The current candidate I'd most like to see resign:
Displaying poll results.22807 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6439 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
dump trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, surprising survey where the leading candidate from one of the major two parties is not on there .. but the candidate from the other one is.
I think bias would suggest that Hillary is almost definitely going to have just under 1/2 the votes (although /. does lean left, because, you know, we are smart). The other 1/2 are likely to be divided among the other repub candidates.
Not a very scientific study to begin with, but made much worse by the selection of choices.
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Insightful)
"Smart" does not mean "agrees with my politics", and only someone who's deeply insecure about the validity of his own beliefs would suggest that it does
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Insightful)
In rural areas people are less educated but deal with a more visceral reality they are more prone to strong religious opinions rather than reason based ones. In the large population centers people are better educated but are more dependent on central services.
So that is the split, you have one party that targets the rural areas and farms troops. This party encourages small arms that present little to no military threat which is safe enough because rural populations are very sparse and small arms are really only dangerous with large numbers behind them. This party puts forth lots of views that are irrational and based on religion or emotion. This is the side that openly fights for the benefit of the wealthy especially protecting control of the banking system and wealth equity trade allowing wealth to keep shifting and be impossible to track. The infrastructure of the wealthy whereby they get the population to provide goods and services in exchange for wealth that simply systematically returns to the wealthy.
The other targets population centers. This side fights to disarm the people and keep them highly sensitized to violence and weapons since their targets are most of the population, and the dense population clusters that could easily band together in numbers and build military force that could present a threat to the wealthy. By and large most of the positions this party puts forth on emotional hot button issues are based on logic and reason to gain the support of their more highly educated base. This side openly fights for intellectual property cartels and which allow the wealthy to own the production of our brightest minds and assert control throughout the world. To coincide with keeping it's base timid and afraid it openly supports protection rackets such as insurance and regulation designed to drive up the cost of entry into fields so that only the wealthy can afford to pursue them.
Agreeing with someone's politics is beside the point. If you support a democrat or a republican you are the problem. Lets get back to supporting populists.
Re:dump trump (Score:4, Insightful)
What you describe is Man's historical lust for power. Certainly nothing special to current US politics. You resent that rich Republicans trade power with rich Democrats. Whoever wins, it was rich people that won. You resent that the poor work for the rich.
It's been that way since the Romans were in power. With any degree of freedom, comes the ability to get rich. Systematically is correct, the money always eventually comes back to them, and there is only one way to take it from them. You have to kill them all, and their families, and take all their shit. A couple of examples: the Soviets did it, the French did it... Don't be that guy. Besides, the next morning you just have new rich people, with bad taste.
You go to their battlefield, and you think you win. You come back with these outrageous tax rates and mountains of regulations, and you think you've beaten them. 'Ah, we've stuck it to the man this time...' All you've done is cement their power even further, until their businesses are indistinguishable from the government itself. Are we there yet? It was already hard for the working man to break into the ranks of the rich, but it was more possible in this country than anywhere else. Quit raising the bar.
Myself, I love rich people. I don't have to invent anything, or risk anything, or even think of anything hard. All I have to do is show up everyday and do what they tell me, and they pay me. Seems like a good deal to me. More of a good thing is always better, of course. But that's more like a law of nature than a man made thing.I guess it's all in your mindset.
And you're sort of wrong about the small arms thing too. Do you know Texas? I bet you really don't. I'm sure there are other pockets of the country that are similar, but most of Texas is un-occupiable in its present state. Oh sure, they could be overrun by an armored division from most any country. (the losses would still surprise you) But to suppress and occupy the land would be guerrilla warfare like the Viet Cong only dreamed of. The only way to invade and hold Texas would be to take the guns first. No matter the state of our army, or how many nukes we have; as long as we have Texas the way it is, we are safe from being invaded.
So the gun thing is a little more than simple pandering.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Rich people won" - is true, but you're in danger of confusing cause and effect here.
How do people get to be rich? There are lots of different answers to that, but one thing they all have in common is that they succeed in ordering some part of the world - a much larger part than non-rich people manage - to their own benefit. Rich people are people who have, in some way, successfully hacked the economy.
