2016 Presidential Horse Race

[kmoose]

Sure. That's fair.

I'm really hoping that some third party savior comes to fruition, but i'm slowly losing that hope. So I have to come to the decision of which one of these total buffoons I will vote for, because as I have said before, not voting is voting by proxy. So I won't be a bystander and act like I didn't take part, because taking part in the process is unavoidable.

So I ask myself, "Self... which one of these assholes will leave the darkest shitstain on the history books?". I think that answer is pretty clear. Hilldog is a manipulate, lying, selfish, horrid woman... but she is a politician. She understands what the Presidency means and the role is her endgame. The Presidency isn't the endgame for Trump. I think he would massively abuse executive power, push the Supreme Court to their limits, increase the role of the Federal Government (the irony of him being a Republican) and subsequently give a voice to the worst part of this country.

I honestly believe that Trump is a tyrant. He doesn't want to be the President, he wants to rule the country. There is a distinct difference and I don't trust a man that is so blatantly taking advantage of a situation in order to steal our country. He has always wanted it all, posing as a Republican gives him that opportunity.

So in short... I will vote for Hillary and just know that she will probably be status-quo or a little bit worse. But hopefully she won't be re-elected and won't cause longterm damage.

That's unfortunate. Not the "no vote" for Trump, but the vote for Clinton. That shrew will sell this country's soul to make a buck for herself and her philandering husband. She will completely obliterate what little faith the American people have left in the Federal Government. I'm not voting for either one of them. I'll vote for some write in. If a few hundred thousand people did that, I think it would give some Independent candidate a real shot at the next election.

 

[woolybug25]

That's unfortunate. Not the "no vote" for Trump, but the vote for Clinton. That shrew will sell this country's soul to make a buck for herself and her philandering husband. She will completely obliterate what little faith the American people have left in the Federal Government. I'm not voting for either one of them. I'll vote for some write in. If a few hundred thousand people did that, I think it would give some Independent candidate a real shot at the next election.

You mean pretty much what every President has done during my lifetime? Ha.

It's not like she is going to sell nukes to North Korea or anything. She will be terrible in both policy and action, but she isn't going to sail our country down the river. I truly believe that Trump is capable of that. I just see Clinton making a disgrace of herself, not our future. The sad truth is that the American people have already lost their faith in federal government. How do you think we got to this point to begin with?

 

[kmoose]

C'mon man... he supported Hilldog more than any other politician in both money and friendship. The Clintons attended his flipping wedding for crying out loud. He donated over 10 separate occasions to the Clintons. He has supported Democrats almost exclusively for his entire life. He hasn't been donating to both sides, he has almost exclusively donated to Democrats.

I just wanted to point out that this is not quite accurate:

From Donald Trump's Donations to Democrats - Patriot Update

In all, Trump has contributed to 96 candidates running for federal political office since the 1990 election cycle, the Center finds. Only 48 of the recipients — exactly half — were Republicans at the time they received their contribution, including ex-Gov. Charlie Crist (I-Fla.) and ex-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who both of whom received their Trump contributions as Republicans.

Since the 1990 election cycle, the top 10 recipients of Trump’s political contributions number six Democrats and four Republicans. Embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was censured last year by his U.S. House colleagues, has received the most Trump money, totaling $24,750. The most recent contribution from Trump to Rangel was a $10,000 gift during the 2006 election cycle.

 

[ulukinatme]

That's unfortunate. Not the "no vote" for Trump, but the vote for Clinton. That shrew will sell this country's soul to make a buck for herself and her philandering husband. She will completely obliterate what little faith the American people have left in the Federal Government. I'm not voting for either one of them. I'll vote for some write in. If a few hundred thousand people did that, I think it would give some Independent candidate a real shot at the next election.

I know who we should all vote for now. It came to me in a vision after earlier posts a few pages back. I said I would support Trump/Triumph, but what if...

 

[NDinL.A.]

