[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

Honestly, that poll is completely ambiguous.. I mean people are blind to the fact that Donald Trump is a major Anti-Vaxxer that is very vocal about vaccines causing autism as well as recently offending a "minority" and Hillary Clinton broke several National Security rules and procedures by using a personal private email server while in office as Secretary of State and can still possibly be charged with criminal conduct for using the private email during her tenure, as this is still an ongoing investigation, one which she has actually gone on record as to laugh it off, saying that there is "no evidence" because seriously, how often does the FBI investigate baseless charges..? I normally do not get involved in politics because everyone has their own opinion of things and what I say will likely deeply offend people (that is the nature of what politics has become) and I actually did lose friends for calling President Obama our legal definition of a terrorist and provided clearcut evidence to it.. In fact, I think I did bring that to light on these forums long ago in a discussion with ICC.. However, based on the current information from both of these candidates, neither is worthy of a vote, however, knowing how many people actually choose to pay attention to the media, it will likely come down to a race between them.. ...If that were the case, I would like vote for that one "write-in" candidate that everyone is talking about simply out of spite and protest.

I don't care I'm just happy that Obama will be gone!

It's time to get an independent in there.

I think that'd be good. I'm always puzzled by the american political system, and especially by your version of a president. The President is the head of government and state, yet they don't have huge influence on what happens in government and they aren't even the leader of their party. I think it'd be so much more effective if they were independents.

If our president was the head of our government or head of his party there would be serious conflicts of interest. In the US the people are the only soveriegn entities, no one with a title or government payroll unless they are effectively off of the clock and not using their position.

As far as expecting either one of these candidates to become their respective party(trump isn't actually a republican so that doesn't truly apply) final ballot candidate, i seriously doubt that. Neither one of them will make it that far.

Bernie Sanders.

TIL it doesn't work that way.

That sounds really messed up and confusing...

I am fond of this picture.

I like Bernie

Vote Kanye West, peeps. Now that is all. I wish to receive no more alerts from this thread.

I'd personally prefer Bernie over the other candidates, because what he says is mostly in favor to help all individuals.

Though, only thing I don't "fully" agree with is the free 2-4 years of college ... If everyone has the ability to get an associate or bachelors degree for free, then within 20-30 years the degrees will become null/void, making it so it is almost mandatory to get a basic standard job....In turn only way around it I see how it wouldn't become null, yet still free - would be to have a career path chosen in highschool, and when graduation comes you receive both your diploma and degree of choice.

----

However, even if majority vote is for trump or sanders, the decision still ultimately lies with the Electoral College - They may overrule the popular vote.

I do think Bernie has a great chance of winning. I can't believe I am saying this, but I hope he goes against Trump so he definitely wins.

Also, my US History teacher showed us the candidates' beginning speeches and the only one that the students actually cheered for is Bernie Sanders. That's pretty nice.

I understand you don't like the idea of free healthcare because it supports all of the people who would otherwise die and not need to be paid for. However, that's just the problem with not having free healthcare, the people who really need it won't be able to get it.

Also, you could cut your military budget by three quarters (saving hundreds of billions of dollars every year) and you'd still have a military bigger and more powerful than any other in the world. And you don't need to be a superpower to defend yourself against terrorists, you just need people to stop hating on Islam and bombing "rouge nations".

America's foreign policy created the environment where terrorists can thrive. Iran wasn't a "rogue nation" before we ousted Saddam either. Read the Looming Tower for a starting point.

If only we could turn back the clock and go back to the cold war era and do things better...

it's cause and effect. we caused the mess and the now dealing with the effects.

Norway (along with most other Socialist countries) has free university, and they've never experienced anything like that.

If you cut your military spending by a ton, you can still have your precious most powerful military in the world. And guess what? You can still bomb innocent people and kill terrorists for no valid reason, with no plan for that country's future after you displace their government so you make new terrorists and make that country hate you!

You can also be a superpower without a military. Take the European Union, for example. They have no military (although if you count the countries within it's militaries, its got a pretty big military).

P.S I'd be totally fine with my government raising taxes if they redistributed the money they got off it to programs helping the poor, and giving me benefits in life (like the NHS, child benefit, etc.) with it.

I mean, I wouldn't mind free university ...just skeptical about what would happen if everyone got it for free... would most jobs require associates degrees then more than they do now?

---

I watched a few bernie sanders videos... he actually mentioned that most of the money we could use to pay for the schooling, construction, removing a lot of the us debt, etc can be paid for by excess stock market exchange money...

I looked it up - within past few years there's about 55 trillion excess stock money

roughly 34% is owned by the u.s. - which would be 18.7 trillion

and an annual return of about 11% - which would be 6.05 trillion

The national debt is about 18.4 trillion at the moment: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

---

So why not just use the excess stock that's unused? Who knows.

If you use the money then you don't get interest on it ;-)

On a roll there! but....

I just can't get behind that whole stealing peoples money thing... uh taxes i mean. The stock market investing is a GOOD way for the government to gain capital. Stealing more of the money from the people that they already have beaten into poverty, not so much. You just end up creating more victims if you treat a few by taking a whole lot from a larger group.

Taxes=stealing money from one person and giving it to another.

Now... I can think of much better ways to gain capital than this. I can't begin to understand why people think that child benefits and NHS is free though... its not. Anyone that says "my country has free healthcare" doesn't understand what they are talking about.