How Will You Vote In The 2016 Presidential Election?

[ShawnChris13]

Picked Other because I prefer to let the process take it's natural course. Christie and Huntsman are both viable on the right as is Clinton on the left but all of them have some serious downsides that need to be put through the mill first. Whomever is left standing that is most likely to support We the People is the most likely person who will get my support. Right now I would vote for Bloomberg if he ran as an Independent for the simple reason that no one "owns" him and he did a credible job in NYC.

You watch too much mainstream news. All the people you named are the worst candidates in the history of presidential candidates.

Bloomberg!? The guy who wanted to keep pizza joints from delivering two liters with pizza? That alone makes me tear up a little. Such sad days when people would vote for candidates of such low caliber.

Please look into third party and read about people who actually want to protect people's RIGHTS. The thing government was intended to do. But if you'd rather support the Patriot Act and the NDAA and the National Resources Preparedness Act (an executive order, ahem) then go ahead. Because that's what you'll get with every candidate you named, if not drastically worse.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Picked Other because I prefer to let the process take it's natural course. Christie and Huntsman are both viable on the right as is Clinton on the left but all of them have some serious downsides that need to be put through the mill first. Whomever is left standing that is most likely to support We the People is the most likely person who will get my support. Right now I would vote for Bloomberg if he ran as an Independent for the simple reason that no one "owns" him and he did a credible job in NYC.

You watch too much mainstream news. All the people you named are the worst candidates in the history of presidential candidates.

Bloomberg!? The guy who wanted to keep pizza joints from delivering two liters with pizza? That alone makes me tear up a little. Such sad days when people would vote for candidates of such low caliber.

Please look into third party and read about people who actually want to protect people's RIGHTS. The thing government was intended to do. But if you'd rather support the Patriot Act and the NDAA and the National Resources Preparedness Act (an executive order, ahem) then go ahead. Because that's what you'll get with every candidate you named, if not drastically worse.

Coming from someone who cannot coherently explain why legal taxation is "theft" your opinion will be given all the consideration it is due!

 

[ShawnChris13]

Picked Other because I prefer to let the process take it's natural course. Christie and Huntsman are both viable on the right as is Clinton on the left but all of them have some serious downsides that need to be put through the mill first. Whomever is left standing that is most likely to support We the People is the most likely person who will get my support. Right now I would vote for Bloomberg if he ran as an Independent for the simple reason that no one "owns" him and he did a credible job in NYC.

You watch too much mainstream news. All the people you named are the worst candidates in the history of presidential candidates.



Bloomberg!? The guy who wanted to keep pizza joints from delivering two liters with pizza? That alone makes me tear up a little. Such sad days when people would vote for candidates of such low caliber.



Please look into third party and read about people who actually want to protect people's RIGHTS. The thing government was intended to do. But if you'd rather support the Patriot Act and the NDAA and the National Resources Preparedness Act (an executive order, ahem) then go ahead. Because that's what you'll get with every candidate you named, if not drastically worse.

Coming from someone who cannot coherently explain why legal taxation is "theft" your opinion will be given all the consideration it is due!

If by coherently, you mean simply, then here: government takes your money without you ever explicitly giving it permission. I believe when someone takes something and you never agreeing to it, it is then theft. Simple enough for you? Now go read a dictionary and learn how to keep up with the big kids.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You watch too much mainstream news. All the people you named are the worst candidates in the history of presidential candidates.



Bloomberg!? The guy who wanted to keep pizza joints from delivering two liters with pizza? That alone makes me tear up a little. Such sad days when people would vote for candidates of such low caliber.



Please look into third party and read about people who actually want to protect people's RIGHTS. The thing government was intended to do. But if you'd rather support the Patriot Act and the NDAA and the National Resources Preparedness Act (an executive order, ahem) then go ahead. Because that's what you'll get with every candidate you named, if not drastically worse.