From there, it doesn't take a whole lot of reflection to understand that political power is one way of beco
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Informative)
Choosing your parents wisely seems to be the main means to becoming rich. More so with every generation.
Until raising children becomes the responsibility of the state and inheritance is abolished, I don't see this being preventable.
The drift can (and historically, has been) reset every now and then, through pitchforks and torches. But the bigger and more powerful a nation is, the longer it takes to reach the critical mass for revolution.
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Insightful)
The system isn't much different than it was under feudal terms. It was always possible though extremely unlikely to become rich via trade or to get knighted on the battlefield. The system is stacked heavily against you but like winning the lottery it happens.
Once you get there the system is stacked heavily in your favor vs everyone who hasn't won the lottery. The more you climb the more true this becomes. The chances of you going from the bottom to the top are almost non-existent. The biggest lottery prize you've ever drooled over doesn't even begin to register for the top
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you know Texas?
Yeeeee Haw! Hell yeah I do! [gunshots]
Oh sure, they could be overrun by an armored division from most any country.
Cum on' down here and try it, Mr new york city fancypants. We'll send your yangkee ass back to france if we don't electricute you first. I betchu put ketchup on your briskit, you goddammed faggot assed northeastern (gasp) librul!
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Funny)
Pretty sure you could just cut off the power to the air conditioning in August and Houston would have to surrender within a day or two...
Re:dump trump (Score:4)
Rather than giving everyone else that wealth I'd propose dissolving all debt along with income taxes. Dissolve the current banking system. Instead pay for all public services via fully transparent inflation and let that be the only way new currency is generated.
Of course I'd also be a big fan of eliminating incorporation and stock. Ditch the whole corporations as people discussion outright and actually make those who own businesses be liable. Need capital? Fine, issue bonds and pay interest. The interest can be variable with business success (as determined by gross profit).
Re: (Score:3)
Let's just not seek "real democracy", mkay? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The few fearing the many in the context here may lead to representatives that more closely align with their constituent's interests (although with the money and other rewards that come in from special interests during even one term considered, perhaps not.)
The US was designed as a constitutional republic. Anything that leads to "real democracy" for the country would be nothing less than a pathology.
Which is not to say it doesn't suffer from other pathologies undermining that intent; but "real democracy" is pretty much exactly described by "three wolves and two sheep voting on what's for dinner." It leads to happy circumstances like slavery, denial of individual rights, the popular religion being able to dominate the lawmaking process and so on and so forth. "Real democracy" is an awful thing, to be avoided if at all possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In the large population centers people are better educated but are more dependent on central services.
That depends a LOT on which areas you're comparing. The people in the rural upper Midwest are much better educated than those in the cities to the south east of them. Hell, 1/3 of the adults in Memphis are illiterate. The figures for Birmingham, Jackson, St Louis, etc probably aren't that much worse.
This quote makes a lot more sense if the "but" is replace with an "or":
In the large population centers people are better educated OR are more dependent on central services.
Cities are a lot more polarized into the haves and the have nots than rural areas.
Re:Education != ability to think (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like you're speaking from experience there, buddy.
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Republican politicians consistently demonstrate and champion anti-scientific beliefs across a wide spectrum, most notably climate science and basic biology (evolution). A technical news website tends to attract pro-science people that are generally more educated and smarter than the average population. Is it any surprise that highly educated people tend to lean away from the political party that favors religion over science?
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that there are several people who do tend to vote Democrat simply because the party tends to argue less against science, but that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of other people on the left who have taken their own anti-science views when it comes to things like GMO foods, nuclear power, etc. so ignorance of science is not something that the political right holds a monopoly on.
I suspect that were it not for a two party system, that the Democrats would lose a sizable portion of their base that only votes with them because they would rather vote against the Republicans. The same holds true for the Republican party as well. Were it not for our electoral system, I strongly suspect that both parties would have disappeared by now and that they only persist because we wouldn't want to elect the wrong lizard.
