What happens when you don't like any of the candidates? Anyone feel that way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry but n this field of 20+ candidates, if you can't find ONE that can keep the country's head above water, you are looking at the wrong things. You are trying to find someone you like, not someone who can govern. I am a hard core liberal, but even I could find three Republicans who are capable of not running us aground.

Okay who are your three?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a moderate who thinks differently. Clinton has the skills, but she also has an incredible lack of integrity. She has proven for 30 years that she will do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, will ignore laws, will ignore ethics standards and will lie to cover up what she has done. Expediency and personal gain (usually political) are her only guidelines. While a person like this can operate as a senator or cabinet member like Secretary of State, such a person should not serve as the President.

I'm the other moderate. I think you've been snookered by the anti-Clinton media messaging. She certainly has her own political warts and missteps, just like any other politician, but saddling her with lines like "incredible lack of integrity" is the sort of vague whisper attack that gets us nowhere IMHO.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and no, I don't think I've been snookered. I've been a voting american for over 30 years and have watched the various Clinton scandals unfold each time. Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, and the email controversy. Throughout her career she has consistently exhibited a case of apathy towards the law and ethics practices. And while there are other candidates who have had one or two missteps and mistakes, she has significantly more questionable actions and events in her career than just about any two other candidates out there.

I also think, as I mentioned, that there are still many offices and political jobs that she can hold with those issues, one's where there is more oversight of ethical misconduct, but the Presidency is job that I think is too hard to pin down and that her lack of integrity will be a huge impediment to getting the job done. I think her ghosts and her way of doing business will be a huge hindrance to performing the presidential duties and would detract from her being an effective president. She would be spending more time responding and spinning her story than she would doing the work. We need a candidate with a lot less political baggage than this.

Honestly, once she gets elected she isn't going to give a SHIT about those trying to drum up controversy and distracting her from her job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can either skip that part of the ballot or write a name in. Heck, you can write your own name in if you want.

Haha that might be fun. Then you can say "That one time I ran for President...."

[Anonymous]

Hillary is quite capable and will end up being a very tough and wily President. I'm OK with that - we need a leader like that to (1.) deal with a do-nothing Congress and (2.) deal with our foreign adversaries. She, along with George HW, will probably be the most prepared and experienced first-term President in modern history.

As for her "dishonesty" and self-promoting "agenda," she's no worse than any other person grasping for power (political or economic/corporate). Sadly, politicians of every stripe are classic narcissists. They're not like the "rest of us" who just want to have a comfortable life and enjoy our time with family. Every person running for President has a desperate and pathological need for power and public recognition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic machine has kept the non-politician out of the public race so far. Maybe look into Lawrence Lessig and see if you like him?

Not that he'll win the primary, but I think people would like Lessig if they realized he was running.

I'm sorry, but Lessig is a ridiculous candidate. His entire premise was that he would run on a single issue (campaign finance reform), implement those reforms and then immediately resign. And now he acknowledges that this was a foolish idea and claims to be running as a real candidate who will not resign immediately.

How can anyone take him seriously as a presidential candidate?

Lessing just quit.

Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

(joking)

[Anonymous]

What are your politics and values? Go onto any one of the politics "quizzes" and find out who is most closely aligned with what you believe in and what should be done about it.

The candidates fall very clearly into several camps. It should be easy to pick one. Unless in addition to being aligned with values and politics you ALSO want to have fun drinking beer with them. In which case, I, too, would have a difficult time choosing.

I, however, don't want to have a beer with the president, so my choice is easy.

[Anonymous]

Bernie Sanders is, in my opinion, the most visionary of the bunch. His ideas are, admittedly, exceedingly difficult to implement given the current power structure in politics and business, but we have to start somewhere.

FDR did. And thank god for him. And thank god for Eleanor, too, for that matter.

Hillary is trying to position herself as a progressive. She is... when she needs to be. Not good enough, IMO. Bernie has helped move her in the right direction when she felt threatened.

I have jumped on Bernie's bandwagon and will stay there for as long as possible. Elected or not, his presence as a viable candidate is exceedingly important. I'm doing what I can to make him electable--for most people, that means "enough voters will vote for him." Vote for him, and he will move forward. That's really all it takes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too. I think Hillary is actually quite qualified, but she's got so much baggage and I'm not fond of her on a personal level so I'm not sure I'd feel great about voting for her. I love Bernie's message but I simply don't think they are realistic for the US.

I will not vote for a Republican.