Coming from someone who cannot coherently explain why legal taxation is "theft" your opinion will be given all the consideration it is due!

If by coherently, you mean simply, then here: government takes your money without you ever explicitly giving it permission. I believe when someone takes something and you never agreeing to it, it is then theft. Simple enough for you? Now go read a dictionary and learn how to keep up with the big kids.

Did the government give you EXPLICIT PERMISSION to breathe clean air, drink clean water, eat safe food, vote in elections and live in a society where there is law & order?

Of course you didn't because those are all part and parcel of what you INHERITED when you were born a citizen of the United States.

You TACITLY "gave permission" to the legal constitutional amendment to be taxed when you were the beneficiary of all of the above and much, much more.

You are free to renounce your citizenship and go and live elsewhere but as long as you are a citizen you are subject to the laws, duties and obligations that come with citizenship.

 

[ShawnChris13]

Coming from someone who cannot coherently explain why legal taxation is "theft" your opinion will be given all the consideration it is due!

If by coherently, you mean simply, then here: government takes your money without you ever explicitly giving it permission. I believe when someone takes something and you never agreeing to it, it is then theft. Simple enough for you? Now go read a dictionary and learn how to keep up with the big kids.

Did the government give you EXPLICIT PERMISSION to breathe clean air, drink clean water, eat safe food, vote in elections and live in a society where there is law & order?



Of course you didn't because those are all part and parcel of what you INHERITED when you were born a citizen of the United States.



You TACITLY "gave permission" to the legal constitutional amendment to be taxed when you were the beneficiary of all of the above and much, much more.



You are free to renounce your citizenship and go and live elsewhere but as long as you are a citizen you are subject to the laws, duties and obligations that come with citizenship.

That's the argument of a federalist. All those voting rights and inalienable safe food, clean air, and clean water are defined in the constitution as mine. Did the constitution say "everyone must pay for the right to happiness?" No. It did not. The beginning of this spat was income taxes, which are theft. They didn't start (oh no historical context I'll use small words!) until 1913. When was the country founded? There's a gap somewhere I think. Income taxes pay for greed, and allow congressman to be paid 174,000 a year and the president to go on $2 million dollar vacations. They're corrupt and they're thieves, every single one of them. And if you support them you're either greedy, corrupt, blind, or just plain stupid. To answer your question, yes, the government have me explicit permission to bd safe and free. Something called a Bill of Rights comes to mind.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Last time I voted was in elementary school for student representative.

I believe our government is fundamentally corrupt regardless of who's currently in power. Thus I can't participate by voting lest making myself a hypocrite. Until/Unless the basic system is changed so we actually have representatives representing their constiuents who make up the majority of their state's populations, and not corporations and wealthy donors who only make up an infintesimal percentage, the system itself is corrupt and only serving the minority-rich.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If by coherently, you mean simply, then here: government takes your money without you ever explicitly giving it permission. I believe when someone takes something and you never agreeing to it, it is then theft. Simple enough for you? Now go read a dictionary and learn how to keep up with the big kids.

Did the government give you EXPLICIT PERMISSION to breathe clean air, drink clean water, eat safe food, vote in elections and live in a society where there is law & order?



Of course you didn't because those are all part and parcel of what you INHERITED when you were born a citizen of the United States.



You TACITLY "gave permission" to the legal constitutional amendment to be taxed when you were the beneficiary of all of the above and much, much more.



You are free to renounce your citizenship and go and live elsewhere but as long as you are a citizen you are subject to the laws, duties and obligations that come with citizenship.

That's the argument of a federalist. All those voting rights and inalienable safe food, clean air, and clean water are defined in the constitution as mine. Did the constitution say "everyone must pay for the right to happiness?" No. It did not. The beginning of this spat was income taxes, which are theft. They didn't start (oh no historical context I'll use small words!) until 1913. When was the country founded? There's a gap somewhere I think. Income taxes pay for greed, and allow congressman to be paid 174,000 a year and the president to go on $2 million dollar vacations. They're corrupt and they're thieves, every single one of them. And if you support them you're either greedy, corrupt, blind, or just plain stupid. To answer your question, yes, the government have me explicit permission to bd safe and free. Something called a Bill of Rights comes to mind.

