2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
It's not apathy if you intentionally stay home because the only two parties (supposedly) you can choose from anoint a couple of turd sandwiches.

If you are in a particular demographic that skews toward a particular party, or if your state has you register as a party member, and you stay home because your party is banking on being the lesser of two evils, there's a statement there.

And I always enjoy when people say, "Well, of course I want a better candidate.... But until the party nominates one, I guess I'll have to vote for [corrupt screech owl or sweet potato with a corn silk toupee]."

And let's not get into the futility of voting for President if you happen not to live in a swing state.
I remember hearing that in some states primary voters are locked into voting for the party they registered with, in that case I could see not voting being the only available form of protest. But if I was a disenfranchised Republican I'd be way more interested in voting for Johnson, that way they can see how many conservative votes that they lost.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
Who cares?

I'm not trying to make a statement. I'm trying to do the right thing.
Doing nothing is no more the right thing than voting for one of the two lesser evils because the outcome will still be that one of the two will win the election. No votes equals no effect. A vote for either candidate equals to one or the other winning or losing.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,859
Doing nothing is no more the right thing than voting for one of the two lesser evils because the outcome will still be that one of the two will win the election. No votes equals no effect. A vote for either candidate equals to one or the other winning or losing.
I don't think there's any integrity or ethics in voting for someone that I don't even a little bit believe in.

And the candidates this year are even worse than that; not only do I not believe in either one, I think they are, to put it succinctly, dreadful in almost every way.

Why would I vote for that?

My only choice, if I have a shred of integrity, is a candidate who has no chance, or none of the above.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I don't think there's any integrity or ethics in voting for someone that I don't even a little bit believe in.

And the candidates this year are even worse than that; not only do I not believe in either one, I think they are, to put it succinctly, dreadful in almost every way.

Why would I vote for that?

My only choice, if I have a shred of integrity, is a candidate who has no chance, or none of the above.
I think people shit on 3rd party candidates too much. People who vote 3rd party are placing a price tag on their votes. Major parties are then incentivized to alter their platform, so they can gain that support.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,859
I think people shit on 3rd party candidates too much. People who vote 3rd party are placing a price tag on their votes. Major parties are then incentivized to alter their platform, so they can gain that support.
I've voted 3rd party twice, so it's not that I'm shitting on voting 3rd party.

I just don't love Johnson. He'd be better than the two majors though.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
I don't think there's any integrity or ethics in voting for someone that I don't even a little bit believe in.

And the candidates this year are even worse than that; not only do I not believe in either one, I think they are, to put it succinctly, dreadful in almost every way.

Why would I vote for that?

My only choice, if I have a shred of integrity, is a candidate who has no chance, or none of the above.
Not saying you should. I simply question whether not voting is any more effective or honorable than voting for a candidate or voting against a candidate.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220


 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Donald Trump said in an interview Thursday that he would support trying US citizens suspected of terrorism in military tribunals -- a controversial proposal that would likely be challenged as unconstitutional.

The Republican presidential nominee told the Miami Herald that he doesn't "at all" like the idea of trying terrorist suspects in the civilian court system, even though US citizens are constitutionally entitled to due process. He added that he would be "fine" with trying US citizens in military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay, the US naval base that is also home to a military prison housing captured terror suspects.
Trump addressed the Guantánamo Bay detention center, climate change and the Zika virus in a wide-ranging interview with the Miami Herald.
"Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don't like that at all. I don't like that at all," he told the Herald. "I would say they could be tried (in military commissions), that would be fine."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politi...016/index.html
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Showing up on time and wearing clean clothes get you an above minimum wage job?

Johnson is a bit of a loony toon.

 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,965
Showing up on time and wearing clean clothes get you an above minimum wage job?

Johnson is a bit of a loony toon.

He is right that the market should dictate wages but his explanation is very poor. The guy isn't perfect but at least the conclusions are mostly right.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Vegas CEO: I'm crossing the aisle to back Clinton
Jim Murren 3:18 a.m. EDT August 15, 2016
I'm a lifelong Republican and I've never made a public endorsement. But this was an easy call.


As a lifelong registered Republican, I’ve crossed the aisle only a few times in elections past, and almost never at the presidential level. Each time, it was a gut-wrenching decision.

But this year it’s an easy choice. I’m going to put my country ahead of my party by voting for Hillary Clinton — and by making my first-ever public endorsement of a presidential candidate. Here's why.

First, like every CEO I know, I’m in favor of strong economic growth and the policies that generate it. Trade has always been an essential component of any credible pro-growth economic plan. One candidate in the race has pledged to support trade agreements that will boost our economy and benefit American workers, while ensuring that our environment is protected. The other candidate seems determined to needlessly antagonize our allies and trading partners by pledging to tear up NAFTA and other hard-won trade agreements. One candidate works to create stability and certainty, qualities the market loves and rewards. The other operates erratically and unpredictably — qualities the market abhors and punishes.

International trade is central to the U.S. economy, and travel is a major component of America’s exports to the world. In fact, travel is the United States’ No. 1 service export, generating a $98 billion trade surplus last year.

In southern Nevada, where my company is headquartered, more than 42 million tourists visit every year. Foreign visitors make up 16% of the total. They stay longer and spend nearly twice as much as domestic travelers, creating vast economic benefits for our state and in turn the U.S. economy — more than $13 billion in spending each year.

Second, as the head of a company that competes globally in the gaming, hospitality and tourism industries, I know that diversity and inclusion are imperatives from the standpoint of both morality and business. Within the gaming sector, 45% of our industry’s employees are minorities and nearly half — 48% — are women. In my company, 66% of our workforce is ethnically diverse. Clinton will stand up for women and minorities as essential contributors to America’s economy.




Immigration is also tied to diversity and plays a key role in our industry. In fact, millions of immigrants find their first jobs in the gaming, hospitality and tourism industries — a record of which we are very proud. While both candidates will fight for a secure border, I believe Clinton is the only candidate who will continue to make America a welcoming home for legal immigrants from around the world.

Third, I believe a Clinton administration offers the best hope of achieving greater energy independence. This spring, the company I head announced our intention to leave the main energy grid. Instead of relying on power generated by burning fossil fuels, we’ll draw most of our energy from renewable sources available on the wholesale market. I know that Clinton will ensure continued progress by maintaining a Department of Energy that believes in the power of alternative energy sources and works in partnership with those who wish to minimize the impact on our environment.


Finally and on a more personal note, I believe that few presidential candidates are as prepared for the job as Clinton. I’ve come to this conclusion not because of her decades of experience as first lady, senator from New York and secretary of State. Rather, I speak from the personal experience of being with her in a room, working on issues in real time. Each time I have met with her to discuss complicated matters such as trade and energy policy, I have been incredibly impressed by her knowledge, command of the facts and solution-oriented approach.

One such meeting ultimately paved the way for the Travel Promotion Act, which helped create a coordinated strategy for the United States to market itself as the world’s premier travel destination. This was a pivotal policy achievement that continues to generate economic benefits across America.

There’s a reason why so many of America’s CEOs, including many longtime Republicans, will be switching sides in this election. We’re all looking for the candidate who will promote economic growth through greater trade; embrace diversity and inclusion as one of America’s greatest strengths; and advance policies that encourage energy independence and environmental protection. That’s why when I go into the voting booth in November, I will proudly pull the lever for Hillary Clinton.

Jim Murren is chairman and CEO of MGM Resorts International. The views expressed here are his own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom