Who should we elect?

[Kosh]

elect me of course

Works for me. Will you pay me for my vote?

what do I look like? A Democrat?

Well you are certainly not w are publican, maybe libertarian?

 

[Kosh]

I usually shy away from picking a particular candidate this far ahead of an election. Most of the time, I want to hear more from the candidates before making up my mind. Lots of times in the past, the person I like is already out of the race before the primaries reach my state and I have to "settle" for what remains. Perhaps the same thing will happen in 2016, it remains to be seen.

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.

I look at the potential field of Republican candidates and woefully shake my head. Some of them are really good people, they have a good head on their shoulders, they say and do all the right things, but when you cut to the chase, they are all politicians at heart. Either that, or they are completely unqualified to take us where we need to go for the future. Forget about the Democratic Party, they have completely sold out to special interests and have adopted a soft Marxist philosophy which they don't intend to back away from anytime soon. I think this is a recipe for disaster and can't bring myself to even consider such an option. Likewise, I don't believe a third party candidate can garner enough support to win and if they did, would have no support in governing.

So what am I looking for in a president? Well, I think we need someone who is prepared to do what needs to be done regardless of public opinion. Someone who will stand up for what is right and not back down due to pressure from opposition or controversy, even within their own party. That is a rare type person indeed, in this day and age of push polls and focus groups. I like the tenacity of someone like Sarah Palin, but Palin is too reactionary and doesn't seem to understand how to handle criticism or personal attacks. I like the moxy of Rand Paul, but I think Rand suffers from being a Paul and tends to be a little nutty at times. Rick Perry and Scott Brown seem to be decent possibilities, but with Perry I just get a 'vibe' I don't like... maybe because he reminds me of George W. Bush a little? Brown seems to be a little sedated and not very dynamic, but he's still in the running from my perspective.

The candidate I have found to be the most palatable from a leadership perspective; One who I think would be a strong leader who could make the crucial decisions we'll need in the coming years and not bow to peer pressure or criticism, is Ted Cruz. He is the only politician with the balls to stand up and do what's best regardless of pressure. He doesn't back down, he is smart and articulate, he makes the case for conservative principles unapologetically, and I think he would make for an outstanding president and leader. He is Newt Gingrich without the baggage... Sarah Palin without the makeup... Rand Paul with intelligence.

His ability to carry the conservative message is impeccable and he has proven to be unafraid of Democratic opposition OR Republican opposition for that matter. Of course, the later will pose a huge problem for him, much as it did for Ronald Reagan. We sometimes have to drag moderate republicans kicking and screaming to conservatism. He is as dynamic and bold as Reagan was, unwilling to apologize for his core convictions, ready to take on the challenge of defending his positions against all comers. He would bury Hilary Clinton in a debate on foreign or domestic policy. Hell, he could probably give Hilary advice on baking chocolate chip cookies!

Yes, he has been stigmatized by the left... but what candidate worth their salt hasn't been? Do you think we'll find a candidate the liberal left will be "okay" with? We kinda thought that about McCain and Romney, didn't we? I mean, that WAS the purpose of nominating them, right? They were supposed to "appeal to the middle" and not piss off the left so much... McCain was their "favorite Republican" and Romney was the governor of liberal Massachusetts. Neither man was able to garner a majority of the vote and lost the election to a complete incompetent. It's time to step up to the plate with someone capable of hitting it out of the park. Someone who isn't afraid of liberals, who doesn't care about moderating their views to appeal to the mushy middle, who is prepared to LEAD and do what is in the best interest of the country, both domestically and in matters of foreign policy.. That man is Ted Cruz.

IF you thought that Barack Obama was too inexperienced to be elected President, then you shouldn't support Cruz.

But if your only criteria is an ideology that you support- go for it. Thats what got Obama elected.

As a Democrat looking back, I am now more in favor of someone who has proven executive experience as a governor- you have good strong candidates with governor experience- Jeb and Chris Christie- hell even Walker who I don't like at all.

And by the way- Cruz is the Republican's Warren.

Once again the far left posts propaganda over facts!!

But then who needs facts when you have far left religious propaganda programming guiding your way..

The far left will always vote far left no matter what..

Obama is proof of that since he is far worse than Bush..

 

[Syriusly]

I usually shy away from picking a particular candidate this far ahead of an election. Most of the time, I want to hear more from the candidates before making up my mind. Lots of times in the past, the person I like is already out of the race before the primaries reach my state and I have to "settle" for what remains. Perhaps the same thing will happen in 2016, it remains to be seen.