Trump supported everyone on both sides of the aisle, he supported anyone that would be able to turn around and pat his back down the road.

Again you're making it seem like everyone here has been pro Trump through the primaries and think he's an awesome candidate. We just hate Hillary that much more.

No, just knocks. Follow his pattern. He admits he's a true Trump sheep and says he likes to troll people in true Trumponian fashion. He's just not very good at it.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Good on you for stepping up and making space in your home for a couple of the Syrian refugees. Prove us all wrong, be the hero we need.

Like I said Gattica, he's just not very good at it. More proof above.

 

[GATTACA!]

Or you could have not made him the candidate in the first place.

Honest question... is there any person you wouldn't vote for if they were the Republican nominee? Because every post you have made over the last couple pages could be summed up by, "but...but....but.... he's the Republican nominee".

As Hollywood said many times before, it will be pretty funny when you guys realize that you sat around for a couple years making excuses, generalizing and ignoring the fact that you are being played. You are drinking the poison given to you by the snake himself.

Idc about someone being the republican nominee. Trump certainly wasn't my first choice on the republican side. Actually he was probably second to last, slightly ahead of Cruz. Cruz is such a creepy slimeball I can barely look at him.

I would probably begrudgingly vote for Bernie over Trump. I disagree with almost all of his policies, but he seems genuine and like he actually wants what's best for the country. He's also not a crazy person, or at least a much different brand than Trump. I would also be happy to vote for O'Malley had he gotten the nomination.

My vote for Trump will be a vote against Hillary more than anything.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Idc about someone being the republican nominee. Trump certainly wasn't my first choice on the republican side. Actually he was probably second to last, slightly ahead of Cruz. Cruz is such a creepy slimeball I can barely look at him.

I would probably begrudgingly vote for Bernie over Trump. I disagree with almost all of his policies, but he seems genuine and like he actually wants what's best for the country. He's also not a crazy person, or at least a much different brand than Trump. I would also be happy to vote for O'Malley had he gotten the nomination.

My vote for Trump will be a vote against Hillary more than anything.

I get every single word of what you are saying (although the thought of Bernie literally burning my money makes me want to vomit), but what I don't get is why you defend Trump so much. For example, saying the only time he said something sexist was against Rosie, when he has a lonnnng list of derogatory comments towards women, in interviews, in his own books, and in depositions. I get ripping Clinton, but I don't get defending a guy you admit you can't stand.

In other news, Mark Cuban was interviewed last night on the topic of Trump and have him a verbal beat down - not on his character but on his policies, or lackthereof. It was beautiful. His two main points were that Trump's economic viewpoint of isolationism and trade wars would cripple the economy, and that Trump has not evolved at all and still has no depth to his policies. Cuban backed Trump when he first ran, but now has completely switched because Trump has failed to show a willingness to learn more about all of these foreign and domestic policies that he must master, and his website reflects a lack of depth to all his policy positions.

About a month ago I told my wife that Mark Cuban was the outisder we needed to shake up Washington, but instead we got Trump. Hearing him speak last, he'd have my vote over Trump in a heartbeat (but he shot down any idea of a 3rd party run). Oh well.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I get every single word of what you are saying (although the thought of Bernie literally burning my money makes me want to vomit), but what I don't get is why you defend Trump so much. For example, saying the only time he said something sexist was against Rosie, when he has a lonnnng list of derogatory comments towards women, in interviews, in his own books, and in depositions. I get ripping Clinton, but I don't get defending a guy you admit you can't stand.

In other news, Mark Cuban was interviewed last night on the topic of Trump and have him a verbal beat down - not on his character but on his policies, or lackthereof. It was beautiful. His two main points were that Trump's economic viewpoint of isolationism and trade wars would cripple the economy, and that Trump has not evolved at all and still has no depth to his policies. Cuban backed Trump when he first ran, but now has completely switched because Trump has failed to show a willingness to learn more about all of these foreign and domestic policies that he must master, and his website reflects a lack of depth to all his policy positions.

About a month ago I told my wife that Mark Cuban was the outisder we needed to shake up Washington, but instead we got Trump. Hearing him speak last, he'd have my vote over Trump in a heartbeat (but he shot down any idea of a 3rd party run). Oh well.

I know some of you like to pretend you get comprehension. What you fail to see is its NOT defending Trump, is defending how absurd you guys overreact to every little thing-in most cases ironically as you use harsher language then Trump himself. Its comical mostly and a lil sad.

Also the whole Trump attack I compare to the way republicans(media mostly) went after Obama basically guaranteeing Obamas win. I still cant get the image of the old lady getting up and asking McCain what hes going to do to stop the terrorist from winning election(not exact wording but close), and lol at cains face he had to know he was done for at that moment. I was with ev1 saying lol haters of Obama are racist, tho he did basically turn into a pandering joke. its basically why I think Trump wins. bah was gonna say more ppl wouldn't read but gotta go

 

[Irish#1]

Sure. That's fair.

I'm really hoping that some third party savior comes to fruition, but i'm slowly losing that hope. So I have to come to the decision of which one of these total buffoons I will vote for, because as I have said before, not voting is voting by proxy. So I won't be a bystander and act like I didn't take part, because taking part in the process is unavoidable.

So I ask myself, "Self... which one of these assholes will leave the darkest shitstain on the history books?". I think that answer is pretty clear. Hilldog is a manipulate, lying, selfish, horrid woman... but she is a politician. She understands what the Presidency means and the role is her endgame. The Presidency isn't the endgame for Trump. I think he would massively abuse executive power, push the Supreme Court to their limits, increase the role of the Federal Government (the irony of him being a Republican) and subsequently give a voice to the worst part of this country.

I honestly believe that Trump is a tyrant. He doesn't want to be the President, he wants to rule the country. There is a distinct difference and I don't trust a man that is so blatantly taking advantage of a situation in order to steal our country. He has always wanted it all, posing as a Republican gives him that opportunity.

So in short... I will vote for Hillary and just know that she will probably be status-quo or a little bit worse. But hopefully she won't be re-elected and won't cause longterm damage.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Trump has said he will get more specific about policies once the conventions are over. However, I've said this before and I'll say it again. If elected, Trump isn't going to have the impact some think he will. Congress will keep him in check quite nicely. His own party is against him so getting anything passed would be a major hurdle. I think his ultimate goal isn't to rule the country as much as it is to shake things up and get both parties to rethink how they have conducted business over the years. JMO.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Trump has said he will get more specific about policies once the conventions are over. However, I've said this before and I'll say it again. If elected, Trump isn't going to have the impact some think he will. Congress will keep him in check quite nicely. His own party is against him so getting anything passed would be a major hurdle. I think his ultimate goal isn't to rule the country as much as it is to shake things up and get both parties to rethink how they have conducted business over the years. JMO.

The big hurdle The legislative branch has to overcome is their well earned moniker as the do-nothing Congress. While they have demonstrated their ability to block policies the president, I think the appetite for this sort of behavior is going to be fevorishly challenged during this election by voters across the country.

So, that will clear a path for whomever becomes president to get things done. Congress will block the next president's agenda at their own peril, and fear of losing the next race has historically been the primary motivator for them. In this political climate, do we want an impulsive, shoot from the hip, potentially world- alienating president, or one who is adept at the complexities of how the government functions in the world and domestically? I choose the devil we know over the one who has not offered a single nuanced position since the primaries began, has dramatically shifted positions on numerous issues, and who has the potential to do irreperable harm to our reputation in the world and our economy.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I know some of you like to pretend you get comprehension. What you fail to see is its NOT defending Trump, is defending how absurd you guys overreact to every little thing-in most cases ironically as you use harsher language then Trump himself. Its comical mostly and a lil sad.

