It's Time: Which Candidate Do You Currently Favor?

[Cecilie1200]

No, I don't. In this context, there is no good about "excitement". As far as I'm concerned, proper government administration should be boring and should allow me to ignore it for days, even weeks, at a time. It's like driving a semi for a living (which I used to do): if it's "exciting", you're doing it wrong.

I have the impression that this is inevitable in our country. We're not picking a dictator, but a group of them that are locked in stalemate most of the time.

Since I'm not one of these double-down on everything candidates, may I change my assertion from exciting to refreshing? It gets to the reason I'm excited, lets say.

Further, I'm 'excited' about new versions of middleware frameworks, even though that's all work not play.

ex·cit·ing
ikˈsīdiNG/
adjective

1. causing great enthusiasm and eagerness.

Okay. I'll accept that. I'm personally still looking for a steady, consistent person who will do his job without feeling the need to hold a press conference every five minutes, or have so much involvement in my life that I have to constantly be aware of the federal government. There is something very wrong when individual citizens are that involved with the fed on a daily basis.

One can isolate themselves completely from politics and watch sports and sitcoms, spend time with nature or at work.

If you're looking for an uneventful candidate, Clinton's a good choice. She'd have the least to explain about what she's doing. Ted Cruz will have to strike a daily press conference to explain in which universe the US is going to revert to the gold standard. Bernie Sanders will come on everyday to let us know the special at our local unionized soup kitchen.

While your concern is the publicity veneer, I'm concerned about our public policy with all of the nutty old ideas of yore resurfacing.

I don't want to have to work to isolate myself from intrusion by the federal government. I want it to simply have very little to do with my day-to-day life, the way it should be. I want it to do its job, JUST its job, and I want it to do it quietly in the background, where it belongs.

Clinton is not only a publicity whore like her husband, she LOVES intrusive government AND she's a giant scandal bomb going off every other day or so.

She'd be a shitty President on every single standard I can measure by.

I'm not going to understand what you mean about government in your life because I have the control of this dynamic in my own life. It seems shallow like you had described my excitement about Trump, just because it's non-seq with policy outcomes. The US president isn't even a quiet, blue-collar job as you describe it.

Is this media footprint concern the only or primary one you weigh when making your choice?

You think you control how much involvement the federal government has in your life?

I didn't say a damned thing about "blue collar", but it is a fact that Presidents used to do their jobs without people having to hear about it and from them several times a week.

 

[Arianrhod]

I have the impression that this is inevitable in our country. We're not picking a dictator, but a group of them that are locked in stalemate most of the time.

Since I'm not one of these double-down on everything candidates, may I change my assertion from exciting to refreshing? It gets to the reason I'm excited, lets say.

Further, I'm 'excited' about new versions of middleware frameworks, even though that's all work not play.

ex·cit·ing
ikˈsīdiNG/
adjective

1. causing great enthusiasm and eagerness.

Okay. I'll accept that. I'm personally still looking for a steady, consistent person who will do his job without feeling the need to hold a press conference every five minutes, or have so much involvement in my life that I have to constantly be aware of the federal government. There is something very wrong when individual citizens are that involved with the fed on a daily basis.

One can isolate themselves completely from politics and watch sports and sitcoms, spend time with nature or at work.

If you're looking for an uneventful candidate, Clinton's a good choice. She'd have the least to explain about what she's doing. Ted Cruz will have to strike a daily press conference to explain in which universe the US is going to revert to the gold standard. Bernie Sanders will come on everyday to let us know the special at our local unionized soup kitchen.

While your concern is the publicity veneer, I'm concerned about our public policy with all of the nutty old ideas of yore resurfacing.

I don't want to have to work to isolate myself from intrusion by the federal government. I want it to simply have very little to do with my day-to-day life, the way it should be. I want it to do its job, JUST its job, and I want it to do it quietly in the background, where it belongs.

Clinton is not only a publicity whore like her husband, she LOVES intrusive government AND she's a giant scandal bomb going off every other day or so.

She'd be a shitty President on every single standard I can measure by.

I'm not going to understand what you mean about government in your life because I have the control of this dynamic in my own life. It seems shallow like you had described my excitement about Trump, just because it's non-seq with policy outcomes. The US president isn't even a quiet, blue-collar job as you describe it.

Is this media footprint concern the only or primary one you weigh when making your choice?

You think you control how much involvement the federal government has in your life?

I didn't say a damned thing about "blue collar", but it is a fact that Presidents used to do their jobs without people having to hear about it and from them several times a week.

Yeah, back then they had to wait for the Pony Express to bring last month's newspaper.

 

[Programmer]

I have the impression that this is inevitable in our country. We're not picking a dictator, but a group of them that are locked in stalemate most of the time.