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Interesting)
Republicans don't hold a monopoly on anti-science. Look at the anti-vaxers. Yes, there are a few that are on the religious right but there are a lot more wacky anti-vaxers on the liberal left. Green energy is another one. Many on the left want to eliminate all nuclear AND all fossil fuels. It can't be done in the foreseeable future. The math doesn't add up. Neither does the math for replacing all our food with organic. We just have too many mouths to feed.
Re: (Score:3)
Many on the left want to eliminate all nuclear AND all fossil fuels. It can't be done in the foreseeable future
depends on your definition of foreseeable. if it is 30 years, it certainly can be done.
Re:dump trump (Score:4, Interesting)
Could be, yes, will be, no. Maybe in some states, but coal mining country will fight it tooth and nail to preserve mining jobs, just like the military won't stop building unneeded tanks to preserve tank building jobs. Coal plant owners will keep saying they can make "clean coal" by carbon capture and sequestration and put little to no investment into it because it will take 1/3 more energy to do it. They could boost rates to pay for it, but the reality is, if it impacts their bottom line they aren't going to do it quickly or willingly.
Then there's the real tough sell - getting America's car loving populace to completely convert to all electric cars or ride non-fossil fuel public transportation. This may happen eventually, but I just don't see it in 30 years. 50 maybe. Millennials are tilting in that direction, the next gen or two will go all-in. Then it's just wait for the old fogies like me to die off.
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Insightful)
And why on earth are you saying pro-green energy is anti-science? Politicians promoting more renewable energy instead of fossil fuels are almost entirely driven by concern about climate change (hint: that's a pro-science stance).
Meanwhile, another republican nominee, Ted Cruz, wants to ban *birth control*!
The difference is, no major politicians from the democrats hold strong anti-science views, while as far as I know, every republican candidate favors teaching intelligent design, and dismisses climate change.
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Insightful)
"Smart" does not mean "agrees with my politics", and only someone who's deeply insecure about the validity of his own beliefs would suggest that it does
A good example here is Ben Carson, a brain surgeon with an impressive resume, extremely competent. Nearly everyone would agree he is smart. And yet he holds some strongly conservative opinions.
It makes sense once you realize that politics is less about "we are right, you are wrong" and more about "we prefer, and they prefer something different."
Re: (Score:3)
"Smart" is a word with so many meanings that it's practically meaningless for closer investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians are never scientific for the sake of science, only when they have something to gain. And actually most people, when they have something to gain.
Case in point: " Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity [wikipedia.org]"
The left goes CLIMATE CHANGE AND SCIENCE WOOOOO but then protests genetic modification of crops, nuclear power, oil drilling, known-safe vaccinations, and basically all of economics. Because the science on the latter issues doesn't give them a convenien
Re: (Score:3)
Paul Krugman has been far and away the most prescient economist of the last quarter century
That's nonsense since first, there's no measure of what "most prescient" is supposed to mean. It's puffery as a result. For example, I have a greater claim to being "most prescient" than Krugman does because I'm at least at the top of a list [ideosphere.com] that crudely measures to some extent prognostication ability (though admittedly a rather short list that doesn't include Krugman to my knowledge).
Second, when I looked at the various predictions that Krugman got right versus wrong, I see a number of very wrong long t
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot doesn't lean left, it leans libertarian, which just happens to be left-ish on some social issues.
Slashdot is mostly libertarian because it's mostly tech professionals, specifically Gen-X tech professionals, many of whom are self-taught to some extent because of the dearth of tech education available in the 80s and 90s. And of course many of them are successful, and successful, self-taught people sometimes tend to believe they are also self-made people, who thus think they owe the world nothing and don't want to contribute to it. They can't consider all of the other things that have helped them or their families in secondary ways that made it possible for them to lead a healthy life and have the free time necessary to tinker with computers and earn a white collar job.
And that pretty much sums up libertarianism.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"one which believes the strong has an inherent right to subjugate the weak (and the weak like being their bitches)"
You mean the Democrats.
Re: (Score:3)
Well I sort of agree with your initial responce but if you think Bernie is a communist then you, like so many other conservatives use the same taunt for the left, have no idea what the word means.
Anyone who actually knows the deffinition of the word would know that our "far" left is as close to communism as Panda Express is to real chinese food.