Also the whole Trump attack I compare to the way republicans(media mostly) went after Obama basically guaranteeing Obamas win. I still cant get the image of the old lady getting up and asking McCain what hes going to do to stop the terrorist from winning election(not exact wording but close), and lol at cains face he had to know he was done for at that moment. I was with ev1 saying lol haters of Obama are racist, tho he did basically turn into a pandering joke. its basically why I think Trump wins. bah was gonna say more ppl wouldn't read but gotta go

She called Obama an Arab. That was fear that was stoked partially by Donald Trump, the king birther. Remember that he claimed to have sent people to Hawaii to find Obama's roots and the stuff they were finding was unbelievable. Trump also said that he might release his tax returns if Obama released his birth certificate. Only one of those things has happened.

 

[Irish#1]

The big hurdle The legislative branch has to overcome is their well earned moniker as the do-nothing Congress. While they have demonstrated their ability to block policies the president, I think the appetite for this sort of behavior is going to be fevorishly challenged during this election by voters across the country.

So, that will clear a path for whomever becomes president to get things done. Congress will block the next president's agenda at their own peril, and fear of losing the next race has historically been the primary motivator for them. In this political climate, do we want an impulsive, shoot from the hip, potentially world- alienating president, or one who is adept at the complexities of how the government functions in the world and domestically? I choose the devil we know over the one who has not offered a single nuanced position since the primaries began, has dramatically shifted positions on numerous issues, and who has the potential to do irreperable harm to our reputation in the world and our economy.

As I mentioned, Trump said he would supply specifics once the conventions were over. Maybe he will or maybe he won't, IDK. While Trump doesn't have the political background, he's smart enough to surround himself with those that do. So the question is, status quo with Hillary or try something new with Trump?

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

She called Obama an Arab. That was fear that was stoked partially by Donald Trump, the king birther. Remember that he claimed to have sent people to Hawaii to find Obama's roots and the stuff they were finding was unbelievable. Trump also said that he might release his tax returns if Obama released his birth certificate. Only one of those things has happened.

Really only Arab? My memory is terrorist, but I'll take your word on it. To my point however you just blamed Trump for that lol. I personally don't give a shit about his taxes or what pandering words Hillary said in speeches that people paid her a lot of money for. I don't get the hard on Bernie has for that. Unrelated Bernie's wife apparently is getting a college closed from her financial decisions

 

[IrishJayhawk]

As I mentioned, Trump said he would supply specifics once the conventions were over. Maybe he will or maybe he won't, IDK. While Trump doesn't have the political background, he's smart enough to surround himself with those that do. So the question is, status quo with Hillary or try something new with Trump?

People are making Hillary seem like she's worse than status quo. I don't get that. She has a record of being a left of center pragmatist. Some say pragmatist is a euphemism for "flip flopper." Okay. I just see her as a rather typical, establishment Democrat...in the mold of a John Kerry, Al Gore, or Bill Clinton. You don't have to like those people or their politics, but they're all reasonable people, like Jeb Bush, Kasich, and some others in the Republican primary were. Trump is not.

As conservative commentator PJ O'Rourke said when endorsing Hillary..."She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."

 

[connor_in]

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Really only Arab? My memory is terrorist, but I'll take your word on it. To my point however you just blamed Trump for that lol. I personally don't give a shit about his taxes or what pandering words Hillary said in speeches that people paid her a lot of money for. I don't get the hard on Bernie has for that. Unrelated Bernie's wife apparently is getting a college closed from her financial decisions

She said that she couldn't trust him because he's an Arab.