Since I'm not one of these double-down on everything candidates, may I change my assertion from exciting to refreshing? It gets to the reason I'm excited, lets say.

Further, I'm 'excited' about new versions of middleware frameworks, even though that's all work not play.

ex·cit·ing
ikˈsīdiNG/
adjective

1. causing great enthusiasm and eagerness.

Okay. I'll accept that. I'm personally still looking for a steady, consistent person who will do his job without feeling the need to hold a press conference every five minutes, or have so much involvement in my life that I have to constantly be aware of the federal government. There is something very wrong when individual citizens are that involved with the fed on a daily basis.

One can isolate themselves completely from politics and watch sports and sitcoms, spend time with nature or at work.

If you're looking for an uneventful candidate, Clinton's a good choice. She'd have the least to explain about what she's doing. Ted Cruz will have to strike a daily press conference to explain in which universe the US is going to revert to the gold standard. Bernie Sanders will come on everyday to let us know the special at our local unionized soup kitchen.

While your concern is the publicity veneer, I'm concerned about our public policy with all of the nutty old ideas of yore resurfacing.

I don't want to have to work to isolate myself from intrusion by the federal government. I want it to simply have very little to do with my day-to-day life, the way it should be. I want it to do its job, JUST its job, and I want it to do it quietly in the background, where it belongs.

Clinton is not only a publicity whore like her husband, she LOVES intrusive government AND she's a giant scandal bomb going off every other day or so.

She'd be a shitty President on every single standard I can measure by.

I'm not going to understand what you mean about government in your life because I have the control of this dynamic in my own life. It seems shallow like you had described my excitement about Trump, just because it's non-seq with policy outcomes. The US president isn't even a quiet, blue-collar job as you describe it.

Is this media footprint concern the only or primary one you weigh when making your choice?

You think you control how much involvement the federal government has in your life?

I didn't say a damned thing about "blue collar", but it is a fact that Presidents used to do their jobs without people having to hear about it and from them several times a week.

Yes. I feel in charge of my government exposure. Regarding the press component of that, I was raised a political spectator, so again, there's no way I'm ever going to understand where you're coming from. That's a bit off the topic, though.

This couldn't be the chief factor in your decision. Did the last debate influence your position at all?

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth about collar color. You described the behavior expected of blue collars. Executives like the POTUS are indeed expected to face the public.

 

[candycorn]

HRC. All the way. Best qualified office seeker since Bush 41.

 

[Programmer]

HRC. All the way. Best qualified office seeker since Bush 41.

Clinton has coffee spilled on that resume.

 

[dcraelin]

you know after posting that I realized there were two other republicans who don't seem real bad on trade that I forgot about because the media isn't giving them a lot of attention.

Santorum and Huckabee. Santorum I believe won 11 states last time around and certainly should not be ignored by the media. He should really be on the main stage debates also.

The main stage of the debates is determined by the percentage of support they have in the polls. Clearly, Santorum is generating virtually zero interest among likely voters, so . . .

NOT clearly.....clearly the pollz are manipulated BS. done by a small small slice of the population who are ok with wsating time on the phone.

I believe Santorum was also polling poorly the last time prior to Iowa and ended up winning it.

Well, if he does, I guess he'll be polling better afterward. You gotta decide by SOME criteria, or you just end up wasting everyone's time.

I don't think Santorum is being taken seriously by anyone but his campaign staff after the last election, though.

yeah one of those criteria should be that you won 11 states the last time around.

No, I think losing the last election pretty much wipes that out of play in this one.

After Romney pissed it all away?.....no it should absolutely be a criteria.

 

[dcraelin]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

 

[Programmer]

you know after posting that I realized there were two other republicans who don't seem real bad on trade that I forgot about because the media isn't giving them a lot of attention.

Santorum and Huckabee. Santorum I believe won 11 states last time around and certainly should not be ignored by the media. He should really be on the main stage debates also.

The main stage of the debates is determined by the percentage of support they have in the polls. Clearly, Santorum is generating virtually zero interest among likely voters, so . . .

NOT clearly.....clearly the pollz are manipulated BS. done by a small small slice of the population who are ok with wsating time on the phone.

I believe Santorum was also polling poorly the last time prior to Iowa and ended up winning it.

Well, if he does, I guess he'll be polling better afterward. You gotta decide by SOME criteria, or you just end up wasting everyone's time.

I don't think Santorum is being taken seriously by anyone but his campaign staff after the last election, though.

yeah one of those criteria should be that you won 11 states the last time around.

No, I think losing the last election pretty much wipes that out of play in this one.

I agree, but remember, Reagan tried the primary more than once.

 

[Programmer]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

The tax system was different prior to the 1980s, but you think someone getting less than 1/10th of what they earned will bring something positive to the country?