Re: (Score:2)
Also people outside the US tend to favor democrats over republicans by a wide margin. Except in some countries such as Russia.
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc
Supremacy of the Military Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
Rampant Sexism The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
Controlled Mass Media Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
Religion and Government are Intertwined Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
Corporate Power is Protected The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
Labor Power is Suppressed Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
Obsession with Crime and Punishment Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
Rampant Cronyism and Corruption Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
First of all, the soviet union never was communist, even officially they called themselves socialist, with communism being a long-term goal. Couldn't be communist, since even Marx explained that communism is only possible in a post-scarcity economy.
Second, the USSR was not nationalistic at all. It was very internationalist, it was an union several republics of very different ethnics. Consider Estonia and Tajikistan. Both were a part of the USSR. They aren't as different as Texans to New Englanders, they are
Re:dump trump (Score:4, Interesting)
I had the "political spectrum" once explained to me in a rather fascinating way - it's really an almost-circle where the extreme ends are very close to touching. Extreme left starts to look a whole lot like extreme right, but the way you got there is rather different.
Hitler and Stalin had incredibly different viewpoints and vastly different philosophies, but their actions were almost identical.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Why? Hillary is such an unpleasant character that I think Republicans should welcome her to run.
Absolutely right: the left is all about being smart, a hotbed of intellectualism and technocratic solutions to every problem.
However, for good government, being wise, just, and humble are much more important.
Re: (Score:3)
"(although /. does lean left, because, you know, we are smart"
Not sure I agree with that at all. When discussions of race, gender or social politics come up, I find a very good chunk of what I would call conservative (old white guy) comments.
Re: (Score:3)
Psst, that's not a haircut. It's a wig. A very bad wig, it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it me, or does he have a very low brow?
Physically I mean; metaphorically it's a given.
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:dump trump (Score:5, Funny)
So the Whigs got replaced by the Reps, and the Reps now by the wig, is that what you say?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not inanimate. It just wants you to *THINK* it is inanimate. It has clearly taken over Trump and wants to gain the Presidency in order to infect the rest of America... and then the world!
Re: (Score:2)
You can't dump the Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't dump the Trump.
Hmmm . . . well, can I at least, take a dump, on the Trump . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The sad part is, he's even better for the Republicans. They are about to be purged by fire. About damn time. Of course, they are going to try to burn him down first. We shall see.
I'm a conservative. And I don't post AC. (unless I modded) Modern conservative = classical liberal. Thomas Jefferson man myself. And Theodore Roosevelt was pretty good for his time. I know you worship at the altar of Karl Marx, so I don't mean to offend you with those names.
Trump is very similar to Teddy btw - outside the Republica
Why isn't Scott Walker on that list? (Score:3, Insightful)
He is the most dangerous of all the candidates.
Re: (Score:3)
Ted Cruz wants to have a word with you about that.
Oh well Rand Paul will have to do.
Re: (Score:3)
It's sad when an entire party seems to be acting on the premise of "The most dangerous and anti-science among us is the best candidate we have."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
agreed 100%. he's the one candidate that could get me to vote for Hillary. I'll most likely be voting 3rd party, but if Bernie or Rand got the nomination, either of them would get my vote. If both of them got it, awesome -- Rand would be my man.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately for Republicans, he's also the candidate who could convince 7/10 voters NOT to vote for Hillary...
Unlike Bush, who would convince 7/10 voters to vote for an ACTUAL donkey (or elephant, depending on affiliation).
Re:Why isn't Scott Walker on that list? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> and now Rand's position (which hasn't moved) has somehow become much closer to the middle
You mean the position that single payer healthcare makes doctors slaves?
Re:Why isn't Scott Walker on that list? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is he dangerous? Because he stopped people from being forced to pay union dues involuntarily? Or to stop people from being forced to BE in a union (like the Teacher's Union)? I mean, who doesn't want to be coerced into doing something for their own good amirite?
My wife is a teacher, and she was finally able to end her membership in the NCAE a year or two ago. They only endorse Democrats despite the evidence that the Dems didn't give a giant CRAP about education. Keep them poor and on government subsidies, keep them as Democrat voters.