Your ignorance of the Constitution is all too obvious. From the outset the government was granted the power to levy taxes. The form of that taxation has evolved as has society. The weakness of your position stems from trying to pretend that if it wasn't explicitly stated then it can't be constitutional. That falls apart because the ability to amend the Constitution was included from the outset and one of those amendments just happens to be income taxes so there is no "gap" and there is no "theft" unless you can prove that everyone who ratified that amendment was "forced" to do so.

As far as your mindless little rant about corruption goes that is merely a deflection and does not grant you the right to break the law by not paying taxes. There is no "right" to be "safe and free" from your legal obligation to pay taxes.

 

[Redfish]

The GOP nominates Rand Paul, Mike Lee or maybe Scott Walker, and I might consider voting for them.

Nominate another squshy RINO used car salesman like Romney, and it'll probably be the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate, if I don't abstain altogether.

Thats fine and thats your right. But remember, that kind of thinking is why obama got a second term.

YOU helped reelect obama, are you happy about that?

 

[rightwinger]

Last time I voted was in elementary school for student representative.

I believe our government is fundamentally corrupt regardless of who's currently in power. Thus I can't participate by voting lest making myself a hypocrite. Until/Unless the basic system is changed so we actually have representatives representing their constiuents who make up the majority of their state's populations, and not corporations and wealthy donors who only make up an infintesimal percentage, the system itself is corrupt and only serving the minority-rich.

So who cares what you think?

You don't count

 

[Harry Dresden]

The GOP nominates Rand Paul, Mike Lee or maybe Scott Walker, and I might consider voting for them.

Nominate another squshy RINO used car salesman like Romney, and it'll probably be the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate, if I don't abstain altogether.

Thats fine and thats your right. But remember, that kind of thinking is why obama got a second term.

YOU helped reelect obama, are you happy about that?

bull....if Romney could not beat out Obama....thats on him....if he could not get non-aligned people to vote for him....thats his fault.....maybe if the Republicans would have thrown up at least a C candidate things might have been different.....

 

[rightwinger]

The GOP nominates Rand Paul, Mike Lee or maybe Scott Walker, and I might consider voting for them.

Nominate another squshy RINO used car salesman like Romney, and it'll probably be the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate, if I don't abstain altogether.

Thats fine and thats your right. But remember, that kind of thinking is why obama got a second term.

YOU helped reelect obama, are you happy about that?

bull....if Romney could not beat out Obama....thats on him....if he could not get non-aligned people to vote for him....thats his fault.....maybe if the Republicans would have thrown up at least a C candidate things might have been different.....

Romney was a B candidate. The best the Republicans had

Most of the best candidates....Bush, Christie
Knew better than to run against Obama

2016 is the best chance Republicans have. If they dont win, it might be 20 years before they win again

 

[JWBooth]

The GOP nominates Rand Paul, Mike Lee or maybe Scott Walker, and I might consider voting for them.

Nominate another squshy RINO used car salesman like Romney, and it'll probably be the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate, if I don't abstain altogether.

Thats fine and thats your right. But remember, that kind of thinking is why obama got a second term.

YOU helped reelect obama, are you happy about that?

bull....if Romney could not beat out Obama....thats on him....if he could not get non-aligned people to vote for him....thats his fault.....maybe if the Republicans would have thrown up at least a C candidate things might have been different.....

This

 

[HelenaHandbag]

thats fine and thats your right. But remember, that kind of thinking is why obama got a second term.

You helped reelect obama, are you happy about that?

bull....if romney could not beat out obama....thats on him....if he could not get non-aligned people to vote for him....thats his fault.....maybe if the republicans would have thrown up at least a c candidate things might have been different.....

this

x2

 

[Harry Dresden]

Thats fine and thats your right. But remember, that kind of thinking is why obama got a second term.

