Jump to content
CrazyBoards.org

Sign in to follow this  
IcePrincess88

The Next U.S President

The next U.S President  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do you think will be the next U.S President? And why?

    • Trump
      15
    • Clinton
      19
    • Rubio
      0
    • Sanders
      6
    • Cruz
      0
    • Bush
      0
    • Carson
      1
    • Christie
      0
    • Other
      3


Recommended Posts

I'll have to agree to disagree with you on that one.  It's purely because I want to get to 2020 that i'm anti-trump.  well not purely.  there are many, many more reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to imply that I'm voting for Trump because I'm not. I simply will not vote. I can't bring myself to vote for either candidate. My statement above was in the event I were forced to vote. Luckily no one is forcing me. I think candidates have to earn my vote. Trump is a buffoon and Hillary thinks she has it all zipped up and thought so from day 1. I don't get the feeling that either care about us, the people, at all.

However, I do think that if Hillary gets elected then it will be much harder to unseat her as an incumbent democrat by another democrat then it would be for a democrat (other than Hillary) to beat Trump in 2020. I'm fairly certain that Trump would be a one-term president once the novelty wore off and people saw him for who he really is.

So asking me to vote is like asking me whether I want arsenic or cyanide for breakfast. I'm saying neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jt07 said:

So asking me to vote is like asking me whether I want arsenic or cyanide for breakfast. I'm saying neither.

LOL  Great analogy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a friend had (I think has) a similar philosophy--that it's basically choosing between two evils this time around.  i'd still prefer to see people voting, but i understand that not everyone can accept both candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sister doesn't like Trump or Clinton so she's planning to vote libertarian. There's also a green party candidate. A person can also look up to see if his/her state allows write-in ballots and if so, who is registered as a write-in presidential candidate in the state or if registration is even required to be a write-in candidate. Or, if neither the green party, libertarian, democratic, republican, or write-in options are palatable, just leave the presidential part of the ballot blank but still vote on the rest of the ballot for other elected offices, judges, propositions, initiatives, etc. Voting for president is just one part of the ballot.

Edited by aquarian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true, and rumor has it that down ticket ballot options (I think that's what they are called) matter a lot more in this election.  As Clinton seems to be more solidly taking the lead (though all of it still makes me anxious until the damn election sorting out), both state and local representative options are going to be significant.  maybe the democrats will retake parts of congress?  (if democrat is your persuasion, others disagree)

i was going to say that i don't like elected judges, but then i realized you didn't specifically throw elected in front of that.  context clues make me think that's what you were referring to though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dancesintherain said:

true, and rumor has it that down ticket ballot options (I think that's what they are called) matter a lot more in this election.  As Clinton seems to be more solidly taking the lead (though all of it still makes me anxious until the damn election sorting out), both state and local representative options are going to be significant.  maybe the democrats will retake parts of congress?  (if democrat is your persuasion, others disagree)

i was going to say that i don't like elected judges, but then i realized you didn't specifically throw elected in front of that.  context clues make me think that's what you were referring to though. 

Regarding elected judges, I was mainly referring to when they put incumbent judges on the ballot in my state and ask if they should be kept in their positions. Apparently it's called a "retention election" or "judicial retention" according to https://ballotpedia.org/Retention_election. My dad was very into math (previously an actuary) and his method of dealing with that ballot question was to always vote to remove the judge because the judge will almost never be removed unless a huge majority of people voted that way. I forget his complete rationale (I'd have to ask my mom to find out but she uses the same rationale I believe).

There are elected judges in my state, which is weird IMO. And things like elected sheriffs, secretary of state, coroner (that's a weird one too; I don't like thinking of my local coroner as having a party affiliation), local dog catcher (just kidding about the local dog catcher). Sometimes there will be ballot measures about issues such as increasing the state minimum wage. Lots of important stuff.

One time I made the mistake of not going online to check what would be on the ballot before going to my polling place because it was a "boring" off-year election primary where basically there usually hardly any actual choices on the ballot. But then my mom and I got surprised because there was an election of trustees for the huge community college in my area (that I attended once and care about). I have a method for voting when I don't know the candidates and there are no party affiliations but I prefer to research all the candidates online (even community college board trustees) to check out their backgrounds and positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit, without additional research, that elected judges in general baffle my mind.  If you want someone who's apolitical--presumably the ideal--then you shouldn't have said person elected. 

I need to follow my own advice on the down-the-ballot people.  I know they can do a lot, depending on person and position, so i'll have to put some research into it.  fortunately, my state sends me a nice handy voting guide that lays out who is running for which office, so you can then look them up.  one thing my state does well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, uncomfortable thoughts said:

 

LOL  It is amazing what people think of to do/say about Clinton/Trump and then put it up on you tube.  I hope people to continue to do it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never liked Donald Trump but as this campaign has been unfolding I have found myself agreeing with a lot of the stuff he says. Maybe he's not always politically correct and to be honest political correctness is what is ruining free speech which is something I am really passionate about. American Campuses have become all stupid 'safe places' where whatever you say is offensive. You see a woman and you refer to her as a she you instantly become a 'bigot' because you guessed her gender. You can't say anything without being a "privileged bigot". Free speech is dead. In one of the universities a guy got crucified for wearing a trump hat and everyone shamed him and calling him racist, homophobic...you name it. No one wants to live in a country where you can't express yourself. 

