April 2019 Presidential Preference Poll

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Really? So telling folks to "have a spine" isn't telling folks that it's somehow brave to vote that way? Yeah, OK.

I'm saying vote your conscience. Is that really that difficult to comprehend? Saying "I'm a third party guy but I don't want to waste my vote" is more damning than voting for a third party guy with (assumingly) no chance of winning.

Voting for one of the two major parties is literally throwing your vote away because there's NO difference other than semantics.

But hey, you do you bro.

I appreciate your ability to express this sentiment. I don't think I will be a third party guy this time but can't say for sure at this point.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I'm saying vote your conscience. Is that really that difficult to comprehend? Saying "I'm a third party guy but I don't want to waste my vote" is more damning than voting for a third party guy with (assumingly) no chance of winning.

Voting for one of the two major parties is literally throwing your vote away because there's NO difference other than semantics.

But hey, you do you bro.

And nothing changes.

It’s like the old Yogi Berra line...if you don’t go to other people’s funerals they won’t go to yours.

(I’m actually not sure if the two concepts are alike at all but since I’m quoting Z it seemed like a good fit here )

They are not and that is why it is a home run.

[AZGrizFan]

Stack up the tax cut against the "pay freeze". See if you came out ahead.

A temporary win that increased the federal debt. That'll completely screw over our kids. Some day, the reckoning is coming to all of us for Trump's corporate and billionaire welfare program.

Pretty much every billionaire out there (Gates, Buffett, etc) will tell you that they should be paying more and not less taxes for the long term health of the country.

Then why don't they? They're free to send in a check any time they want...

[GannonFan]

Well, I'm not voting Trump, so it's the Democrat unless they're crazy, but that could be likely, so I don't see the option clearly defined.

Possible crazies....Sanders, Beto, Warren. I'd vote for all of them over the insane Trump.

I'm not casting a vote for Beto (dumb as bricks) or for Warren (too old and really more of a Senator than President), and certainly not for Trump (buffoon). Sanders I'm up in the air on - I would've voted for him last time, and would probably do so again. Depends on the makeup of Congress, though. Voting for him last time wouldn't have been a problem, he'd never would've gotten any of his more crazy ideas through Congress. I don't think the Senate is going Democratic this time around, but it could be close, so now he's more of a risk. Besides, he's old, so when push comes to shove, I'm voting for a younger person.

[89Hen]

Really? So telling folks to "have a spine" isn't telling folks that it's somehow brave to vote that way? Yeah, OK.

I'm saying vote your conscience. Is that really that difficult to comprehend? Saying "I'm a third party guy but I don't want to waste my vote" is more damning than voting for a third party guy with (assumingly) no chance of winning.

Voting for one of the two major parties is literally throwing your vote away because there's NO difference other than semantics.

But hey, you do you bro.

You're joking, right? Voting for either party is throwing away your vote, even though one of them will win? Whereas voting third party is not a waste, even though your vote will be going to somebody who will get maybe 5% of the vote in a good year?

And voting your conscience is only if they vote how you say they should vote?

[Ivytalk]

Possible crazies....Sanders, Beto, Warren. I'd vote for all of them over the insane Trump.

I'm not casting a vote for Beto (dumb as bricks) or for Warren (too old and really more of a Senator than President), and certainly not for Trump (buffoon). Sanders I'm up in the air on - I would've voted for him last time, and would probably do so again. Depends on the makeup of Congress, though. Voting for him last time wouldn't have been a problem, he'd never would've gotten any of his more crazy ideas through Congress. I don't think the Senate is going Democratic this time around, but it could be close, so now he's more of a risk. Besides, he's old, so when push comes to shove, I'm voting for a younger person.

I thought you were more or less of a centrist. Your position makes no sense. You’d vote for Sanders only if you are convinced that none of his “more crazy ideas” would be enacted into law. Got it. Also, please let us know what his “less crazy ideas” are, beyond conventional Donk stuff.

[GannonFan]

I'm not casting a vote for Beto (dumb as bricks) or for Warren (too old and really more of a Senator than President), and certainly not for Trump (buffoon). Sanders I'm up in the air on - I would've voted for him last time, and would probably do so again. Depends on the makeup of Congress, though. Voting for him last time wouldn't have been a problem, he'd never would've gotten any of his more crazy ideas through Congress. I don't think the Senate is going Democratic this time around, but it could be close, so now he's more of a risk. Besides, he's old, so when push comes to shove, I'm voting for a younger person.

I thought you were more or less of a centrist. Your position makes no sense. You’d vote for Sanders only if you are convinced that none of his “more crazy ideas” would be enacted into law. Got it. Also, please let us know what his “less crazy ideas” are, beyond conventional Donk stuff.

I am a centrist - that ties in fine with a President that would have to work with an opposing party in Congress to advance their ideas. Ideally, a more left-ward leaning President would be brought closer to the center by a right-wing based Congress that would also have to tack more towards the center and the net result of compromise would be something towards the middle. Worst case, gridlock, which for all of its faults doesn't really lean left or right - again, stuck in the middle. Makes perfect sense if you think on it.