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.

I look at the potential field of Republican candidates and woefully shake my head. Some of them are really good people, they have a good head on their shoulders, they say and do all the right things, but when you cut to the chase, they are all politicians at heart. Either that, or they are completely unqualified to take us where we need to go for the future. Forget about the Democratic Party, they have completely sold out to special interests and have adopted a soft Marxist philosophy which they don't intend to back away from anytime soon. I think this is a recipe for disaster and can't bring myself to even consider such an option. Likewise, I don't believe a third party candidate can garner enough support to win and if they did, would have no support in governing.

So what am I looking for in a president? Well, I think we need someone who is prepared to do what needs to be done regardless of public opinion. Someone who will stand up for what is right and not back down due to pressure from opposition or controversy, even within their own party. That is a rare type person indeed, in this day and age of push polls and focus groups. I like the tenacity of someone like Sarah Palin, but Palin is too reactionary and doesn't seem to understand how to handle criticism or personal attacks. I like the moxy of Rand Paul, but I think Rand suffers from being a Paul and tends to be a little nutty at times. Rick Perry and Scott Brown seem to be decent possibilities, but with Perry I just get a 'vibe' I don't like... maybe because he reminds me of George W. Bush a little? Brown seems to be a little sedated and not very dynamic, but he's still in the running from my perspective.

The candidate I have found to be the most palatable from a leadership perspective; One who I think would be a strong leader who could make the crucial decisions we'll need in the coming years and not bow to peer pressure or criticism, is Ted Cruz. He is the only politician with the balls to stand up and do what's best regardless of pressure. He doesn't back down, he is smart and articulate, he makes the case for conservative principles unapologetically, and I think he would make for an outstanding president and leader. He is Newt Gingrich without the baggage... Sarah Palin without the makeup... Rand Paul with intelligence.

His ability to carry the conservative message is impeccable and he has proven to be unafraid of Democratic opposition OR Republican opposition for that matter. Of course, the later will pose a huge problem for him, much as it did for Ronald Reagan. We sometimes have to drag moderate republicans kicking and screaming to conservatism. He is as dynamic and bold as Reagan was, unwilling to apologize for his core convictions, ready to take on the challenge of defending his positions against all comers. He would bury Hilary Clinton in a debate on foreign or domestic policy. Hell, he could probably give Hilary advice on baking chocolate chip cookies!

Yes, he has been stigmatized by the left... but what candidate worth their salt hasn't been? Do you think we'll find a candidate the liberal left will be "okay" with? We kinda thought that about McCain and Romney, didn't we? I mean, that WAS the purpose of nominating them, right? They were supposed to "appeal to the middle" and not piss off the left so much... McCain was their "favorite Republican" and Romney was the governor of liberal Massachusetts. Neither man was able to garner a majority of the vote and lost the election to a complete incompetent. It's time to step up to the plate with someone capable of hitting it out of the park. Someone who isn't afraid of liberals, who doesn't care about moderating their views to appeal to the mushy middle, who is prepared to LEAD and do what is in the best interest of the country, both domestically and in matters of foreign policy.. That man is Ted Cruz.

IF you thought that Barack Obama was too inexperienced to be elected President, then you shouldn't support Cruz.

But if your only criteria is an ideology that you support- go for it. Thats what got Obama elected.

As a Democrat looking back, I am now more in favor of someone who has proven executive experience as a governor- you have good strong candidates with governor experience- Jeb and Chris Christie- hell even Walker who I don't like at all.

And by the way- Cruz is the Republican's Warren.

Once again the far left posts propaganda over facts!!

But then who needs facts when you have far left religious propaganda programming guiding your way..

The far left will always vote far left no matter what..

Obama is proof of that since he is far worse than Bush..

Troll.

 

[Kosh]

I usually shy away from picking a particular candidate this far ahead of an election. Most of the time, I want to hear more from the candidates before making up my mind. Lots of times in the past, the person I like is already out of the race before the primaries reach my state and I have to "settle" for what remains. Perhaps the same thing will happen in 2016, it remains to be seen.

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.