I'm a moderate who thinks differently. Clinton has the skills, but she also has an incredible lack of integrity. She has proven for 30 years that she will do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, will ignore laws, will ignore ethics standards and will lie to cover up what she has done. Expediency and personal gain (usually political) are her only guidelines. While a person like this can operate as a senator or cabinet member like Secretary of State, such a person should not serve as the President.

I have not voted for a Republican since George HW Bush, but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Regarding OP's question about Biden, he too was my candidate of choice, but he has a very good reason for declining to run. His adult son just died in May and his family is still grieving. He is not ready for a hard presidential campaign and his family is not ready to be pushed back into the forefront of the media circus. Right now, they are the media equivalent of B-listers and they do not want to be pushed back to the A-list. They also need more time to mourn which they won't have if he was making a presidential run. I have never lost a child, but I have known friends who have. And every family is different with how long it takes them to grieve. But I have never seen a family lose an adult child, especially one that they were close with, who have been able to move past the grief in less than a year. I know some that 2-3 years later are still having problems coming to grips with the loss of their child. Six months? He's not even close to being able to put that behind him. I'm not even sure that come election day next year that he'd be ready to run for President, let alone actually hold that office.

Moderate here too, and I disagree. Hillary has pretty average lack of integrity, nothing "incredible" in my mind for a professional politician.

Now, my problem with her is this. She's 68. Other than aggrandizing her own career, what was she accomplished in all that time? How is the world a better place because of her work in the White House, in the Senate, in State?

Marco Rubio is equally unaccomplished, but at least he's only 44.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I had to vote today I couldn't vote for any of them. I have zero confidence in any of the candidates even keeping our head above water let alone fixing anything.

Seriously. I almost feel like I should research one of the lesser know of the 37 or whatever republican candidates just to see if I like any of them.

WTF?

Why didn't Joe Biden run? At least he's a politiciany politician and somewhat amusing.

Anyone else just have zero hope for 2017?

The future of the Supreme Court alone permits me to make an unequivocal decision. I don't want a Republican President because I don't want a conservative to replace one of the older, more reasonable justices if one retires (which is likely).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too. I think Hillary is actually quite qualified, but she's got so much baggage and I'm not fond of her on a personal level so I'm not sure I'd feel great about voting for her. I love Bernie's message but I simply don't think they are realistic for the US.

I will not vote for a Republican.

I'm a moderate who thinks differently. Clinton has the skills, but she also has an incredible lack of integrity. She has proven for 30 years that she will do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, will ignore laws, will ignore ethics standards and will lie to cover up what she has done. Expediency and personal gain (usually political) are her only guidelines. While a person like this can operate as a senator or cabinet member like Secretary of State, such a person should not serve as the President.

I have not voted for a Republican since George HW Bush, but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Regarding OP's question about Biden, he too was my candidate of choice, but he has a very good reason for declining to run. His adult son just died in May and his family is still grieving. He is not ready for a hard presidential campaign and his family is not ready to be pushed back into the forefront of the media circus. Right now, they are the media equivalent of B-listers and they do not want to be pushed back to the A-list. They also need more time to mourn which they won't have if he was making a presidential run. I have never lost a child, but I have known friends who have. And every family is different with how long it takes them to grieve. But I have never seen a family lose an adult child, especially one that they were close with, who have been able to move past the grief in less than a year. I know some that 2-3 years later are still having problems coming to grips with the loss of their child. Six months? He's not even close to being able to put that behind him. I'm not even sure that come election day next year that he'd be ready to run for President, let alone actually hold that office.

Moderate here too, and I disagree. Hillary has pretty average lack of integrity, nothing "incredible" in my mind for a professional politician.

Now, my problem with her is this. She's 68. Other than aggrandizing her own career, what was she accomplished in all that time? How is the world a better place because of her work in the White House, in the Senate, in State?

Marco Rubio is equally unaccomplished, but at least he's only 44.

You need to check out HRC's record. It's pretty impressive and readily available by Googling Hillary Clinton Accomplishments. Lots of positive accomplishments for the poor, women, children and veterans over the years. She sponsored/drafted a raft of legislation.

[Anonymous]

^^^Here's a site that outlines her sponsorship of legislation.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary is quite capable and will end up being a very tough and wily President. I'm OK with that - we need a leader like that to (1.) deal with a do-nothing Congress and (2.) deal with our foreign adversaries. She, along with George HW, will probably be the most prepared and experienced first-term President in modern history.