[Ivytalk]

I thought you were more or less of a centrist. Your position makes no sense. You’d vote for Sanders only if you are convinced that none of his “more crazy ideas” would be enacted into law. Got it. Also, please let us know what his “less crazy ideas” are, beyond conventional Donk stuff.

I am a centrist - that ties in fine with a President that would have to work with an opposing party in Congress to advance their ideas. Ideally, a more left-ward leaning President would be brought closer to the center by a right-wing based Congress that would also have to tack more towards the center and the net result of compromise would be something towards the middle. Worst case, gridlock, which for all of its faults doesn't really lean left or right - again, stuck in the middle. Makes perfect sense if you think on it.

If you say so.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm saying vote your conscience. Is that really that difficult to comprehend? Saying "I'm a third party guy but I don't want to waste my vote" is more damning than voting for a third party guy with (assumingly) no chance of winning.

Voting for one of the two major parties is literally throwing your vote away because there's NO difference other than semantics.

But hey, you do you bro.

You're joking, right? Voting for either party is throwing away your vote, even though one of them will win? Whereas voting third party is not a waste, even though your vote will be going to somebody who will get maybe 5% of the vote in a good year?

And voting your conscience is only if they vote how you say they should vote?

Jesus, you're being exceptionally dense today.

It's throwing away your vote because in the long run it DOES. NOT. MATTER. If either of the major party candidates win, it's same ol' same ol'....wanting change and then voting for the same thing over and over again...the definition of insanity. Again, is that REALLY that difficult of a concept to grasp?

[dbackjon]

You're joking, right? Voting for either party is throwing away your vote, even though one of them will win? Whereas voting third party is not a waste, even though your vote will be going to somebody who will get maybe 5% of the vote in a good year?

And voting your conscience is only if they vote how you say they should vote?

Jesus, you're being exceptionally dense today.

It's throwing away your vote because in the long run it DOES. NOT. MATTER. If either of the major party candidates win, it's same ol' same ol'....wanting change and then voting for the same thing over and over again...the definition of insanity. Again, is that REALLY that difficult of a concept to grasp?

Jesus playing 2nd base for the Grizzlies this past weekend. The other Jesus played outfield, along with my Angels. Joseph was both the pitcher and the catcher. As for the Virgin Mary, no virgins on my team.

[AZGrizFan]

Jesus, you're being exceptionally dense today.

It's throwing away your vote because in the long run it DOES. NOT. MATTER. If either of the major party candidates win, it's same ol' same ol'....wanting change and then voting for the same thing over and over again...the definition of insanity. Again, is that REALLY that difficult of a concept to grasp?

Jesus playing 2nd base for the Grizzlies this past weekend. The other Jesus played outfield, along with my Angels. Joseph was both the pitcher and the catcher. As for the Virgin Mary, no virgins on my team.

I bet he was.

[BDKJMU]

Really? So telling folks to "have a spine" isn't telling folks that it's somehow brave to vote that way? Yeah, OK.

I'm saying vote your conscience. Is that really that difficult to comprehend? Saying "I'm a third party guy but I don't want to waste my vote" is more damning than voting for a third party guy with (assumingly) no chance of winning.

Voting for one of the two major parties is literally throwing your vote away because there's NO difference other than semantics.

But hey, you do you bro.

Have to disagree with you there. I don’t think a Clinton admin would have done/be doing the same policy wise as the Trump admin. Sure, there’s some areas where the only difference is the rhetoric, but other areas where there is a HUGE difference.

[Winterborn]

Have to disagree with you there. I don’t think a Clinton admin would have done/be doing the same policy wise as the Trump admin. Sure, there’s some areas where the only difference is the rhetoric, but other areas where there is a HUGE difference.

Only difference is in how long it is going to take before complete governmental control. D's will just get there quicker, but make no mistake the R's will wind up in the same spot. They are using the past voting record of the Republican name as a smoke screen. If you look at them in light of how they would compare to R's 15-20+ years ago, they would of been Democrats back then.

Sure there are a few that have held the course or have certain values that line up the same, but they are few and far between.

[kalm]

Have to disagree with you there. I don’t think a Clinton admin would have done/be doing the same policy wise as the Trump admin. Sure, there’s some areas where the only difference is the rhetoric, but other areas where there is a HUGE difference.

Only difference is in how long it is going to take before complete governmental control. D's will just get there quicker, but make no mistake the R's will wind up in the same spot. They are using the past voting record of the Republican name as a smoke screen. If you look at them in light of how they would compare to R's 15-20+ years ago, they would of been Democrats back then.

Sure there are a few that have held the course or have certain values that line up the same, but they are few and far between.

Not economically. R’s 15 years ago were spending trillions on a war of choose, while cutting taxes, and enough of them getting ready to support Medicare Part D.

[Winterborn]

Only difference is in how long it is going to take before complete governmental control. D's will just get there quicker, but make no mistake the R's will wind up in the same spot. They are using the past voting record of the Republican name as a smoke screen. If you look at them in light of how they would compare to R's 15-20+ years ago, they would of been Democrats back then.

Sure there are a few that have held the course or have certain values that line up the same, but they are few and far between.

