• We welcome content that is not political, divisive, or offensive. If we feel your content leans this way or has the potential to, it may be removed at any time. A hot pepper forum is not the place for such content. Thank you for respecting the community!

US Presidential Candidates

My personal opinion?
Do it like it used to be done.
#1 in votes gets the prez, #2 gets the vice prez.
*%^k parties.
 
You have to sell your soul, or have someone holding on to all those candid tapes with a live boy or dead girl ( depending on your party) to even get in the game.
 
Even "The Donald" doesn't have enough money to run his own campaign without owing someone something.
 
Sad that very few even notice that when a politician refuses to "play ball", some career ending revelation magically apears all over the news.
 
I dont know that I want the loser automatically getting the #2 spot.
 
Maybe Perot should run again?
Those two statements are completely unrelated.

Gotrox said:
Sad that very few even notice that when a politician refuses to "play ball", some career ending revelation magically apears all over the news.
Click to expand...
 
My idea is a civilian take-over of the NSA. We are the ones paying for it.
 
First we make sure all the politicians are in line. If drug testing is ok for a gov job or to get benefits then politicians with nothing to hide shouldnt mind us spying on them. Then drug testing them. This is the same logic I have to listen to from tards.
 
Second, corporations arent people and have no rights. We can spy on them. They have taxes to pay and things to answer for.
 
Third, the military and every type of law enforcement need some civilian spydogs. Let's stop the racists killing people from behind a badge...or at least uncover the cover ups. Let's find everyone misusing their office.
 
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
 
They create problems (they acknowledge American jobs will be lost due to TPP), then pass legislation to take your money to "fix" the problems they created. I'll never vote for any self-avowed socialist (Sanders), but the Republicans are no less socialist for this stunt. I hate this word because of that nutcase Alex Jones, but it really does feel more and more like a "globalist" scheme to take over everything.
 
Phil said:
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
 
 I hate this word because of that nutcase Alex Jones, but it really does feel more and more like a "globalist" scheme to take over everything.
Click to expand...
 
That cliche only gets interesting theologically.
 
It is. Well they have already taken over. individually globally, now they just have to weave all the pieces into one. ActualIy Iran might be the only country left that hasnt given into the international bankers. But they are being bullied on nuclear stuff until then. Probably why oil plunged mysteriously after "peak oil".  I hadnt even thought of that until now. But it makes sense.
 
Heckle said:
Do yall really think elections matter anymore? Or really ever did?
 
Nearly everyone is buyable or blackmailable.
Click to expand...
Did history not warn of the two party system ? I believe history,truth always pans out
 
I dont know if it did. What are you referencing?

Although I think it's pretty clear that money buys more than two parties.
 
Phil said:
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
 
They create problems (they acknowledge American jobs will be lost due to TPP), then pass legislation to take your money to "fix" the problems they created. I'll never vote for any self-avowed socialist (Sanders), but the Republicans are no less socialist for this stunt. I hate this word because of that nutcase Alex Jones, but it really does feel more and more like a "globalist" scheme to take over everything.
Click to expand...
it is my friend ! they predicted this 3 to 4 years ago . they're gonna take over 401k's , savings accounts you name it ! then civil unrest will begin ,then the martial law will be slammed down , then force . as i say i don't trust a one of them !  to much power with their money !   :onfire:
 
I dont know that I want the loser automatically getting the #2 spot.
 
Maybe Perot should run again?

Those two statements are completely unrelated.

 
My idea is a civilian take-over of the NSA. We are the ones paying for it.
 
First we make sure all the politicians are in line. If drug testing is ok for a gov job or to get benefits then politicians with nothing to hide shouldnt mind us spying on them. Then drug testing them. This is the same logic I have to listen to from tards.
 
Second, corporations arent people and have no rights. We can spy on them. They have taxes to pay and things to answer for.
 
Third, the military and every type of law enforcement need some civilian spydogs. Let's stop the racists killing people from behind a badge...or at least uncover the cover ups. Let's find everyone misusing their office.


+1
 
 
I dont know that I want the loser automatically getting the #2 spot.
Click to expand...
 # 2 is usually the "other" party.
 