I look at the potential field of Republican candidates and woefully shake my head. Some of them are really good people, they have a good head on their shoulders, they say and do all the right things, but when you cut to the chase, they are all politicians at heart. Either that, or they are completely unqualified to take us where we need to go for the future. Forget about the Democratic Party, they have completely sold out to special interests and have adopted a soft Marxist philosophy which they don't intend to back away from anytime soon. I think this is a recipe for disaster and can't bring myself to even consider such an option. Likewise, I don't believe a third party candidate can garner enough support to win and if they did, would have no support in governing.

So what am I looking for in a president? Well, I think we need someone who is prepared to do what needs to be done regardless of public opinion. Someone who will stand up for what is right and not back down due to pressure from opposition or controversy, even within their own party. That is a rare type person indeed, in this day and age of push polls and focus groups. I like the tenacity of someone like Sarah Palin, but Palin is too reactionary and doesn't seem to understand how to handle criticism or personal attacks. I like the moxy of Rand Paul, but I think Rand suffers from being a Paul and tends to be a little nutty at times. Rick Perry and Scott Brown seem to be decent possibilities, but with Perry I just get a 'vibe' I don't like... maybe because he reminds me of George W. Bush a little? Brown seems to be a little sedated and not very dynamic, but he's still in the running from my perspective.

The candidate I have found to be the most palatable from a leadership perspective; One who I think would be a strong leader who could make the crucial decisions we'll need in the coming years and not bow to peer pressure or criticism, is Ted Cruz. He is the only politician with the balls to stand up and do what's best regardless of pressure. He doesn't back down, he is smart and articulate, he makes the case for conservative principles unapologetically, and I think he would make for an outstanding president and leader. He is Newt Gingrich without the baggage... Sarah Palin without the makeup... Rand Paul with intelligence.

His ability to carry the conservative message is impeccable and he has proven to be unafraid of Democratic opposition OR Republican opposition for that matter. Of course, the later will pose a huge problem for him, much as it did for Ronald Reagan. We sometimes have to drag moderate republicans kicking and screaming to conservatism. He is as dynamic and bold as Reagan was, unwilling to apologize for his core convictions, ready to take on the challenge of defending his positions against all comers. He would bury Hilary Clinton in a debate on foreign or domestic policy. Hell, he could probably give Hilary advice on baking chocolate chip cookies!

Yes, he has been stigmatized by the left... but what candidate worth their salt hasn't been? Do you think we'll find a candidate the liberal left will be "okay" with? We kinda thought that about McCain and Romney, didn't we? I mean, that WAS the purpose of nominating them, right? They were supposed to "appeal to the middle" and not piss off the left so much... McCain was their "favorite Republican" and Romney was the governor of liberal Massachusetts. Neither man was able to garner a majority of the vote and lost the election to a complete incompetent. It's time to step up to the plate with someone capable of hitting it out of the park. Someone who isn't afraid of liberals, who doesn't care about moderating their views to appeal to the mushy middle, who is prepared to LEAD and do what is in the best interest of the country, both domestically and in matters of foreign policy.. That man is Ted Cruz.

IF you thought that Barack Obama was too inexperienced to be elected President, then you shouldn't support Cruz.

But if your only criteria is an ideology that you support- go for it. Thats what got Obama elected.

As a Democrat looking back, I am now more in favor of someone who has proven executive experience as a governor- you have good strong candidates with governor experience- Jeb and Chris Christie- hell even Walker who I don't like at all.

And by the way- Cruz is the Republican's Warren.

Once again the far left posts propaganda over facts!!

But then who needs facts when you have far left religious propaganda programming guiding your way..

The far left will always vote far left no matter what..

Obama is proof of that since he is far worse than Bush..

Troll.

Yes we know that the far left loves to troll message boards spamming their religious propaganda!

 

[g5000]

The candidate I have found to be the most palatable from a leadership perspective; One who I think would be a strong leader who could make the crucial decisions we'll need in the coming years and not bow to peer pressure or criticism, is Ted Cruz. He is the only politician with the balls to stand up and do what's best regardless of pressure. He doesn't back down, he is smart and articulate, he makes the case for conservative principles unapologetically, and I think he would make for an outstanding president and leader. He is Newt Gingrich without the baggage... Sarah Palin without the makeup... Rand Paul with intelligence.

Ted Cruz, eh? Let's see if you actually know anything about him.


1) What would he do to get the economy going?

2) How would he balance the budget?

3) How would he reduce the federal debt?

4) What would he do about Iran's nuclear weapons program?

5) What would he do about North Korea's nuclear weapons program?

