Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being a non affiliated voter myself, I was wondering what other non affiliated voters think of this election cycle. Myself, I'm left with a conundrum on who would best serve Americans interest. I have my doubts with all the candidates be it Hillary, Trump or Johnson.
Hillary wants me to vote for her because she wants to be the first female POTUS.
Trump wants my vote because he is going to "make America great again".
Johnson wants my vote, well, because he thinks it time we have a Libertarian as POTUS.
All three seem to have their pro's and con's, but this election cycle it seems there are more con's than pro's, sitting out this election is not a choice.
I ask again, what's your opinion on these candidates?
You have not done enough homework on Johnson and the libertarian view, I don't think.
Of the three, Johnson gets my vote, for now. He recognizes that he has the power to get some things done, like close NSA, but needs congress to send him a bill to do other things like close Department of Education and completely change the tax system to close the IRS. Those latter items are of great interest to me.
I don't believe that Johnson will expand government in hopes of nailing down "his legacy", and GOD KNOWS I am sick to death of ambitious people who never seem to have enough of whatever it is that lights their fire.
I am strongly opposed to some of his views, but am willing to accept them in return for other things which I am strongly in favor of.
I like Hillary Clinton. I think she is supremely qualified and would be a decent President under most circumstances. I do not believe these are ordinary times though. I thought Obama was an exceptional candidate, but even he barely managed to move the needle in terms of America's ability to handle world events that have had an inordinate impact on American lives. In his defense, he only managed to save the economy from collapse (with some help), and turn the tide in favor of greater social equality (at the expense of being perceived as a President who exacerbated economic inequality). But in terms of world affairs and the bigger picture in general, Obama has been largely ineffective.
If I were to be truly objective and accept that most official tasks of the Executive branch could be handled by the Cabinet and bureaucracy, then the call is for a President who will disrupt the compromised foundation on which our current political leadership rests to allow for a new paradigm of American leadership that can redefine and better manage geopolitical affairs. Essentially, someone like Trump. I do not see Trump as the solution to the problem, but a catalyst that will allow the solution to appear.
Having said that, Trump is just so far off the charts that there is no way in hell I could bring myself to vote for him. I mean, he is just so insidious that the risk is too great that he will accomplish the first part of destroying the current notion of an American political leader, but leave the country and political environment so toxic that we'll devolve into a civil war in the not too distant future.
In other words, close but no cigar. By default Hillary gets my vote and we'll just have to wait a few more years to clean the American political/governance system.
A vote for Johnson is effectively a vote for Hillary, anyway.
I like Hillary Clinton. I think she is supremely qualified and would be a decent President under most circumstances. I do not believe these are ordinary times though. I thought Obama was an exceptional candidate, but even he barely managed to move the needle in terms of America's ability to handle world events that have had an inordinate impact on American lives. In his defense, he only managed to save the economy from collapse (with some help), and turn the tide in favor of greater social equality (at the expense of being perceived as a President who exacerbated economic inequality). But in terms of world affairs and the bigger picture in general, Obama has been largely ineffective.
If I were to be truly objective and accept that most official tasks of the Executive branch could be handled by the Cabinet and bureaucracy, then the call is for a President who will disrupt the compromised foundation on which our current political leadership rests to allow for a new paradigm of American leadership that can redefine and better manage geopolitical affairs. Essentially, someone like Trump. I do not see Trump as the solution to the problem, but a catalyst that will allow the solution to appear.
Having said that, Trump is just so far off the charts that there is no way in hell I could bring myself to vote for him. I mean, he is just so insidious that the risk is too great that he will accomplish the first part of destroying the current notion of an American political leader, but leave the country and political environment so toxic that we'll devolve into a civil war in the not too distant future.
In other words, close but no cigar. By default Hillary gets my vote and we'll just have to wait a few more years to clean the American political/governance system.
A vote for Johnson is effectively a vote for Hillary, anyway.
He's pulling Sanders supporters at a decent clip so I wouldn't get too cozy thinking that.
I like Hillary Clinton. I think she is supremely qualified and would be a decent President under most circumstances. I do not believe these are ordinary times though. I thought Obama was an exceptional candidate, but even he barely managed to move the needle in terms of America's ability to handle world events that have had an inordinate impact on American lives. In his defense, he only managed to save the economy from collapse (with some help), and turn the tide in favor of greater social equality (at the expense of being perceived as a President who exacerbated economic inequality). But in terms of world affairs and the bigger picture in general, Obama has been largely ineffective.
If I were to be truly objective and accept that most official tasks of the Executive branch could be handled by the Cabinet and bureaucracy, then the call is for a President who will disrupt the compromised foundation on which our current political leadership rests to allow for a new paradigm of American leadership that can redefine and better manage geopolitical affairs. Essentially, someone like Trump. I do not see Trump as the solution to the problem, but a catalyst that will allow the solution to appear.