If you're too stupid to see that, then you're part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry I am not part of your problem.
Left the US many years ago and live happily in Canada, which BTW offers a much better public eduction.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Left the US many years ago and live happily in Canada, which BTW offers a much better public eduction.
Evidently not.
Re: (Score:2)
You really like to jump to conclusions don't you?
I am not Canadian nor American. But the education my kids get here is top notch.
Re: (Score:2)
Right :-)
Makes much more sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the same Scott Walker who, entirely separately, declared that the state had to spend $250 million on building a new sports stadium for Milwaukee's NBA team?
The same Scott Walker who's cut taxes only to see Wisconsin's economy sputter, while the liberal governor in neighboring Minnesota has raised taxes, leading to a booming economy there?
Re:Why isn't Scott Walker on that list? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also the same Scott Walker who forced UWM and all the other state universities to do away with tenure.
This will kill them as research universities, there's a snowball's chance in hell that they will be able to attract and retain top talent on these terms.
Re:Why isn't Scott Walker on that list? (Score:5, Funny)
must suck to be a union rep. pity you are not completely unemployed
Clinton/Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
For me it's a tossup between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. I'd make the both drop out if I could. I hate political dynasties, and I think preventing them is more important than any and all of the pet issues we bicker about in elections.
Clinton--free up the nomination (Score:3)
The Democrats have basically no electable candidates because the Clintons have locked up the party establishment. By doing that she's risking the party victory for her personal gain in a very serious way.
Re: (Score:3)
Missing option (Score:3)
Uh where's the choice of all the Republican candidates?
Where's Trump? (Score:5, Interesting)
He's currently leading the Republican polls (please God, that won't last long) and manages the impressive feat of being a bigger slimeball than anybody else in the race.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Give him time. The man has no SPAM filter in his head.
He does. Watch him carefully, he insults people who insult him first. I didn't realize this at first, but it seems to be true. It's still hard for me to be convinced that he's actually running for president, and isn't a democrat mole, or something.
Re: (Score:2)
So the entire Hispanic immigrant population of the USA insulted him first?
He didn't insult the entire Hispanic immigrant population. You clearly didn't read what he said.
John McCain and every US veteran who was captured during war insulted him first?
John McCain insulted him first, or rather, Trump considered that he insulted the people who came to listen to Trump.
the Fox reporter he went off on wasn't even insulting him
Trump didn't insult her. He said that she He insulted Rosie O'Donnell.
I don't like Trump, I hope he doesn't win. Here I'm trying to point out his mode of operating. His way of acting reminds me a lot of many Junior-high girls.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't figure out whether Trump is too dumb to know he doesn't stand a chance in a general election or too smart for his own good and is intentionally sabotaging the GOP.
Here are my predictions:
In the latter case he's stirring up enough chaos that the Democrats slide in for an easy win and the Democratic primary becomes the de facto main event.
In the former case I think he's actually running for VP, whether he knows it or not:
He's pissed off enough of the GOP establishment, and proven beyond all doubt that
Re: (Score:2)
If he's doing it intentionally (which I suspect is true), how would he be "too smart for his own good"? Why would he give a shit about the GOP at all, let alone enough to feel remorse over "sabotaging" it?
Personally, I think that he's doing it mostly for egotist lulz. I mean, why not? I've voted for mainstream parties in the past, but if I had a big pile of fuck-you money I'd personally love to give one or both of them the finger. I don't think I would do it quite the same way as Trump, but to be honest, he
Re: (Score:3)
But The Huffington Post says that he's not a real candidate and they now cover him as "entertainment" news.
So apparently he doesn't belong on this list!
Re:Where's Trump? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think his campaign has anything to do with political strategy.
It's vanity. His money can't buy him the presidency, but it can be him some months of make-believe where he imagines he could be.
Worst. Poll. Ever. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lyndon LaRouche wants a word with you...
Pollsters = trolls (Score:5, Informative)
You didn't include Donald Trump as an option out of spite, and to provoke comments about how he's not an option. You know it, we know it, we know you know it and you know we know it.