 

[dcraelin]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

The tax system was different prior to the 1980s, but you think someone getting less than 1/10th of what they earned will bring something positive to the country?

well that is a marginal rate, the rich would pay no more on first $30,000 than anyone else. And yes....it would lessen the debt and deficit. ...so it would improve the economy.

 

[Programmer]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

The tax system was different prior to the 1980s, but you think someone getting less than 1/10th of what they earned will bring something positive to the country?

well that is a marginal rate, the rich would pay no more on first $30,000 than anyone else. And yes....it would lessen the debt and deficit. ...so it would improve the economy.

Overtaxing and overspending is not a formula for economic enrichment, especially overspending current dollars on future obligations where the rates are lower than projected inflation.

 

[Slyhunter]

The Trump Way on Immigration Suits Republicans, Poll Shows
By Lindsey McPhersonPosted at 12:08 p.m. on Nov. 11

874 Comments
©Reprints

 

[Arianrhod]

The Trump Way on Immigration Suits Republicans, Poll Shows
By Lindsey McPhersonPosted at 12:08 p.m. on Nov. 11

874 Comments
©Reprints

Ah, the one-issue voter...fragmenting the GOP since at least 2008...

 

[dcraelin]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

The tax system was different prior to the 1980s, but you think someone getting less than 1/10th of what they earned will bring something positive to the country?

well that is a marginal rate, the rich would pay no more on first $30,000 than anyone else. And yes....it would lessen the debt and deficit. ...so it would improve the economy.

Overtaxing and overspending is not a formula for economic enrichment, especially overspending current dollars on future obligations where the rates are lower than projected inflation.

I dont think that makes any sense ....for one thing how would you know what rates are in the future?

I said nothing about "overspending" or "overtaxing". taxing to meet our obligations is what I m thinking of.

I suppose your getting at idea of funding long term projects, but in a country the size of the US, not sure if any carried debt is necessary, anyway we are a long way from that.

 

[dcraelin]

The Trump Way on Immigration Suits Republicans, Poll Shows
By Lindsey McPhersonPosted at 12:08 p.m. on Nov. 11

874 Comments
©Reprints

While I dont particularly care for Cruz he did hit the nail on the head when he said at the debate that there would be less support for immigration if bankers and lawyers were immigrating in mass. Then he added journalists I think.

 

[Programmer]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

The tax system was different prior to the 1980s, but you think someone getting less than 1/10th of what they earned will bring something positive to the country?

well that is a marginal rate, the rich would pay no more on first $30,000 than anyone else. And yes....it would lessen the debt and deficit. ...so it would improve the economy.

Overtaxing and overspending is not a formula for economic enrichment, especially overspending current dollars on future obligations where the rates are lower than projected inflation.

I dont think that makes any sense ....for one thing how would you know what rates are in the future?

I said nothing about "overspending" or "overtaxing". taxing to meet our obligations is what I m thinking of.

I suppose your getting at idea of funding long term projects, but in a country the size of the US, not sure if any carried debt is necessary, anyway we are a long way from that.

I characterize our current lot as overspending. Taking 90% of someone'e earnings is over-taxing.

The Fed 'targets' interest and inflation values. Some of our borrowing recalls funds from a weakening trade balance. We wont completely stop selling debt. Rather than taxing, why wont we get investment for our infrastructure? From these same 'the rich' you're talking about?

 

[auditor0007]

If Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination, I would probably go for Ted Cruze.

There is no friggin way I would ever vote for Hillary. Or Trump. Or Bush.

I can't vote for Bernie in the primaries because I am a registered Republican.

SMH! I can understand your being drawn to those with integrity as I do believe both have more of that than anyone else running. The problem is that they are on completely opposite sides of the spectrum and neither would be good for the country in the long run.

 

[Pete7469]

Bob Dole says vote Jeb

That's great anti-advice if you ask me.

 

[Two Thumbs]

bernie

His ideas are so bad, so unfundable, that he would either have to raise taxes so high the the market falls apart or borrow so much that a dollar declines and the market falls apart.

And I think he will do it so quickly that the march on DC will be by heavily armed Americans that will clean up DC.

this will give us a chance to survive in the long run, history will finally have to tell the truth about leftist ideals and how bad they really are.

Bernie goes a little over the top in funding college education etc. , but that wont pass Congress. What might pass are higher tax rates on the wealthy which we absolutely need at this time, running such a high deficit.

Remember Eisenhower had a top tax rate of around 91%, This would supply some breathing room for the mid to lower income folks and help improve the economy.

No it won't.

I'd explain, but I've explained so many times that I know leftist can't learn.

So yo tell me how taking money out of the economy helps the economy.

and remember, under that 91%, no one got rich.

 

[the_human_being]

Poll: Majority think Clinton acted unethically or illegally in emails