And Trump was very public about questioning whether Obama was an American or not. That's not revisionist history. That's history.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Really only Arab? My memory is terrorist, but I'll take your word on it. To my point however you just blamed Trump for that lol. I personally don't give a shit about his taxes or what pandering words Hillary said in speeches that people paid her a lot of money for. I don't get the hard on Bernie has for that. Unrelated Bernie's wife apparently is getting a college closed from her financial decisions

But several questions at a press conference held by the school’s president and dean elicited surprising replies. Asked whether Jane Sanders was to blame for the closure, President Carol Moore and Dean Coralee Holm declined to answer, even as they acknowledged that that the college’s press release, in naming the land purchase as the reason for the closure, implicitly pointed a finger in her direction. Smith and Holm also declined to comment on whether there was a federal investigation into the college, or whether the FBI or other authorities had interviewed faculty, staff, or administrators, or if they’d sent any subpoenas. Those “no comments” may raise eyebrows, since it’s generally assumed that if the answer was no, administrators would simply have said so.

A spokesman for Bernie Sanders’s campaign said the campaign would not be commenting on Burlington College’s closure. Jane Sanders could not immediately be reached for comment.

Vermont's Burlington College, Where Jane Sanders Was President, Will Close - The Atlantic

It gets worse. There was a request to investigate bank fraud (link below). Essentially, his wife made claims that she had $2.27m in fundraising commitments to help secure financing of the loan. The loans came from People's United Bank and the local Catholic diocese. The diocese was the original land owner and was facing financial difficulty and needed to sell the land to raise cash. The diocese agreed to take lower debt priority than the bank for a few reasons, one of which was the fundraising commitments. Just a year after the transaction, the college had raised a scant $280k versus the $1.2m it said it had received from the $2.27m commitments. The diocese ended up taking a a $2m bath on the loan.

As we know, Ms. Sanders would end up resigning and parting with a $200k severance package. Of course, this was during the same time period the college missed collecting their commitments by $1m.

http://blackpearl.wcax.com/documents/TOENSING.pdf

 

[BleedBlueGold]

As I mentioned, Trump said he would supply specifics once the conventions were over. Maybe he will or maybe he won't, IDK. While Trump doesn't have the political background, he's smart enough to surround himself with those that do. So the question is, status quo with Hillary or try something new with Trump?

Let me point out that one of the reasons Bernie has been attacked constantly is for "not being specific enough" even though he's been one of the only candidates to actually give detailed information about his policies. I'm not saying said policies are right or wrong. I'm just saying he got attacked for not being specific, meanwhile Trump and Clinton have flown under the radar in that regard. It's ridiculous and a hatchet job by the media to play these types of games. I don't see how any Trump supporter can defend him in the manner you are in this post. Candidates shouldn't be given a pass for not being specific. And you shouldn't assume after the primaries, he'll magically have all of this information to bless upon us. He's been pandering and flip-flopping way too much to have any idea what he'll actually do once in office.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Vermont's Burlington College, Where Jane Sanders Was President, Will Close - The Atlantic

It gets worse. There was a request to investigate bank fraud (link below). Essentially, his wife made claims that she had $2.27m in fundraising commitments to help secure financing of the loan. The loans came from People's United Bank and the local Catholic diocese. The diocese was the original land owner and was facing financial difficulty and needed to sell the land to raise cash. The diocese agreed to take lower debt priority than the bank for a few reasons, one of which was the fundraising commitments. Just a year after the transaction, the college had raised a scant $280k versus the $1.2m it said it had received from the $2.27m commitments. The diocese ended up taking a a $2m bath on the loan.

As we know, Ms. Sanders would end up resigning and parting with a $200k severance package. Of course, this was during the same time period the college missed collecting their commitments by $1m.

http://blackpearl.wcax.com/documents/TOENSING.pdf

Bernie isn't going to win...but this is bad for his whole message if true. One of the best things he has going for him is honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. He's the only candidate with positive likeable ratings.

Regarding HRC's speech transcripts, there are some journalists who claim to have them and are waiting to drop them at a more opportune moment (the general). It could be just a rumor, but one of the sites I came across (I'll try and find the link) lists direct quotes from people who attended some of these speeches and they admit that she's completely lying to the public about how she feels about Wall Street and what she wants to do with the big banks and corporations. It shouldn't surprise anyone....but that's why Bernie obsesses over it so people can learn the truth that she's a corporate loving centrist who isn't going to change a thing once in office.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Bernie isn't going to win...but this is bad for his whole message if true. One of the best things he has going for him is honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. He's the only candidate with positive likeable ratings.