As for her "dishonesty" and self-promoting "agenda," she's no worse than any other person grasping for power (political or economic/corporate). Sadly, politicians of every stripe are classic narcissists. They're not like the "rest of us" who just want to have a comfortable life and enjoy our time with family. Every person running for President has a desperate and pathological need for power and public recognition.

Hillary Clinton is very, very, very smart. I do not vote on smarts alone. She has made very serious mistakes in office, including cozying up to health insurance companies, voting for the Iraq war, supporting the TPP (she has not come out steadfastly against it, rather saying she doesn't know enough about its potential bad effects--a cop out and a political lie), failing to stand up to big banks and big money and instead espousing the least impactful policy positions she can while sill appearing "progressive."

If she were the only smart Dem candidate to choose from, I'd have stood behind her, since the GOP alternatives are such nightmares. But I think we can do better.

Thankfully a better candidate *has* emerged. I believe that Bernie Sanders is the kind of person a true progressive can vote for without holding his/her nose. I don't agree with him on everything--but pretty close. I think he has a very strong grasp of macro-economics and politics in America, and we need that person right now. We also need someone who -- unlike Hillary Clinton -- will not continue to engage us in unwinnable wars. Enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hillary is as smart, unprincipled and dishonest as Bill, but without his endearing (to some) rogue qualities. I can't fathom why O'Malley -- who seems like a mix of Clinton's and Sanders' better qualities, while avoiding Hillary's stench and Bernie's nuttiness -- isn't getting more traction given this field. Thoughts?

Marty O'Malley couldn't deal with Pepco when he was governor of Maryland. He deserves no second thought. He's a lightweight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me too. I think Hillary is actually quite qualified, but she's got so much baggage and I'm not fond of her on a personal level so I'm not sure I'd feel great about voting for her. I love Bernie's message but I simply don't think they are realistic for the US.

I will not vote for a Republican.

I'm a moderate who thinks differently. Clinton has the skills, but she also has an incredible lack of integrity. She has proven for 30 years that she will do whatever she wants, whenever she wants, will ignore laws, will ignore ethics standards and will lie to cover up what she has done. Expediency and personal gain (usually political) are her only guidelines. While a person like this can operate as a senator or cabinet member like Secretary of State, such a person should not serve as the President.

I have not voted for a Republican since George HW Bush, but I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Regarding OP's question about Biden, he too was my candidate of choice, but he has a very good reason for declining to run. His adult son just died in May and his family is still grieving. He is not ready for a hard presidential campaign and his family is not ready to be pushed back into the forefront of the media circus. Right now, they are the media equivalent of B-listers and they do not want to be pushed back to the A-list. They also need more time to mourn which they won't have if he was making a presidential run. I have never lost a child, but I have known friends who have. And every family is different with how long it takes them to grieve. But I have never seen a family lose an adult child, especially one that they were close with, who have been able to move past the grief in less than a year. I know some that 2-3 years later are still having problems coming to grips with the loss of their child. Six months? He's not even close to being able to put that behind him. I'm not even sure that come election day next year that he'd be ready to run for President, let alone actually hold that office.

Moderate here too, and I disagree. Hillary has pretty average lack of integrity, nothing "incredible" in my mind for a professional politician.

Now, my problem with her is this. She's 68. Other than aggrandizing her own career, what was she accomplished in all that time? How is the world a better place because of her work in the White House, in the Senate, in State?

Marco Rubio is equally unaccomplished, but at least he's only 44.

You need to check out HRC's record. It's pretty impressive and readily available by Googling Hillary Clinton Accomplishments. Lots of positive accomplishments for the poor, women, children and veterans over the years. She sponsored/drafted a raft of legislation.

When the answer to a question is, "you need to Google that"...you know you are in trouble.

What does this moderate/ independent know about Hillary's leadership abilities:
- She destroyed the prospects for meaningful health reform for at least a generation
- She somehow managed to lose the previous national campaign, when everything was in her favor
- As a result of her time in State, we now have ISIS and Syria. Her only accomplishment there seems to be the Trans-Pacific trade deal...except that now she reneges on it

If I were Putin, I'd vote for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Same here. Get ready for a mediocre next 4 years, whoever actually wins.

Watch out ! That is EXACTLY what people were saying 2000 election before voting.

It DOES make a difference who the president and VP are and this country cannot afford another disasterous choice like in 2000 ( or whatever happened to make it that close)