we were talking Jeb, sure. If we were talking Cruz, definitely. If we're talking Daddy--not with you there. Shillary is a corrupt washed up old hag with few political skills and less personality. Daddy is a political novice true, but he also has personality and something we've not seen in a long damn time--someone running for president who has nothing to gain from it and wasn't involved in making this mess to start with.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - MillsT_98 - 05-10-2016
(05-08-2016, 10:01 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Assuming that Isis remains a problem bombing the shit out of their oil production facilities should be a top priority. Hit them where they eat. I actually think getting together with the Russians on this may be a good idea. Putin gets his Assad regime client state, ISIS gets crushed problem solved. That of course requires a POTUS and S.o.State that isn't antagonistic to Russia's other concerns.
The situation we're currently in does put us in between a rock and a hard place. So you're saying that Trump can solve the Middle Eastern situation once and for all by giving Syria's control to Assad and fight ISIS? Because clearly you have to sacrifice one to get the other. I wish we could solve both by imposing a new government in Syria and getting rid of ISIS, but that might require a complete occupation of Syria and Iraq, and I don't know if we want that, considering the mess we've been in for decades. Would any of this turn into World War III?
Quote:There isn't much that the President can do about economic inequality. It doesn't matter if that president is HRC, Donald Trump, or even FDR. As for building up the commercial infrastructure, you do realize that big business uses said commercial infrastructure, right? Working on that provides no conflict of interest for the Big-Biz set. And hell it would even put some people to work immediately and it has to be done anyway.
The President can do something about inequality by regulating the corporations and the banks, so businesses don't get too powerful and make it harder for workers to put themselves in a good situation. That includes enforcing pro-labor laws that allow for collective bargaining rights. Many people distrust unions today, and that may be because of the corporations' influence against the unions.
As for infrastructure, I strongly support it, and I just want someone to support building this infrastructure. Whether that will be funded publically or privately, that will be up to the voters. Either way, it should happen.
Quote:Daddy has been talking about Isolationism since the 1980s, he's been against NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP and all other so-called trade deals since at least the 1990s. The man used to pall around with Ross Perot, if you remember what he said about NAFTA--well it happened.
As for bringing back economic equality that can happen by controlling the supply of labor (IE expelling the illegals and enforcing our border laws) and fixing the trade deals that destroyed US manufacturing.
Wouldn't being isolationist mean staying out of diplomatic and military affairs? Is it possible to achieve both? Or are you talking about economic isolation? You did say you wanted Trump to work with Russia and solve the Middle Eastern situation.
Quote:(05-07-2016, 03:43 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As I've said above, I see a new political divide emerging on the basis of libertarianism-authoritarianism rather then left-right. Such is probable nature of mature capitalist democracy.
Quote:That may very well happen. I just don't know which party would take which side.
Actually we do already. The PC Speech Police, the perpetually offended, and the Regressive Left are all on the side of the Democrats. From the noise made by the right authoritarians they will start fleeing to the Democratic Party. This will leave the GOP cleansed with only the social libertarians around. To completely alter the party will take between 4-6 years, two terms of President Trump would be 8, so 2024 could be the start of the 1T, but most likely the last gasps of the 4T.
That's very interesting. So the Democratic Party will be the authoritarian party and the Republican Party would be the libertarian party? What would happen on terms of economics, and party platforms?
And why do you call Trump 'Daddy' anyway? I find that weird.
Another thing, I redirected our conversation about ISIS to a new thread:
http://generational-theory.com/forum/thread-54.html
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Kinser79 - 05-11-2016
(05-10-2016, 11:10 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote: The situation we're currently in does put us in between a rock and a hard place. So you're saying that Trump can solve the Middle Eastern situation once and for all by giving Syria's control to Assad and fight ISIS? Because clearly you have to sacrifice one to get the other. I wish we could solve both by imposing a new government in Syria and getting rid of ISIS, but that might require a complete occupation of Syria and Iraq, and I don't know if we want that, considering the mess we've been in for decades. Would any of this turn into World War III?
The situation in Syria is pretty simple. Either you deal with Assad or you deal with ISIS. Which is worse? ISIS because they are terrorists--Assad is just a tin pot dictator. Let him have his country and let him kill ISIS with US help or Russian help. Doesn't matter which, and it will piss the Russians off a lot less. We can import oil just as easily from Russia as Saudi Arabia.