Regarding HRC's speech transcripts, there are some journalists who claim to have them and are waiting to drop them at a more opportune moment (the general). It could be just a rumor, but one of the sites I came across (I'll try and find the link) lists direct quotes from people who attended some of these speeches and they admit that she's completely lying to the public about how she feels about Wall Street and what she wants to do with the big banks and corporations. It shouldn't surprise anyone....but that's why Bernie obsesses over it so people can learn the truth that she's a corporate loving centrist who isn't going to change a thing once in office.

I believe HRC would embrace Wall Street......after all, that is same group that had donated millions upon millions to her foundation and paid her and Billy $8m in speaking fees over the years. What is interesting about this election is that at this point, you have 3 candidates....1) the slimy establishment politician 2) the wacko outsider 3) the naive dreamer. None of the three, IMO, are good for the country. Sure, each person may have one quality or many qualities that are appealing. But each one has serious flaws that I am not exactly thrilled about. Heads we lose, tails we lose.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I believe HRC would embrace Wall Street......after all, that is same group that had donated millions upon millions to her foundation and paid her and Billy $8m in speaking fees over the years. What is interesting about this election is that at this point, you have 3 candidates....1) the slimy establishment politician 2) the wacko outsider 3) the naive dreamer. None of the three, IMO, are good for the country. Sure, each person may have one quality or many qualities that are appealing. But each one has serious flaws that I am not exactly thrilled about. Heads we lose, tails we lose.

I agree, but if you had to choose one, knowing that none of which will be able to do everything they claim...which one do you choose? For me it was simple, Bernie, while a dreamer and an "upper of my taxes," is still the better choice of the three. I can find personal common ground with all three. But with Trump and Clinton, I just see more damage being done than repair. People like to say Clinton is more of the same and won't do irreparable damage. Maybe they're right. But for me "more of the same" may actually lead to things getting worse, especially for the middle class and for foreign policy. If you think this election cycle was crazy, imagine another eight years of this "status quo" middle finger to the middle class, more war agenda that she'll inevitably bring to her presidency.

 

[IrishLax]

1. Clinton - keeps things corrupt and running how they are. Generally preserves the status quo, possibly sells out America some for her own gain. Regardless, I keep living my life, which is going just fine.
2. ...
Not Electable: Trump - crazy AND likely wrecks the economy.
OR Bernie - crazy AND costs me tens of thousands of dollars a year in extra taxes AND he's a staunch supporter of "PC culture."

 

[BleedBlueGold]

1. Clinton - keeps things corrupt and running how they are. Generally preserves the status quo, possibly sells out America some for her own gain. Regardless, I keep living my life, which is going just fine.
2. ...
Not Electable: Trump - crazy AND likely wrecks the economy.
OR Bernie - crazy AND costs me tens of thousands of dollars a year in extra taxes AND he's a staunch supporter of "PC culture."

I did this calculation for my personal taxes:

Last year I paid around $15,000 in total taxes. Bernie's plan estimates me to owe about double that. YIKES! BUT what no one wants to consider are healthcare savings...my wife and I pay $20,000 a year in premiums and deductibles (not including Rx drugs). So if Bernie increases my taxes by $15,000 but I get a healthcare savings of $20,000....I actually come out ahead by $5,000.