6) What changes or improvements would he make to ObamaCare? If your answer is, "Repeal it", then what would he do to reform healthcare in America after that?

7) What changes or improvements would he make to Medicare?

8) What changes or improvements would he make to Social Security?

9) What reforms would he make to our immigration policy?

10) What changes would he make to the financial services industry?

11) What would he do about ISIS?

12) What would he do about Putin?

 

[Boss]

The candidate I have found to be the most palatable from a leadership perspective; One who I think would be a strong leader who could make the crucial decisions we'll need in the coming years and not bow to peer pressure or criticism, is Ted Cruz. He is the only politician with the balls to stand up and do what's best regardless of pressure. He doesn't back down, he is smart and articulate, he makes the case for conservative principles unapologetically, and I think he would make for an outstanding president and leader. He is Newt Gingrich without the baggage... Sarah Palin without the makeup... Rand Paul with intelligence.

Ted Cruz, eh? Let's see if you actually know anything about him.


1) What would he do to get the economy going?

2) How would he balance the budget?

3) How would he reduce the federal debt?

4) What would he do about Iran's nuclear weapons program?

5) What would he do about North Korea's nuclear weapons program?

6) What changes or improvements would he make to ObamaCare? If your answer is, "Repeal it", then what would he do to reform healthcare in America after that?

7) What changes or improvements would he make to Medicare?

8) What changes or improvements would he make to Social Security?

9) What reforms would he make to our immigration policy?

10) What changes would he make to the financial services industry?

11) What would he do about ISIS?

12) What would he do about Putin?

A lot of the things you listed are out of the president's hands. All he can do is suggest things and sign or veto legislation from Congress. On the other things which he does control, he would do what is best for America. I don't have to worry about him caving to pressure from special interests, following polls, or playing party politics.

 

[Boss]

Someone mentioned Jeb Bush... are you on crack? We need another Bush presidency like we need another hole in our head. Christie? Again, another joke? Scott Walker or Rick Perry? Perhaps... they are still on the table in my opinion, but I'd rather see one of them as Cruz running mate.

 

[g5000]

All he can do is suggest things and sign or veto legislation from Congress. On the other things which he does control, he would do what is best for America.

Lamest. Answer. Ever.

"He would do what is best for America." BWA-HA-HA-HA! All the intellectual bandwidth of a fucking bumper sticker, right there.

In other words, you have no clue what Cruz would or would not do about the things which really matter to this country.

I am not the slightest bit surprised.

 

[Derideo_Te]

All the intellectual bandwidth of a fucking bumper sticker

Best summation of the OP's 5,000 odd posts ever!

 

[frigidweirdo]

A lot of the things you listed are out of the president's hands. All he can do is suggest things and sign or veto legislation from Congress. On the other things which he does control, he would do what is best for America. I don't have to worry about him caving to pressure from special interests, following polls, or playing party politics.

I agree that a lot of things are out of the president's hands. A lot of people don't have a clue what the president's job is. They seem to think he's in charge of the legislature or something.

However your statement "he would do what is best for America" just sounds like rhetoric. Which America would that be exactly? Poor America? Rich America?

 

[Boss]

A lot of the things you listed are out of the president's hands. All he can do is suggest things and sign or veto legislation from Congress. On the other things which he does control, he would do what is best for America. I don't have to worry about him caving to pressure from special interests, following polls, or playing party politics.

I agree that a lot of things are out of the president's hands. A lot of people don't have a clue what the president's job is. They seem to think he's in charge of the legislature or something.

However your statement "he would do what is best for America" just sounds like rhetoric. Which America would that be exactly? Poor America? Rich America?

All Americans. You see, we don't believe in dividing America into groups and pitting one against the other like you do. Your class warfare has created more problems that it has fixed and it's time we drove a stake through the heart of it once and for all.

I know my statement sounds like rhetoric, and I don't care. It's what I think Ted Cruz would do in any given situation... look at the available options, consult with his advisors, and do what's best for America. Plain and simple. I don't think he would care about the polls, what political pundits said about him, whether or not republicans or democrats like him. I think he has the balls and conviction to take a stand and do what's right, which is what is best for America.

 

[frigidweirdo]

All Americans. You see, we don't believe in dividing America into groups and pitting one against the other like you do. Your class warfare has created more problems that it has fixed and it's time we drove a stake through the heart of it once and for all.