That is how it was done formerly, the prez didn't pick is own second.
 
On another note, the idea of a "2 party state" is total BS and manipulation.
 
But because the dems and reps control who gets in the debates----a right, a left and a comic relief 3rd party, we are locked into 1 or the other by design.
 
One bird, two wings on the vulture.
 
Hybrid Mode 01 said:
Ventura / Stern, anyone?
Click to expand...
 
Eh, NO!  (Unless your evil plan is to push the system over the edge that much sooner.)  Both are Grade A Idiots!
SmokenFire said:
Seems to me like most every presidential candidate is a a self serving ego-maniacal lobbyist controlled puppet.  Like most other politicians. :)    
Click to expand...
 
I swear, there must be some secret test you take before they let you run for office.  Failure to place highly on the narcissism / psychopathy spectrum disqualifies you immediately!   It's ALWAYS the self-aggrandizing, power-mad scum that float to the top.
 
These assholes do come in different flavors - compare Barack, Trump, Hillary, Christie, etc.  The only real 'choice' we get is which flavor of sh*t we prefer.  :(
 
Geonerd said:
 
I swear, there must be some secret test you take before they let you run for office.  Failure to place highly on the narcissism / psychopathy spectrum disqualifies you immediately!   It's ALWAYS the self-aggrandizing, power-mad scum that float to the top.
 
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, it's because a lot of politicians are also businessmen, and high ranked businessmen are mostly sociopaths. This is because thinking about how your actions affect others in business means you don't get placed higher.
 
cruzzfish said:
In all seriousness, it's because a lot of politicians are also businessmen, and high ranked businessmen are mostly sociopaths. This is because thinking about how your actions affect others in business means you don't get placed higher.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure you're right.  I'm also sure that many (if not most) politicians get into the game thinking they're going to make a difference and be a champion for the people.  But they get re-educated pretty quickly and learn that ya havta eat hsit in order to get anything done; that everything is a compromise and that if they don't play ball the forces that are will fund their opponents campaigns next term.  
 
Truly I think you have to live in a remote or sparsely populated area in order to win on people's esteem/votes alone.  If you find a district like that and really get to know the people then you've got a chance to be a free thinker and vote your responsibility instead of your wallet.  Unless of course there are abundant resources in your sparsely populated district.  Fen you thucked.  
 
In my opinion, it has become a populartiy contest, not unlike when we were in high school.
 
You voted for the most popular kids for class President, Vice-president, etc. No regard was given to how effective they would be at doing the 'job', it was just acknowledging they were cooler than you.
 
grantmichaels said:
I'm liking that for the sheer audacity ...
 
 
 
 
 
Bernie. Sanders.
 
Let's try that other thing for a round ... the Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders etc ...
 
 
 
I really wanted Elizabeth Warren, but I never get what I want ...
 
Bernie for me.
Click to expand...
 
Agreed, I have wanted Elizabeth Warren to run for a very long time, very intelligent and about the only one that really tired to take the banks to task for their rolls in the 2008 economic crash.
 
grantmichaels said:
I like to hear the "other side," even if I don't bother to store it ...
 
What's anyone got to say in criticism of Bernie Sanders? ...
Click to expand...
Hidden on his platform page:
We stand for unconditional disarmament by the United States
• We call for an immediate 50% cut in the military budget, followed by additional cuts, with the aim of rapidly reducing the military budget to less than 10% of its current level, with the "peace dividend" directed to essential social services and to the cost of cleaning up contaminated military sites.

So far he is for taking away the 2nd amendment, and reducing military. I am for neither.

• We call for a constitutional amendment requiring a binding vote of the people on all issues of war or military intervention.

Obviously doesn't understand that by the time we organized a vote, had the vote. Had it tallied. Recounted. We would be in trouble.

• We call for the repeal of the Hatch Act and the Taft-Hartley Act, the "hot cargo" provision of the Landrum-Griffin Act, and all so-called "right-to-work" laws.

Unions are already proven to be ineffective, and too expensive to do business. Major reason why a lot of manufacturing business went over seas.


This is just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention redistribution of wealth, no one can make 10 times the minimum paid person in the country.

I have an infinite amount of issues with this "candidate".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top