*Yes, I know that's hypothetical and I also know that it's only if single-payer healthcare gets passed. Paying that much in taxes without the healthcare benefit would be absurd and I would be totally against that. I also understand that everyone will not see those kinds of savings and some will even come out in the red. I get that. But this is just food for thought.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I agree, but if you had to choose one, knowing that none of which will be able to do everything they claim...which one do you choose? For me it was simple, Bernie, while a dreamer and an "upper of my taxes," is still the better choice of the three. I can find personal common ground with all three. But with Trump and Clinton, I just see more damage being done than repair. People like to say Clinton is more of the same and won't do irreparable damage. Maybe they're right. But for me "more of the same" may actually lead to things getting worse, especially for the middle class and for foreign policy. If you think this election cycle was crazy, imagine another eight years of this "status quo" middle finger to the middle class, more war agenda that she'll inevitably bring to her presidency.

My personal opinion is that we need to shake up the establishment in a meaningful way to get this country moving again and I think Clinton would only prolong the problems (like you). That leaves Sanders and Trump.

The debate on Sanders is interesting for me. On one hand, you can argue that he would never get anything though Congress. However, as we have seen in the previous administrations, there is an uncomfortable use of, and acceptance of, Executive Orders. I personally think it is much harder to take things away in politics than it is to give things. It's a risk that weighs for me. I think both he and Trump (if you believe Trump) would have damaging policies to economic growth, but I think Sanders would be worse. I say this under my assumption that Trump is saying things to win and would be more moderate than what he has portrayed thus far.

In the end, I don't think I can say I support any of them and frankly, my state is not one that is a "battleground" state so I am seriously considering not voting or voting 3rd party no matter who it is.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

My personal opinion is that we need to shake up the establishment in a meaningful way to get this country moving again and I think Clinton would only prolong the problems (like you). That leaves Sanders and Trump.

The debate on Sanders is interesting for me. On one hand, you can argue that he would never get anything though Congress. However, as we have seen in the previous administrations, there is an uncomfortable use of, and acceptance of, Executive Orders. I personally think it is much harder to take things away in politics than it is to give things. It's a risk that weighs for me. I think both he and Trump (if you believe Trump) would have damaging policies to economic growth, but I think Sanders would be worse. I say this under my assumption that Trump is saying things to win and would be more moderate than what he has portrayed thus far.

In the end, I don't think I can say I support any of them and frankly, my state is not one that is a "battleground" state so I am seriously considering not voting or voting 3rd party no matter who it is.

Just out of curiosity, which Sander's policies do you feel are damaging to the economy? Minimum Wage is a biggie. I'll concede that because I agree with the conservative mindset here. I think it should be increased somewhat, but also feel it should be handled at the state level.

 

[RDU Irish]

I still don't see how Trump ruins the world? First time he steps out of line he will have both sides lined up to impeach him.

The fact someone like Rand Paul can't get more than 2% of a primary vote that Trump wins still has be flummoxed. It's like a huge part of the electorate just wants a show and has no principles or goals in mind.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Just out of curiosity, which Sander's policies do you feel are damaging to the economy? Minimum Wage is a biggie. I'll concede that because I agree with the conservative mindset here. I think it should be increased somewhat, but also feel it should be handled at the state level.

Details and Analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders’s Tax Plan | Tax Foundation

That sums it up for me. I am sure the analysis isn't perfect, but even if it is directional....woof.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I still don't see how Trump ruins the world? First time he steps out of line he will have both sides lined up to impeach him.

The fact someone like Rand Paul can't get more than 2% of a primary vote that Trump wins still has be flummoxed. It's like a huge part of the electorate just wants a show and has no principles or goals in mind.

Name recognition. DC outsider. "Says what everyone is thinking." Most of the electorate isn't informed.

 

[pkt77242]

Details and Analysis of Senator Bernie Sanders’s Tax Plan | Tax Foundation

That sums it up for me. I am sure the analysis isn't perfect, but even if it is directional....woof.

To be fair, the Tax Foundation is a pretty conservative and very, very Pro-Business.

Now I have little doubt that Sanders tax plan would have some negative consequences for the economy, not arguing that, just that the messenger (Tax Foundation, not you) has an agenda to push that is the polar opposite of Sanders.