I know my statement sounds like rhetoric, and I don't care. It's what I think Ted Cruz would do in any given situation... look at the available options, consult with his advisors, and do what's best for America. Plain and simple. I don't think he would care about the polls, what political pundits said about him, whether or not republicans or democrats like him. I think he has the balls and conviction to take a stand and do what's right, which is what is best for America.

All Americans huh? No offence but you don't become president by caring about all Americans and doing what is right for all Americans. You do what is right to keep yourself in a job and keep approval ratings as high as possible.

"we", who is "we" exactly? The US is majorly divided. Republican and Democrat is one of the worst out there. This guy is going for one of the big two parties, the division is already there. He's part of it. One side will battle him just because he's on the other side, people will hate him simply because he's on the other side. Division is all it's about.

If he were really against dividing, he'd be 3rd party, I guess he doesn't have the balls for that. Oh, you said he had balls, I doubt it.

You talk about my class warfare. Come on. I'm telling you what exists already. You have the rich controlling govt, controlling individual members, and getting them to do what the rich want. The poor are left on the wayside, then you have the gall to tell me I'm about class warfare.

You keep saying "do the best for America" as if this is possible. If he doesn't care about the polls and things like this then he won't be president anyway, so there's no much point talking about him.

People get into the White House because they're willing to give into their principles and do what they're told by the rich. You try and actually have morals and do what is right and you're going to get so hammered long before you get anywhere near the White House.

 

[Boss]

All Americans huh? No offence but you don't become president by caring about all Americans and doing what is right for all Americans. You do what is right to keep yourself in a job and keep approval ratings as high as possible.

No offense, but maybe that's the problem with what kind of people we keep voting for?

"we", who is "we" exactly? The US is majorly divided. Republican and Democrat is one of the worst out there. This guy is going for one of the big two parties, the division is already there. He's part of it. One side will battle him just because he's on the other side, people will hate him simply because he's on the other side. Division is all it's about.

"We" means conservatives. It's liberals who divide America and pit us against each other. Division politics have become their forte. Yes, regardless of what party there are always going to be people opposed to you. We'll never elect anyone who is universally liked by all.

If he were really against dividing, he'd be 3rd party, I guess he doesn't have the balls for that. Oh, you said he had balls, I doubt it.

I said he has balls, not lack of a brain. Only morons run 3rd party and expect to win.

You talk about my class warfare. Come on. I'm telling you what exists already. You have the rich controlling govt, controlling individual members, and getting them to do what the rich want. The poor are left on the wayside, then you have the gall to tell me I'm about class warfare.

Seems you live in a different universe. One where money can't buy influence or power, one where rich people have no money and poor people are wealthy. Sorry, I hope you're happy there. Say hello to the unicorns and rainbow ponies for me!

You keep saying "do the best for America" as if this is possible. If he doesn't care about the polls and things like this then he won't be president anyway, so there's no much point talking about him.

So you can only vote for someone who looks at the polls and tells you what you want to hear? No wonder we're so fucked up as a nation!

People get into the White House because they're willing to give into their principles and do what they're told by the rich. You try and actually have morals and do what is right and you're going to get so hammered long before you get anywhere near the White House.

People get into the White House because we go to the polls and elect them to office. You're trying to say that we are too dumb to elect anyone who doesn't look at the polls and tell us what we want to hear. We're too stupid to vote for people with integrity and honesty, who won't be bought off by the wealthy. If that's the case, we're fucked any way we go. Stick a fork in us, we're done!

 

[zeke]

A lot of the things you listed are out of the president's hands. All he can do is suggest things and sign or veto legislation from Congress.

You an Obama supporter now? Interesting.

 

[Avatar4321]

elect me of course

Works for me. Will you pay me for my vote?

what do I look like? A Democrat?

Well you are certainly not w are publican, maybe libertarian?

I'm registered Republican and the local party seems to think I'm one cause they are always asking me for my vote

 

[frigidweirdo]

All Americans huh? No offence but you don't become president by caring about all Americans and doing what is right for all Americans. You do what is right to keep yourself in a job and keep approval ratings as high as possible.

No offense, but maybe that's the problem with what kind of people we keep voting for?

Well yes, but there's a reason these are the people who get voted for. The system works for those who control the system. Unless the system changes, people will continue to vote as they have.

"we", who is "we" exactly? The US is majorly divided. Republican and Democrat is one of the worst out there. This guy is going for one of the big two parties, the division is already there. He's part of it. One side will battle him just because he's on the other side, people will hate him simply because he's on the other side. Division is all it's about.

