Political Candidate Poll

I support Bernie Sanders aswell as John Kasich. I still want Hillary over Donald. But If i could vote id vote for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein.

 

I was wondering who all you Bernie supporters are going to vote for? Because I'd imagine you dislike Hilary, and same with Trump. That's probably the most interesting thing about this campaign.

 

Green party/hillary.. probs hillary.
Hillary have been forced to promise to fight for some policy goals in order to get bernies indorsement.

 

DID YOU SEE HILLARY'S POKEMON GO JOKE?


HOLY SH*T I HAVE NEVER CRINGED SO HARD.

 

K

Calm caps pls

 

Master of Reality
Bernie Sanders

 

All you Bernie Sanders supporters need to realize that the dream is dead and we need to stop Trump.
I looooved Bernie and my dad voted for him, but he lost in both super delegates and pledged delegates. The dream of Bernie is dead and now everyone must move on and realize that Trump cannot win. Have we forgotten that he's literally just a reality TV Star who says a judge can't do his job because he's Mexican, and that blacks are inherently lazy? He has done entirely nothing to serve this country, and he likely cheats it through taxes as he will not show his tax returns. He will cause nothing other than destruction. Why do we think that a reality TV Star will have any idea of what to do once he gets into the White House? It's ridiculous guys, come on. Vote for someone who at least knows that global warming exists and vaccines don't cause autism. This is not a joke anymore, Trump is a threat. Bernie has moved on so all of his supporters must too. It is disappointing, and you may accuse him of selling out, but Bernie realized that the only way to stop Trump is to endorse Clinton. It wasn't selling out, it was his last attempt at securing a democratic president. Trump cannot win, and he realized that. So, Bernie threw his support behind the candidate most likely to beat him. America needs to wake up and realize that not only is #Bernieorbust ridiculous, we need to realize that Trump is a fraud who says whatever he needs to in order to be elected. He never has any intention of following through on these promises.

 

I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter (god I love saying that) and I'm also for downsizing the government. For example, I'd like to see the big cutbacks to numerous aspects of our incredibly bloated defense budget (America spends more on defense than China, Russia, the U.K., and France combined), elimination of much of the corporate welfare state which gives senseless subsidies to multinationals so they can continue to send jobs out of the U.S. to third world wage slavery, scaling back America's surveillance state partially by the termination of the invasive PATRIOT Act, and the complete removal of the Common Core and other obnoxious education standards that approach academic achievement as something to be measured in test scores rather than development of independent (outside the box) thinking skills and creativity (applying critical thinking to solve a range of problems). I believe the government has no business in telling teachers how or what to teach to students, let alone in what manner.

Having a government and thereby having certain social services such as the library, post office, AMTRAK, Social Security and other government funded services, does require sacrificing a few freedoms. But the government, at least not the U.S. as we know it, does not have all the control. Not nearly all of it actually. Rather, private corporations and other entities who heavily influence the government (as I'm sure you're aware of) are just as much of an impediment to freedom as the government is, if not more so because they are purely looking out for their own interests. Point being, you can also be for small government without being for a crony capitalist society run by self serving corporations and other business entities. And in a similar vein, it is possible to be for larger government without being for a totalitarian dictatorship. It is simply a Thatcherite myth to state that socialism equivocates to such a thing, when it really doesn't. That's not an opinion, the statement that "socialism works until you run out of other people's money" is false for the very reason that @C9_Mango said about monetary circulation in the economy via taxes.

If what is left of the New Deal era socialist institutions fail in America, it will be because the top 1% has soaked up so much of the new wealth (through obscene tax refunds, tax loopholes, and offshore tax havens) and had their Democratic and Republican minions in congress slash funding for welfare (medicare, social security, food stamps), community colleges (I am currently going to one, and it has had its budget cut numerous times because my state refuses to fully fund education), AMTRAK, the U.S. Postal Service, the EPA, and so forth while passing investor rights agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which allow multinationals to circumvent the Justice System (thereby violating the Constitution) in private tribunals (where three corporate lawyers serve as 'judges')and extort the taxpayers when certain laws don't meet their "minimum standard treatment" or "expectations", and cutting taxes on the top .1% who don't need them even further, that there won't be enough funds remaining in the budget to fund what social services that remain. You can bet that there will be, however, enough money for America to continue to wage war on the Middle East, blame the ensuring instability on the terrorists, and continue to act as the global police while more people die in senseless violence. That's because, as you may know, wars are business opportunities for corporate America and the weapons contractors of the world and lord knows we need more billionaires to support trickle down economics!