Having said that, Trump is just so far off the charts that there is no way in hell I could bring myself to vote for him. I mean, he is just so insidious that the risk is too great that he will accomplish the first part of destroying the current notion of an American political leader, but leave the country and political environment so toxic that we'll devolve into a civil war in the not too distant future.
In other words, close but no cigar. By default Hillary gets my vote and we'll just have to wait a few more years to clean the American political/governance system.
A vote for Johnson is effectively a vote for Hillary, anyway.
This is just what the 2 party system wants you to believe, if enough voters got out of the mindset that we only have a 2 party system then we might see some change in American politics. In effect it is the media that is choosing who you should vote for, you don't see much of Gary Johnson in the news, do you.
I'm tempted to vote for Johnson. Not that I think he will win, but having Libertarian values myself, I'd want the party to gain more exposure for future elections. Making a dent in the general elections will put us one step closer.
EDIT: I'm technically a Democrat, but live in a closed primary state.
Are you libertarian leaning on economics/taxes?
That is a major issue for me and one of my frustrations with Trump. His tax plan is highly progressive and actually increases the number of people with no federal income tax liability, which I strongly oppose. In my view, progressive taxation is just as immoral to the so-called beneficiaries as to the people whose taxes it raises. Progressive taxation separate peoples' outcomes from their decisions and tells people that, so long as they vote to raise other peoples' taxes, their standing in life will improve. This reduces their own incentive to achieve.
This is just what the 2 party system wants you to believe, if enough voters got out of the mindset that we only have a 2 party system then we might see some change in American politics. In effect it is the media that is choosing who you should vote for, you don't see much of Gary Johnson in the news, do you.
I agree to some extent. However, as long as there is organized local politics and party membership, it's impossible for a third party candidate to win because they will need to be prevalent at the local level AND manage to convert members from other parties. The Libertarian party is not entitled to members. They have to earn them the hard way. Even if they get all the unaffiliated voters, unless they build the party membership they're never going to come close to a simple majority. Of course, the only way to do that is by trying to appease every agenda (or many of them) in which case they would not be any different from the other two parties. Catch 22.
Edit: I guess in theory they could convince a majority to become unaffiliated. That might also work in favor of the Libertarian party. Come to think of it, it might be good for the country in general for people to not be beholden to a political party and vice versa
That is a major issue for me and one of my frustrations with Trump. His tax plan is highly progressive and actually increases the number of people with no federal income tax liability, which I strongly oppose. In my view, progressive taxation is just as immoral to the so-called beneficiaries as to the people whose taxes it raises. Progressive taxation separate peoples' outcomes from their decisions and tells people that, so long as they vote to raise other peoples' taxes, their standing in life will improve. This reduces their own incentive to achieve.
I am. I dislike progressive taxes for the same reason as you; it penalizes people for being successful. It doesn't give people a reason to try to improve their lives by contributing more to society. An eye-opening for me was when I got into a heated discussion with somebody about parking spaces for residents of housing projects in NYC. This person believed that the housing project residents have a right to and are owed parking spots (in Manhattan where others paying $200+ per month!!). The mayor wanted to lease the land to developers so they could raise money to make repairs to the very buildings these people were living in. Why would you *need* subsidized parking in a city with an extensive public transportation system? These people are in a situation where it doesn't make sense for them to earn more money.
In an ideal world, the taxes we pay would generally be proportional to the services we use. I'd like to see the gasoline tax raised to cover repairs and improvements to roads, bridges and tunnels and not have the funds taken from an income tax. Public transportation would be paid for by fares and not heavily subsidized by general taxpayers.
I don't see progressive taxation as a punishment. I don't throw up my hands on making more money because I'm going to taxed more as I earn more. To suggest those that pay less taxes because they make less are better off is a fallacy.
In any case, I don't think you can discuss tax policy without discussing everything tax policy changes would affect.
Unaffiliated too and voting for Trump. We need a change of direction and he is the guy who can do it.. He is not all talk, he will work to get things done FOR THE PEOPLE this time.. not for the special interests , corruption or themselves.
I don't see progressive taxation as a punishment. I don't throw up my hands on making more money because I'm going to taxed more as I earn more. To suggest those that pay less taxes because they make less are better off is a fallacy.
In any case, I don't think you can discuss tax policy without discussing everything tax policy changes would affect.
Yes, it can't be fully discussed in 2 paragraphs. I have family members who purposely will not work as many hours as they can so they don't get bumped into the next tax bracket. When that happens, something's not right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