"We" means conservatives. It's liberals who divide America and pit us against each other. Division politics have become their forte. Yes, regardless of what party there are always going to be people opposed to you. We'll never elect anyone who is universally liked by all.

Haha, oh the irony. You're making a divide by blaming liberals.

If he were really against dividing, he'd be 3rd party, I guess he doesn't have the balls for that. Oh, you said he had balls, I doubt it.

I said he has balls, not lack of a brain. Only morons run 3rd party and expect to win.

But he doesn't have the balls to go third party and try to actually change the system. No, he will work within the system, he will take the money from the rich and he will do their bidding, or he won't get elected.

You talk about my class warfare. Come on. I'm telling you what exists already. You have the rich controlling govt, controlling individual members, and getting them to do what the rich want. The poor are left on the wayside, then you have the gall to tell me I'm about class warfare.

Seems you live in a different universe. One where money can't buy influence or power, one where rich people have no money and poor people are wealthy. Sorry, I hope you're happy there. Say hello to the unicorns and rainbow ponies for me!

I'm confused. You talk about me making class warfare, then you seem to go off on some sort of class warfare style thing. I seem to be pointing towards a system where the rich do buy influence and power and they do control politics and make it for themselves and no one else.

You keep saying "do the best for America" as if this is possible. If he doesn't care about the polls and things like this then he won't be president anyway, so there's no much point talking about him.

So you can only vote for someone who looks at the polls and tells you what you want to hear? No wonder we're so fucked up as a nation!

Yes, most people can only do this. And yes, that's why the nation is so ef-ed up.

People get into the White House because they're willing to give into their principles and do what they're told by the rich. You try and actually have morals and do what is right and you're going to get so hammered long before you get anywhere near the White House.

People get into the White House because we go to the polls and elect them to office. You're trying to say that we are too dumb to elect anyone who doesn't look at the polls and tell us what we want to hear. We're too stupid to vote for people with integrity and honesty, who won't be bought off by the wealthy. If that's the case, we're fucked any way we go. Stick a fork in us, we're done!

Haha. Yeah right.

Firstly, to get to run for the only parties that people will vote for en masse you need to go through the primaries which kill off a large number of candidates. So who chooses? Well a few states usually choose. If you can't make it in those first 10 states or so then they usually pull out.
To do well in those states you usually need a LOT of money to advertise yourself to death. People work on name recognition and things like that. The media also helps.

Romney came equal first in Iowa, first in New Hampshire, 2nd in South Carolina. He was already in it massively by this point. One dropped out after Iowa, two after New Hampshire. Two more after Super Tuesday.

You do badly in the primaries, the first primaries, money starts to dry up, your ability to conduct a campaign severely limited.

By the time people get to vote, most of the field has dropped out, money has made a huge impact. You spend early and get the confidence of certain people within your party in certain areas, wham, you have a much better chance.

Then when it comes to election day, hey, it's not one vote per person, it's that some people in some states have a vote that is far stronger than in other places. No PR there, just an age old system which suits the big two parties. Who's going to bother voting anyone else anyway?

Democracy? No.

 

[Boss]

Well yes, but there's a reason these are the people who get voted for. The system works for those who control the system. Unless the system changes, people will continue to vote as they have.

So is "the system" voting or are WE voting? The reason these people get voted for is because citizens go into a voting booth and cast a ballot for them. There is nothing wrong with "the system" it works exactly as it is intended to work. The problem is us and who we decide to vote for. Yes, it takes money to run for president, there is nothing we can do to change that fact. That's why it becomes even more crucial that we elect people with integrity who can't be bought.

I'm confused. You talk about me making class warfare, then you seem to go off on some sort of class warfare style thing. I seem to be pointing towards a system where the rich do buy influence and power and they do control politics and make it for themselves and no one else.

Again, the universe we live in, money can buy power and influence. Pretending that we can live in some other universe where that doesn't happen is silly. This is why it is important to elect people with integrity instead of whoever is promising us the moon and stars. Rich people have money and poor people don't... that's the reality of the universe we live in, we can't change it.

 

[Avatar4321]

it's the way people vote that determines the system, not the system determining how people vote

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well yes, but there's a reason these are the people who get voted for. The system works for those who control the system. Unless the system changes, people will continue to vote as they have.