Not economically. R’s 15 years ago were spending trillions on a war of choose, while cutting taxes, and enough of them getting ready to support Medicare Part D.

My bad, too early. They had already started to turn.

[kalm]

Not economically. R’s 15 years ago were spending trillions on a war of choose, while cutting taxes, and enough of them getting ready to support Medicare Part D.

My bad, too early. They had already started to turn.

No worries. I was still voting most Democratic back then too.

[UNI88]

Well, I'm not voting Trump, so it's the Democrat unless they're crazy, but that could be likely, so I don't see the option clearly defined.

Possible crazies....Sanders, Beto, Warren, Che, Stalin, Mao. I'd vote for all of them over the insane Trump.

FYP

To answer Jon's question, I would consider Buttigieg based on limited knowledge at this time but I'm not sure about D's that aren't running.

[Gil Dobie]

I think it's perfect timing to put a woman in the White House, now that it won't be Hillary. Dems have a few good options at this point.

[kalm]

I think it's perfect timing to put a woman in the White House, now that it won't be Hillary. Dems have a few good options at this point.

Maybe but I couldn’t care less about gender, skin color, sexual persuasion, etc. Since I’m in a safe space, I will say that women of the 2 or 3 generations currently in their political prime have overseen a massive feminization of America and not all of it is good.

[Gil Dobie]

I think it's perfect timing to put a woman in the White House, now that it won't be Hillary. Dems have a few good options at this point.

Maybe but I couldn’t care less about gender, skin color, sexual persuasion, etc. Since I’m in a safe space, I will say that women of the 2 or 3 generations currently in their political prime have overseen a massive feminization of America and not all of it is good.

..and the male domination has not exactly all been good either. There have been some great world leaders of the opposite sex.

[Pwns]

My problems with the Democrats:

1. Racial resentment and identity politics. This stuff just makes it easier for the next Donald Trump to win, and leads to policies addressing non-existent problems like the alleged racial bias in police killings and school discipline.

2. I want a "too big to fail, too big to exist" policy for the mega banks. This should be a bipartisan issue. Granted Warren and Bernie have talked about this but I'm pretty sure Joe Biden's going to let them regulate themselves in exchange for a half-million dollar speech.

3. Environmental policy that has a minimal effect on the problems they're designed to solve that just make everyone's energy costs go up and causes other problems.

4. Immigration policy that works more for the Democrat party than for America. Not like it's not the same thing with the GOP, but the donks are much worse.

I'm not that afraid of the economic left at least right now, but with the current crop of donks it's very hard to not vote third party or independent.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm saying vote your conscience. Is that really that difficult to comprehend? Saying "I'm a third party guy but I don't want to waste my vote" is more damning than voting for a third party guy with (assumingly) no chance of winning.

Voting for one of the two major parties is literally throwing your vote away because there's NO difference other than semantics.

But hey, you do you bro.

Have to disagree with you there. I don’t think a Clinton admin would have done/be doing the same policy wise as the Trump admin. Sure, there’s some areas where the only difference is the rhetoric, but other areas where there is a HUGE difference.

Tomato tomahto. They both want to spend us into oblivion. They both spy on innocent Americans and don't call it spying. They both are only concerned about staying in power and not what's best for the country. Neither want to solve the political footballs because then they couldn't rile up the single issue mouthbreathers to come out and vote. Their proclaimed "differences" are merely a mirage. They're 90% the same and 10% different rhetoric.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Maybe but I couldn’t care less about gender, skin color, sexual persuasion, etc. Since I’m in a safe space, I will say that women of the 2 or 3 generations currently in their political prime have overseen a massive feminization of America and not all of it is good.

..and the male domination has not exactly all been good either. There have been some great world leaders of the opposite sex.

Exactly one

(Thatcher)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Have to disagree with you there. I don’t think a Clinton admin would have done/be doing the same policy wise as the Trump admin. Sure, there’s some areas where the only difference is the rhetoric, but other areas where there is a HUGE difference.

Tomato tomahto. They both want to spend us into oblivion. They both spy on innocent Americans and don't call it spying. They both are only concerned about staying in power and not what's best for the country. Neither want to solve the political footballs because then they couldn't rile up the single issue mouthbreathers to come out and vote. Their proclaimed "differences" are merely a mirage. They're 90% the same and 10% different rhetoric.

You think with Clinton we would have had:
-2 SCOTUS nominations similar to Gorsuch and Kavanough + numerous conservative Circuit nominations
-Tax cuts
-Similar on Illegal Immigration
-Ending Obamacare mandate
-Similar on Deregulation
-Renegotiating NAFTA
-Similar on China.
-Nixing the terrible Iran Deal.
-Pulling out of the Paris Climate deal.
-Getting deadbeat NATO countries to pledge to pay more.
-Pulling out Syria
-Opening dialogue with North Korea

And those are just the differences off the top of my head. I don’t think with Clinton would have had the above. Big difference between the 2.

[Gil Dobie]

..and the male domination has not exactly all been good either. There have been some great world leaders of the opposite sex.

Exactly one

(Thatcher)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Gandhi, Golda Meir, Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, Isabella I, etc