YOU helped reelect obama, are you happy about that?

bull....if Romney could not beat out Obama....thats on him....if he could not get non-aligned people to vote for him....thats his fault.....maybe if the Republicans would have thrown up at least a C candidate things might have been different.....

Romney was a B candidate. The best the Republicans had

Most of the best candidates....Bush, Christie
Knew better than to run against Obama

2016 is the best chance Republicans have. If they dont win, it might be 20 years before they win again

if you say so RW.....

 

[rightwinger]

bull....if Romney could not beat out Obama....thats on him....if he could not get non-aligned people to vote for him....thats his fault.....maybe if the Republicans would have thrown up at least a C candidate things might have been different.....

Romney was a B candidate. The best the Republicans had

Most of the best candidates....Bush, Christie
Knew better than to run against Obama

2016 is the best chance Republicans have. If they dont win, it might be 20 years before they win again

if you say so RW.....

Romney was a decent candidate and a decent man

By far, the best Republicans had to offer. Just incapable of beating Obama

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. As America makes another spiral down the shitter before we hear the whoosh, we have total idiots extolling the merits of Obama, damn America is fucking full of fools!
2. People claim Obama will be head in dictator before next election.
3. I will not be surprised if he tries it.
4. If he does you can bet your last dollar a revolution will take place within 3 hours.
5. I vote for the sane party, GOP.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[GHook93]

So are there any leftists here that have came to their senses and soured on obama and the socialist, leftist agenda? Will you vote for more massive, big government take overs, more of your rights lost to the NSA, HHS, Homeland Security, bills that are never read but voted into law, etc, by the democrats? Are you better off now than you were when obama and his radical leftist squad took office?

Or will you vote for a conservative republican to fix the damage that's been done to the country at the hands of the radical left?

President: Depends on the candidate. If it Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Rubio or Herman Cain, I will not only vote for them and I will donate to their campaign. Otherwise, I usually go Libertarian, because the Presidential vote doesn't matter in IL.

Governor (which is next year): Bruce Rauner. Not only does this guy have my vote, I have and will continue to donate to his campaign.

State Senate: Anyone who runs against Mike Noland. Fucking foolish liberal douche bag. What people forget is the State Reps are many times more important to our daily lives than the Fed reps.

State House: I think I m sticking with Crespo (a Democrat). I like the guy and he seeks lower property taxes. However, if there is even a semi-decent Republican I will probably got that way.

IL Senate: You could put Hitler up and I would vote for him over Durbin!!! Durbin is a top 5 worst member of congress.

Does that break it down for you?

 

[Spoonman]

Thats fine and thats your right. But remember, that kind of thinking is why obama got a second term.

YOU helped reelect obama, are you happy about that?

bull....if Romney could not beat out Obama....thats on him....if he could not get non-aligned people to vote for him....thats his fault.....maybe if the Republicans would have thrown up at least a C candidate things might have been different.....

Romney was a B candidate. The best the Republicans had

Most of the best candidates....Bush, Christie
Knew better than to run against Obama

2016 is the best chance Republicans have. If they dont win, it might be 20 years before they win again

And yet a B candidate would have outperformed your A candidate by miles.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Romney was a B candidate. The best the Republicans had

Most of the best candidates....Bush, Christie
Knew better than to run against Obama

2016 is the best chance Republicans have. If they dont win, it might be 20 years before they win again

if you say so RW.....

Romney was a decent candidate and a decent man

By far, the best Republicans had to offer. Just incapable of beating Obama

the best both sides have to offer dont want no part of it.....look how those running get treated by both sides and the media....the A guys stay home....we get the D people now....we have 400 of them in Washington....

 

[Moonglow]

How Will You Vote In The 2016 Presidential Election?

With my right hand.