So is "the system" voting or are WE voting? The reason these people get voted for is because citizens go into a voting booth and cast a ballot for them. There is nothing wrong with "the system" it works exactly as it is intended to work. The problem is us and who we decide to vote for. Yes, it takes money to run for president, there is nothing we can do to change that fact. That's why it becomes even more crucial that we elect people with integrity who can't be bought.

I'm confused. You talk about me making class warfare, then you seem to go off on some sort of class warfare style thing. I seem to be pointing towards a system where the rich do buy influence and power and they do control politics and make it for themselves and no one else.

Again, the universe we live in, money can buy power and influence. Pretending that we can live in some other universe where that doesn't happen is silly. This is why it is important to elect people with integrity instead of whoever is promising us the moon and stars. Rich people have money and poor people don't... that's the reality of the universe we live in, we can't change it.

The system changes the way people vote. The best example I can give of this is the German system where they have duel voting at the same time. You vote PR, for which ever party you want to win. You also vote FPTP for the constituency member you would like to see in parliament. People will vote for two different parties on the same day at the same time.

1.3 million people voted CDU in FPTP constituency voting but didn't vote for them in PR (Proportional Representation).
1.6 million people voted SPD in FPTP constituency voting but didn't vote for them in PR (Proportional Representation).
300,000 people voted CSU (Bavarian sister party of CDU) in FPTP constituency voting but didn't vote for them in PR (Proportional Representation).

200,000 people voted die Linke in PR but didn't vote for them in FPTP
500,000 people voted Gruene in PR but didn't vote for them in FPTP
1 million people voted FDP in PR but didn't vote for them in FPTP
1.2 million voted AfD in PR but didn't vote for them in FPTP

The top two (well three but they are basically two) parties saw more votes in FPTP constituency voting (like in the USA) than in PR. You're talking 3.2 million people from a turnout of 44 million, that's like 8% of people who wouldn't vote for the big parties with one system as opposed to another system. On the same day, at the same time.

The system makes a difference. FPTP makes people vote more for the bigger parties, and it's true in the USA.

Yes, people go and vote for these people. People also buy Coca-Cola and Pepsi, eat McDonald's and Burger King and KFC. It's all crap. So why pay more for inferior products? Because they get taken in by the advertising. I knew a guy who wouldn't buy Coca-Cola, in fact he was on food stamps and bought Pepsi when he could get Coca-Cola free. Why? Because he was another idiot who was taken in by advertising. His reason. Coca-Cola wasn't the drink for people like him. Pepsi was for poor people.

The same with politics. A lot of people got taken in by Obama. A lot got taken in by Bush, and Clinton, every 2 years they get taken in by the big parties in Congress, and also in their state govt elections. Every time, time after time after time they vote the way of the big money advertising.

You NEED lots of money to win the presidential election.

The Money Behind the Elections OpenSecrets

Every year the cost goes up. 2012 they spent $6.5 billion, on WHAT? On advertising mostly. That's doubled in 12 years. The more money is spent, the more people come out and vote. Presidential elections attract more voters. Why? Because they get taken in, they think it's more important, more money is spent on getting into their thick skulls and telling them what to think.

2012 Presidential Race OpenSecrets

Obama spent $683,546,548 in 2012. Romney spent $433,281,516, who won? The Dems spent $1,107,114,702, the reps $1,238,097,161 related to the presidential race.

Money pours in from different sectors of society, all wanting a piece of the pie.

Banking on Becoming President OpenSecrets

2008, Obama spent $730 million to McCain's $333 million. You get your "message" out to people, they "listen".

2004 Bush spent $367,228,801, Kerry spent $328,479,245.

No doubt sales of Coca Cola, Pepsi, McDonald's etc all went up the more they spent on advertising.

Yes, People are going out and voting. They might as well send their pet sheep to vote, because that's all these people voting are. They're taken in by the advertising, they listen and hear what they want to hear, what they're told to hear and they do what they're told.

I'm not pretending that the world is one where money buys power. I'm saying govt should be run in a way to limit this. You say everyone can vote, then you say influence is there from big money.

But it could be different. The top I don't know how many govts are, when it comes to treating their people properly, have Proportional Representation. Not FPTP.

 

[frigidweirdo]

it's the way people vote that determines the system, not the system determining how people vote

I disagree. The US system is so strong armed controlled by the 2 main parties it would take a miracle to wake the people up.