SHOULD THE NEXT PRESIDENT BE A POTENTIAL SEX OFFENDER

[2Dbunk]

Now that Hillary Clinton's e-mails are about to bury her in this election season, the United States is faced with the [strike]good[/strike] diSTINKED possibility of electing a mega-maniac as president. Donald Trump has bragged about grabbing women inappropriately, and a dozen women have come forward to confirm his propensity to force himself (with the aid of tic tacs -- HIS OWN WORDS) into unwanted kissing and embraces.

Both major party candidates are poster ogres for (you name it) ________________.
Interestingly, both candidates are church going Christians (professed religious entities endlessly touting family values). Is something wrong here? This is not how are country started or survived for over 200 years!

So, why are Christians putting up such gross candidates for president? Is the Democratic process in danger of failing?

[Elijah John]

Should the Nation's first "first-man" be a sex offender?

Some say that's not fair game because Bill Clinton is "not on the ticket".

But if Hillary wins, he WILL be back in the White House in another capacity, so in that sense Bill Clinton IS on the ticket.

Seems an unfortunate choice either way.

Yes, it is very sad that this is the best we have come up with as a Nation, these two.

[OnceConvinced]

Surely there's a third candidate and not just these two? Why not vote for option 3?

If yo can convince me that third option will garner enough electoral votes to win, I'll consider it.

This is the kind of attitude that really irritates me. Why does one have to be on the winning side? Surely voting is about which candidate you think is best? The one you think would be the best for the country? Not about which one you think has the best chance of winning.

This is the same problem we have in New Zealand. People refusing to vote for the little guy. They want to be on the winning team more than they want good leaders. They'll go for corrupt leaders just because they can't bear to lose. And because they don't vote for the little guy, the two big guys (the corrupt ones) always remain in power.

All it takes is for the majority to say no to the big two and maybe you might not be stuck with the big two. Attitudes need to change to get rid of the corrupt ones.

We have made some progress with that here in New Zealand with MMP, which allows minor parties to get in, but we're still stuck with the two main ones with the majority of the power because of people who insist on being on the winning team rather than voting for the candidate they think best.

Let's just keep the corrupt politicians in there. Just as long as we're on the winning team, right?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 12 by OnceConvinced]

You are only half right - it is not about which candidate one thinks is best, that much is true, but it is not about winning as such. It's about denying a victory to a bad candidate. We would go for corrupt leaders just because we can't afford for the greater of two evil to win.

It takes a lot more than the majority saying no to the big two. One of the big two will still win on plurality. The Aussies have it right with compulsory voting and proportional representation.

[bluethread]

Surely there's a third candidate and not just these two? Why not vote for option 3?

If yo can convince me that third option will garner enough electoral votes to win, I'll consider it.

This is the kind of attitude that really irritates me. Why does one have to be on the winning side? Surely voting is about which candidate you think is best? The one you think would be the best for the country? Not about which one you think has the best chance of winning.

This is the same problem we have in New Zealand. People refusing to vote for the little guy. They want to be on the winning team more than they want good leaders. They'll go for corrupt leaders just because they can't bear to lose. And because they don't vote for the little guy, the two big guys (the corrupt ones) always remain in power.

All it takes is for the majority to say no to the big two and maybe you might not be stuck with the big two. Attitudes need to change to get rid of the corrupt ones.

Voting is about whatever the voter wants it to be. I am not saying that I want to be on the winning side. Personally, I believe in effectual voting. In a parliamentary system, like yours, where minority positions are represented, your argument would hold more weight. However, in the periodic, winner take all, system we have, one is nearly always faced with a choice between two final candidates.

We have made some progress with that here in New Zealand with MMP, which allows minor parties to get in, but we're still stuck with the two main ones with the majority of the power because of people who insist on being on the winning team rather than voting for the candidate they think best.

Let's just keep the corrupt politicians in there. Just as long as we're on the winning team, right?

No, as I stated above, that is not my position. I understand your position, in your system. In our system the legislative branch is separate from the administrative branch. Therefore, the real power does not rest with the President, or at least it shouldn't. In our elections, the President just oversees implementation as directed by Congress, under it's supervision. The real way to change things in Washington is to vote for congress persons and senators who will not avoid the hard choices.

Personally, I believe that populism is to blame. It has stripped the States of their power and emboldened the tyranny of the majority, that Adams feared, bringing forth the nanny state that Tocqueville warned us about.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]

Most of the real legislative power resides in congress though, it's not like presidents magically wave a wand and they get their legislation. Just look at Obama he couldn't even get half of what he promised in his platform. What he did get was mostly deals made by congress with their own interests involved.