I agree with most of Trump policies other than the right to bare arms (I'm english what do you expect) and a few others.I do think he is a brilliant campaigner as well.

The only doubts I have about Donald Trump is that he is not going to do those things that he is promising. I do beilive that he is going to win and I do hope my opinion of him will change when he's been in office for a while. If he does 'make america great again' I'll actually start liking him more. I still have doubts though considering how much money he has.

At the end of the day I beilive in democracy and in my opinion the progressive left are turning into fascists telling you what and what you can't say. At least here in Britain its not as bad.

Edited by The Right Honourable Jimmy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Right Honourable Jimmy said:

The only doubts I have about Donald Trump is that he is not going to do those things that he is promising.

One thing I have doubts of Trump is him having the authority to start chaos with nuclear weapons and bombs.  I'm afraid he'll do things on an impulsive whim (for whatever reason), when if he had thought about it more, he might not have done what he did (in terms of the nuclear weapons and bombs).  And there is no taking back his actions.  Once it is done, it is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, melissaw72 said:

One thing I have doubts of Trump is him having the authority to start chaos with nuclear weapons and bombs.  I'm afraid he'll do things on an impulsive whim (for whatever reason), when if he had thought about it more, he might not have done what he did (in terms of the nuclear weapons and bombs).  And there is no taking back his actions.  Once it is done, it is done.

Remember..just because you are POTUS that doesn't give you the power to do what you want but I can understand your worry.

Only if the US had a monarch (preferably a nice little christian lady) who had to approve every bill and any war declaration, the whole nuclear attack thing wouldn't be a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Right Honourable Jimmy said:

Remember..just because you are POTUS that doesn't give you the power to do what you want but I can understand your worry.

Only if the US had a monarch (preferably a nice little christian lady) who had to approve every bill and any war declaration, the whole nuclear attack thing wouldn't be a problem. 

Yes, being the POTUS gives you A LOT of power regarding the nuclear weapons (read link below):

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955

Quote

What would it mean to have Trump’s fingers on the nuclear button? We don't really know, but we do know this: In the atomic age, when decisions must be made very quickly, the presidency has evolved into something akin to a nuclear monarchy. With a single phone call, the commander in chief has virtually unlimited power to rain down nuclear weapons on any adversarial regime and country at any time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Right Honourable Jimmy said:

Remember..just because you are POTUS that doesn't give you the power to do what you want but I can understand your worry.

Sorry but the president's role as commander-in-chief does give the president the power to do whatever he wants with the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Made of Glass said:

Actually, everything is controlled by Congress.  The president can give the order, but Congress must approve it.

this,

According to US law if 2/3 of the senate or house of representatives disagree with what the president does then his way don't matter. For example if the senate or house of representatives proposes a bill to stop Trump from causing a nuclear attack to X country..he can VETO the bill but the bill can pass if 2/3 of the senate or house of representatives agree with the bill that proposes to stop that attack.

The UK has a similar system but better

The beauty with the UK is also that after the house of commons approves something, the house of of lords have to approve it too, if they don't, it goes back to commons. If the house of commons approves it again then the bill is finally send for royal assent (the queen and she has to approve it, she always does though).

Maybe the US needs to be more like the UK although the US is similar in a way just not good enough.

Here is the difference 

US

how-does-a-bill-become-a-law_50290b41c99

UK

2000px-Legislative_procedure_uk.svg.png

It's also statistically unlikely that a president would do it on the heat of the moment if that's the other scenario we are talking about.

https://www.quora.com/If-the-US-President-at-the-spur-of-the-moment-decided-to-launch-a-nuclear-missile-as-a-first-strike-attack-could-anyone-stop-him

 

 

Edited by The Right Honourable Jimmy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Made of Glass said:

Actually, everything is controlled by Congress.  The president can give the order, but Congress must approve it.

Under the War Powers Act, the president needs to simply inform Congress. He does not need their approval. 

Look at all the times the president has initiated military action without Congress since World Ward II. The most Congress has done has passed non-binding resolution in support of military action. The last time Congress declared war was WWII.

If you don't think that the president, who carries the nuclear "football" with him everywhere he goes, can launch a nuclear attack without Congress then you are dreaming.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to jt's point - the whole logic is that the there needs to be a way to respond quickly in times of war. Given how quickly things pass through Congress (how long does it take to pass something? Closer to months than to hours or days) that doesn't really allow for the quick speed of warfare. So the President is chosen to make unilateral decisions. That means they can make decisions all on their own, and have them be carried out. That's why they are the top general of the Army (which is why it's important that the Army support the president. Otherwise you can end up with a coup d'état and very few people want that).

The fact that I'm in a whole different country, and know how the US government works, speaks to how much power and influence it has in the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...