Agreed. That's why I'm voting for Jill Stein instead of the 2016 female version of Al Gore and Tim "I really liked the TPP until last Thursday" Kaine. Why? Well, the last time the U.S. tried to run a terrible, exceptionally boring, unenthusiastic, corporatist candidate against an utterly incompetent yet somewhat funny Republican with an evil VP while also having the backing of a popular president, which was back in 2000, we ended up with George W. Bush in the White House. I wonder why that happened. And no, it had nothing to do with Ralph Nader (there were several other third party candidates who got enough votes in Florida where, had even 60% of those votes gone to Gore he would have won).

We see the situation differently. Bernie is not a man. He is a movement.

Yep.

Although I don't agree with his decision to endorse Clinton, I have great respect and love for, as Cornel West would say, "Brother Bernie". One does not simply un feel the Bern.

That said, I think you're right. America does need to wake up. America needs to wake up and stop voting for the least worst candidate, or swallowing the most edible sh*tburger if you will. Why? Because neither Clinton or Trump have any intention of really representing the interests of the vast majority of the people who voted for them in the primaries. Their respective records, who they get their biggest donations from and who they associate themselves with (Clinton with right to work supporting Sen. Kaine, or the TPP supporting Gov. McAuliffe, or Trump with anti gay, pro FTA and TPP Mike Pence) directly contradict who they personify themselves to be to the voters such as myself. I watched a lot of both the Democratic and Republican conventions. In many ways they were vastly different, namely on policy and what they pledged to do for America, but they were quite similar in one big area. They were both all about organized coercion of the public, trying to figure out new and improved ways to scare the hell out of the base to vote for either one of their lousy candidates so that their side of plutocracy can blah their way to victory in November. That strategy, which you have parroted to a limited degree, is being used because neither candidate has policies that are actually that good for the 99%.

Point being: voting for the lesser of two awfuls only makes whatever awful you voted for stronger. They don't care about you, they just want your vote, that's why all the fearmongering is happening. The rhetoric about what both the Clintons and Trump is overblown. With a Democratic congress, Trump would never be able to get most of his policies, such as the unbelievably stupid 4 to 20 billion dollar wall (which can be overcome with the use of a rope or a comp-actable ladder) along the southern border nor many of his proposed tax cuts. Clinton on the other hand is not an evil person who wants the Government to control every aspect of one's life. That doesn't mean either one of them should be in office. Because they really, really shouldn't.

Bernie or Bust is not stupid nor is it a movement out of selfishness. It is a movement out of consciousness.

 

I support bernie. I both agree and disagree with you (which means you're both tright and wrong since i am always obviously right )

Its shown by many european contries that its good that the goverment controls what teachers teach. The quality of the education will remain high everywhere in this way. Its a myth that goverment regulated education decreases the creativity of the mind/outside of the box thinking. Do i have to point to nothern european countries again as i have numerous times before?

I have to point out that you get new freedoms by sacrificing certain ones. I would argue that the sum of freedom is at its greatest in a pretty left wing society.

 

True. I forgot to mention that

I'm not likening government run education to decreases of free thinking. I am likening government run education that prioritizes scores on highly nit-picky tests instead of GPA's as a standard of achievement as an unnecessary impediment to free thinking and continued academic progression.

 

I hold the opinion that literally everyone should vote Trump for 2 reasons:

1: to stick it right up the f*ckin' arses of the corporations and superdelegates who supported Hillary in order to make a point about being fed up with the whole system,

and

2: because it's easier to impeach Trump (or at the very worst get him out of office in 4 years if we survive that long), who's openly going to be dangerous for America, than Hillary, who's backed by the current establishment and wouldn't want to let her go even though she's subtly dangerous to America.

 

And then what? Let the psychopath Mike Pence take over? This is literally the man who said smoking does not kill. He is a lunatic, and honestly may be worse than Trump. Your second reason makes literally no sense.
You have a moral point with the first thing, I respect that. However, if anything, you're going to be helping the corporations that supported Clinton. Donald Trump wants to cut corporate taxes to a steady 15%. This is ludicrous, and will bankrupt our nation, and let the corporations win while screwing everyone else over. That's insane, and only helps big corporations, not the people.