Quote:The President can do something about inequality by regulating the corporations and the banks, so businesses don't get too powerful and make it harder for workers to put themselves in a good situation. That includes enforcing pro-labor laws that allow for collective bargaining rights. Many people distrust unions today, and that may be because of the corporations' influence against the unions.
Okay, maybe you failed your civics class in high school but the constitution is pretty clear about who writes the laws, and that would be Congress. The president can ask for new laws or enforce the ones that already exist. But without congress writing new laws, he is limited to enforcing the existing regulations such as they exist.
He can however directly influence trade policy as it falls under the rubric of foreign affairs which is under the direction of the executive.
Quote:As for infrastructure, I strongly support it, and I just want someone to support building this infrastructure. Whether that will be funded publically or privately, that will be up to the voters. Either way, it should happen.
Infrastructure is vital to a healthy economy. In the building stage it provides jobs which increases aggregate demand, and after the infrastructure is built it is then used which facilitates trade, training and so on. Congress of course would have to pay for it, but the executive branch can use already allocated money to help states form private-public partnerships to get said infrastructure built should congress refuse to act--which under Clinton they will. Under Daddy they just might.
Quote:Wouldn't being isolationist mean staying out of diplomatic and military affairs? Is it possible to achieve both? Or are you talking about economic isolation? You did say you wanted Trump to work with Russia and solve the Middle Eastern situation.
No. American Isolationism which is the traditional form of foreign policy going back before WW2 does not preclude the US from getting involved in diplomatic affairs (we'd probably stay in the UN after all) and it wouldn't stop us from going to war with any foreign power we chose. What it would mean is that we wouldn't entangle ourselves in the noise and nonsense of Europe, Asia, and Africa. We'd stay in our hemisphere and mind our own damn business.
Working with Russia to end ISIS and re-stabilize the Middle East does not necessitate forming an alliance with Russia.
Quote:That's very interesting. So the Democratic Party will be the authoritarian party and the Republican Party would be the libertarian party? What would happen on terms of economics, and party platforms?
Culturally speaking the GOP will likely absorb the Cultural Libertarians. The Libertarians, the Classical Liberals, the pro-free speech people, dissident minorities. The Democrats would get the Shrill Conservative Christians, the Feminazis, and the PC Gestapo. Only one is going to end up in charge after the party reset...I hope it isn't the authoritarians because you, and I and everyone here will be plunged into a dystopian pc state that will make 1984 seem like a paradise
Quote:And why do you call Trump 'Daddy' anyway? I find that weird.
It is hard to explain to anyone who doesn't already listen to or read Milo Yiannopoulos already. It is a term of affection, and it also drives regressive leftists nuts.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Galen - 05-11-2016
(05-11-2016, 01:12 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: It is hard to explain to anyone who doesn't already listen to or read Milo Yiannopoulos already. It is a term of affection, and it also drives regressive leftists nuts.
Which is always worth doing. I have spent some time watching Milo and he does such a good job of annoying the SJW crowd.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Marypoza - 05-11-2016
Bernie. If he's not on the ballot than Jill Stein
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Kinser79 - 05-11-2016
(05-11-2016, 02:22 AM)Galen Wrote:(05-11-2016, 01:12 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: It is hard to explain to anyone who doesn't already listen to or read Milo Yiannopoulos already. It is a term of affection, and it also drives regressive leftists nuts.
Which is always worth doing. I have spent some time watching Milo and he does such a good job of annoying the SJW crowd.
So much so I think he should be appointed Press Secretary. It would make press statements from the White House fun to watch again instead of things that come on while I'm snoozing in the chair.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Galen - 05-11-2016
(05-11-2016, 12:39 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: So much so I think he should be appointed Press Secretary. It would make press statements from the White House fun to watch again instead of things that come on while I'm snoozing in the chair.
That is an idea that definitely has merit. If only because it would put the left in such a terrible bind since he is a member of one of the more fashionable protected classes these days.
RE: Who are you voting for in 2016? - Danilynn - 05-11-2016
(05-11-2016, 03:32 PM)Galen Wrote:(05-11-2016, 12:39 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: So much so I think he should be appointed Press Secretary. It would make press statements from the White House fun to watch again instead of things that come on while I'm snoozing in the chair.
That is an idea that definitely has merit. If only because it would put the left in such a terrible bind since he is a member of one of the more fashionable protected classes these days.
I *love* the way you think sometimes. You win the internet today.