I say vote your conscience so your voice is heard. Otherwise the needle just keeps getting pushed in the wrong direction. I'm in North Carolina a swing state and I'm not voting trump or Clinton. When faced between a corrupt politician and whatever that thing Trump is Ill take my money elsewhere.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 15 by DanieltheDragon]

I don't begrudge you that right. I think it is a good thing that Obama only got half of what he wanted. However, I think that is a matter of priorities. He spent a lot of political capital helping Pelosi and Reed get Obamacare passed in his first term, and Reed had to play games to get that done. They didn't have to do that. They could have gotten other things through, since they had the majority. It was the landslide midterms that changed things and made it so he could not get his agenda passed into law. That is my point. That is how our system works. The President just effects things around the edges, by setting priorities, if Congress is stepping up to control legislation and over sight. It is too bad that Congress fell down on curbing his choosing not to enforce some laws and regulate in other areas by executive order, in his second term. That said, they did provide good over sight in the IRS, Bengazi, e-mail and other cases.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 12 by OnceConvinced]

bluethread wrote:

OnceConvinced wrote:

Surely there's a third candidate and not just these two? Why not vote for option 3?

If yo can convince me that third option will garner enough electoral votes to win, I'll consider it.

OnceConvinced wrote:

This is the kind of attitude that really irritates me. Why does one have to be on the winning side? Surely voting is about which candidate you think is best? The one you think would be the best for the country? Not about which one you think has the best chance of winning.

This is the same problem we have in New Zealand. People refusing to vote for the little guy. They want to be on the winning team more than they want good leaders. They'll go for corrupt leaders just because they can't bear to lose. And because they don't vote for the little guy, the two big guys (the corrupt ones) always remain in power.

All it takes is for the majority to say no to the big two and maybe you might not be stuck with the big two. Attitudes need to change to get rid of the corrupt ones.

We have made some progress with that here in New Zealand with MMP, which allows minor parties to get in, but we're still stuck with the two main ones with the majority of the power because of people who insist on being on the winning team rather than voting for the candidate they think best.

Let's just keep the corrupt politicians in there. Just as long as we're on the winning team, right?

Here's a curve voters could consider, solving the conundrum mentioned above:

Democrats, the major number of registered voters, are turned off by Hillary's imminent indictment by FBI's Comey (which may or may not happen), but to keep Trump out of the White House should vote Democratic anyway. Why? If Hillary is indicted she will be impeached, right? Well, who becomes president -- none other than Tim Kaine! No Hillary, no Trump -- problem solved!

If Hillary is not indicted she stays as president. She is innocent until proven guilty -- that is the American way.

[Strider324]

Should the Nation's first "first-man" be a sex offender?

Some say that's not fair game because Bill Clinton is "not on the ticket".

But if Hillary wins, he WILL be back in the White House in another capacity, so in that sense Bill Clinton IS on the ticket.

Seems an unfortunate choice either way.

Yes, it is very sad that this is the best we have come up with as a Nation, these two.

Clinton has exactly ZERO convictions as a sex offender, or any thing else for that matter. Does it seem honorable to you to make false claims like this, when the public record clearly shows you to be wrong?

Can you show us ONE example of EITHER Clinton being convicted of ANYTHING?

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 15 by DanieltheDragon]

I understand your predicament. But you must realize that the system is rigged. It has been since the first American presidential election. And it is that way with every winner take all system. The presidency goes to the one who gets the most electoral college votes. There is nothing for the runners up. It does not matter whether the loser gets 1% or 48% of the votes. Until and unless you change to a more parliamentary system, you will be locked into a two party system.

[Elijah John]

Should the Nation's first "first-man" be a sex offender?

Some say that's not fair game because Bill Clinton is "not on the ticket".

But if Hillary wins, he WILL be back in the White House in another capacity, so in that sense Bill Clinton IS on the ticket.

Seems an unfortunate choice either way.

Yes, it is very sad that this is the best we have come up with as a Nation, these two.

Clinton has exactly ZERO convictions as a sex offender, or any thing else for that matter. Does it seem honorable to you to make false claims like this, when the public record clearly shows you to be wrong?

Can you show us ONE example of EITHER Clinton being convicted of ANYTHING?

"Not convicted" is that the standard now in presidential politics?

OK, point well taken, I should rephrase that from sex offender to alleged sexual predator.

I believe Bill Clinton's accusers. He has been accused of worse than Trump has. Can you prove THEIR claims, are false.

If not, it is still a matter of opinion and greater suspicion.

Notice I didn't say convicted sex offender.

And how 'bout you with Trump. He hasn't been convicted either, has he.

Regarding Hillary's corruption...seems extensive. This isn't court, I don't have to prove it.

Just expressing why I don't trust either of them. Both Clintons reek of corruption, and I agree, Trump hasn't been a paragon either.

It's Trump's policies, not his personality, that wins my vote and support.

But to deal with only established facts.

-Fact, Bill Clinton WAS impeached, (and I believe disbarred in some states from practicing law could be wrong about that one though)

-Fact. Hillary Clinton IS under FBI investigation*.

You comfortable with those facts regarding your candidate and her husband?

So I go back to my original position. It is very sad that this is the best we as a Nation could come up with. With 15 very qualified Republicans, some of whom Trump trounced with insults..

Or same old, same old Hillary Clinton, when we could have had Joe Biden instead. At least Joe Biden is amusing. But with Clinton, we get economic regression, and continued degradation of the culture.

-------------

*Update, seems FBI director Comey just closed the case...again.

Florida AG Pam Bondi made the point that no one who has been careless with national emails (as James Comey admits HRC has been) can get a national security clearance.

And that is would be surreal to have a president, HRC who is not eligble for a national security clearance.

I think Bondi makes a very valid point.