I respect your resilience against what you believe to be a lesser evil situation. However, it would be unreasonable to think that Jill Stein will win this election outright. If you are being honest with yourself, you would have to acknowledge that however unfortunate the situation may be, Clinton and Trump are the only ones with a legitimate chance of winning. Therefore, the next step is to determine who is more dangerous to our country. On one hand, you have a candidate who has done many, many questionable things in her life, and taken money from questionable people. However, in many of the examples of "corruption", nothing has been criminal or extremely horrible. Yes, the emails were bad. Was it illegal? No it was not. Not a single email held in that server was top secret at the time assuming it was correctly labeled. Yes, Benghazi was unfortunate. Is Hillary to blame? No she is not. Is Benghazi being unfairly targeted? Yes it is, plenty of other presidents have had embassy attacks and nobody hears about them. Hillary Clinton is no perfect candidate, nobody says she is perfect. However, she has a very good understanding of the political field and will no doubt hit the ground running if and when she is elected. Trump has literally no idea what to do, and that will be highlighted in the presidential debates when both he and his insane running mate will be crushed. If Clinton doesn't win, Trump wins, and there isn't much debating that. We cannot let Trump win. We must wake up as a nation and see that he is a madman who says provocative things to get attention and gain legitimacy. If Clinton doesn't win, Trump does, and that cannot happen.

 

I agree with you that Clinton is a smart, capable woman who is well versed in virtually every issue under the sun. I also agree that Trump is a megalomaniac self promoter who is way out of his depth when it comes to policy (although he is a master of the media, the likes of which have not been seen in a long time).

That said, what scares me about Clinton is her knowledge, her extensive connections, her ability to work the system because if she tries to push some awful policy (much to the delight of her shadow banking donors among others to be sure) like the TPP I see a much greater likelihood of it getting passed than I do under a President Trump. Clinton know how to sell a bad policy like the TPP to the people. Trump doesn't because he doesn't even understand most policy. That said, what scares me about Trump is, among other things, his proposal to shut down "parts of the internet" and his bollocks rhetoric towards Muslims and Latinos. If I am being honest with myself then yes, I admit I am positively terrified about the two most viable choices we the people are faced with this election cycle. It's like Election 2000 on steroids in terms of the genuine level of awful and I am truly afraid of what both candidates might do.

However, we can play the political merry go round of who is worse all day long but the fact is both the Democrats and the Republicans have sold us down the river. President Clinton sold out the American people with the NAFTA, the disastrous Telecommunications Act of 1996 (also known as "Comcast Cable's Wet Dream"), Welfare Reform, and the bombing of Kosovo (which helped contribute to the subsequent genocide). President Bush sold Americans out with the PATRIOT Act, sending thousands of American troops and Iraqi guerillas, fathers, mothers, kids and even journalists to their deaths in a bogus war or torture chambers ("Dark rooms") in covert CIA operations, CAFTA, and with his 700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street thieves with taxpayer money. And President Obama did the same with the ACA (which keeps the vampire middle-man, rather than seriously pushing for a public option which polls have shown the huge majority of the American people support), drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq which have killed uncounted numbers of civilians (a.k.a. "collateral damage") and now with the ultra-secret, ultra-corporate TPP.

What am I supposed to expect from Hillary Clinton, a person so far right on foreign policy that neoconservatives like Robert Kagan are proudly supporting her, if she were to become Madame President? More wars? More lunatic foreign policy adventurism like no fly zones in Syria, which only serve to piss off the already pissed off Russians? Will I be treated to more American economic underwriting of Israel's defense budget as they find new and improved ways to mistreat, undermine, and destroy the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority with their F-35 fighers and their Iron Dome as the Arab minority fires a few rockets and throws stones in retaliation for their near total loss of rights? Or maybe Hillary will again invade Libya, a country which has experienced extreme instability ever since Gaddafi was overthrown on her watch, in another one of her regime change fantasies? How many more kids, foreign and domestic, will have to be injured or be killed in preventable wars for the sake of maintaining America's presence as the world police as Hillary Clinton has pledged to do?

What am I supposed to expect from Trump, a man who routinely maligns any Middle Eastern looking people as fearsome terrorists? He certainly won't be any different than Clinton on Israeli enforced apartheid of the Palestinian people. His foreign policy is a mystery. What happens if he gets upset with his cornflakes one morning and decides to get friendly with the nuclear codes?

Asking anyone to choose between which candidate is more dangerous to the country is akin to one of those really difficult questions in a Would You Rather? book. To some extent, there is no right answer. Both candidates are likely to continue America's imperial foreign policy and that of endless war. What is to like with that?

You say that it is unreasonable to think that Jill Stein can win this election outright. Perhaps you're correct considering the masterful job the Democrats have done demonizing the Greens by blaming them for their 2000 and 2004 electoral shortcomings. The blind, idiotic hatred of the Greens is sadly, very real sixteen years after George W. Bush was declared the winner by his first cousin in the FOX Newsroom. However, Bernie Sanders started out as an unknown quantity at the start of his race against Hillary Clinton. Within several months he was in the mid twenties to above thirty percent in the polls nationwide. Why? Because people were willing to do the hard work and canvass, phonebank, and hold local meetings in support of Brother Bernie. These people haven't gone away. And Jill Stein is there, with a platform that is actually better in some ways than Bernie's and she is 10x more deserving of their votes than Hillary Clinton is or ever will be (regardless of how many platitudes she dishes out).

A Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll of California came out very recently. Stein checked in at 6%, along with (extreme neoliberal) Gary Johnson at 7%. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were both in that position once, in the single digits where everyone said they could not win. And look how far both of them came.

Jill Stein is, like Brother Bernie, a good and decent person. She is also a longtime activist, former city council member, and a Harvard M.D. I see no reason why we must be stuck between the same two choices year after year and not have a viable third option other than the gripping politics of fear. As such I cannot and will not betray my conscience for the sake of maintain the unacceptable status quo with either candidate: I am voting for Jill Stein. If the Democrats cannot beat Trump in November, it will be their own lousy VP selection, lousy courting of the millennial, independent, and veteran vote, and lousy enthusiasm. I respect your decision if you are voting for Hillary, as I also respect the reasoning of people who believe they have too much to lose in voting third party, but I cannot agree with it.

Come November, we cannot let either one of these candidates win.

 

Turnig the energy of the bernie campgain into jill stein will be close to impossible since bernie indorsed hillary.

My point is that the long term impancts on our political system voting for stein would cause are more important than a the small possibility that stein becomes president.

No socialist will be the democratic nominee, no real ****thecorporations candidate will be elected by the republicans. This means that the world will go to hell unless the a 3rd party's succesfull.

The fact that i would vote for hillary instead of jill stein is because of that i still believe getting the lesser evil is more important than one vote for stein. My opinion might change though, and it probably will.

@randomcitizen1 i do remember the little debate we had some months ago with squeakily and bawss5. The points you made very often interesting, and many were points i had never heard before. So tell me who you do support.

 

Jeez that was a long post and seeing as how I'm still in bed I'll say one thing

Jill isn't even on half of the ballots
She's on 23
How can she possibly win
That just doesn't make sense to me

 

She's on the ballot in 25 states including the big ticket electoral states of Florida, California, Texas, Ohio, New York and Michigan. Get her on the remaining 25 or even most of the remaining 25. There's still time.

@tr1kim actually since Bernie endorsed Clinton, Jill Stein has seen what she has characterized as an explosion of interest in her campaign. Donations to her campaign increased tenfold in the week following the Clinton endorsement, her number of Facebook likes has increased from 330,000 to over 455,000 in the past two weeks (it doesn't mean a lot in the grand scheme of things but its significant in terms of measuring interest in the candidate), she has gotten on the ballot in at least two more states (Georgia and Vermont to my knowledge), and Google search interest in Stein has shot up in the same time period.

Maybe she can't win, but it's worth trying isn't it? Hillary doesn't care about you, all she cares about is getting back into power so that the usual suspects can get back to whatever they were doing in the 90's, like deregulating derivatives (Commodity Futures Modernization Act) and passing more "job creating" FTA's that make sure that corporate America is well taken care of for the years to come. I don't want that and I'm not going to vote for it.

 

I wonder what would have happend if bernie endorsed jill stein.....

Do you think that the main reason you support stein over hillary is that it matters wether stein wins the nomination or not, or is it more about long term change in the political landscape?

 

You were acting like Bernie endorsing Clinton only did bad things to Stein. It did not. And yes, had he endorsed Stein then we'd be having a completely different discussion, but that was not going to happen anyway.

As for your question: it's about long term change. I do not buy the argument that endorsing someone who will "say anyting and change nothing" like Hillary Clinton will, in the end, make things better politically let alone environmentally. Why? Because people like Clinton are only out to get your vote or my vote. Once they have that and they're in power then they are not going to listen to the demands or needs of the 99% most of the time because the 99% threw away most of their leverage by getting them in office in the first place.

That said, and I know this discussion is about presidential candidates, but electing downballot progressives (regardless of their party) is extremely important. Should either Clinton or Trump be elected a progressive, or at least not corporatist Congress will be essential to getting at least some progressive legislation passed over the next 2 to 4 years (etc.) or to stopping dangerous trade agreements like the TPP or TTIP from passing.

 

I'm a huge Bernie supporter but I will be voting for Clinton, even though I despise her. Voting directly for Trump or for anyone else (an indirect vote for Trump) would just set back the progressive movement even further. Clinton at least pretends to be in line with some of the values and I believe she has a steadier hand than Trump (even though she is corrupt, etc). Besides, real change does not start from the top, it starts at the local level and works it's way up.

 

I think we basicly agree on everything... except on who we would vote for

I have been in some protests against the not so tradeagreementish ttip....