That is low brow.
Re: (Score:3)
That is low brow.
I'd almost go so far as to say it's "dicey".
where is the rm -rf option? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Where is the rm -rf option?
Forgot the *, just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RTFM?
You're not logged in as a super user (Score:4, Interesting)
Resign (Score:2)
Missing Option (Score:5, Insightful)
All Of Them.
Re: (Score:2)
...and where the hell is the "CowboyNeal" option?!
Dumbest Poll Ever... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hillary, Jeb, and Rick Perry do not currently have jobs to resign. They're an ex-Senator/Secretary of State, and a pair of ex-Governors. Lessig is employed, but not in a political job (he's a law professor).
Which means the actual choices on the poll are Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Bernie Sanders, and Cowboy Neal.
Now if they'd phrased the poll "withdraw" as in quit the Presidential campaign, and we'd got to choose between that lady who destroyed HP, Trump, Billary, Ted Cruz, Jindal (who doesn't seem to love his mother),* it could be a really interesting poll. But as written it's just silly.
*Seriously. He's one of the guys who is very consistent in the assertion that Jesus is everything, anti-Jesus-ites are the Problem with this Great Nation, etc. He's actually more dickish about this then Santorum. And his mother? Hindu.
Keep Trump, Dump Hilary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fun thing is that Mr. Trump doesn't even stand for the things Republicans have traditionally stood for.
Then again, neither do most of the other candidates.
At least Trump is entertaining.
Re: (Score:3)
Careful what you wish for... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, conservatives should think about that wish before making it. The candidate who is gaining the most traction against her right now is Bernie Sanders. While not all Clinton supporters will rally behind him, some certainly would. And if Bernie starts to get coverage and attention, then you would have an actual socialist to run against rather than the soft conservatives that you like to inaccurately call socialists.
Even more so, if a socialist starts to get attention, then Americans might start to understand what socialism actually is - as opposed to what you claim it to be - and there is a chance they might actually like it. If that happens, you'll be back in the woods a lot longer than you were before.
Re:Careful what you wish for... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you are way off here. The reason I voted Hillary off was because I want to see Bernie in the general election. I think that's the reason she's leading in the poll, too.
I don't agree with Bernie on everything, but he's actually talking about the issues and taking principled stands. I like that.
I'd probably pick Hillary over any of the Republicans (except maybe Rand), but I'd more likely vote third party. She seems a big government power type of person, just like Barak turned out to be. Only she seems worse.
Where is the all of them option? (Score:5, Informative)
Really, I do want that all Republicans resign and Clinton too, as she is also just a money puppet. However, she is at least not totally crazy. I would vote for Lawrence Lessig, because he is the only liberal and social person in the "race". However, I am European and therefore considered a communist, by US standards.
Doesn't Follow: (Score:2)
I liked a lot of things (but certainly not all) about Richard Nixon.
I do not love Hillary Clinton. (That's Bill's job, and I wouldn't want it.)
Re: (Score:3)
*sigh*
He said "yes we CAN". Nobody has ever said anything about DOING anything!
You really gotta read the fine print. "Hope" only means that you may "hope". Not that this hope would be fulfilled.
Re: (Score:3)
He said "yes we CAN". Nobody has ever said anything about DOING anything!
I was very surprised that he actually could so much.
After so many decades, he managed to set up some health care system in the last industrial country which didn't have one. It's a very right-wing system, actually inspired by Romney's system (probably in the naive hope to gain wide republican support), but it's much better than no universal health care at all.
He managed to make progress and a significant deal with Iran.
He normalized relations with Cuba.
Most of all, unlike Europe, he managed to start a recov
Uncle Bernie won't run as an independent (Score:3)
Re:Where the choice for Roger Goodell (Score:4)
Barack Obama is not a candidate. So why should he be in the poll?
Re:Where the choice for Roger Goodell (Score:4, Insightful)
What's wrong with Trump? He's the best Republican candidate out there, by far (this is coming from a Bernie fan). He's definitely very entertaining, and from what I've read about his stances on policies, he's far more progressive than all the other Republicans. Yeah, he's obviously no Democrat, but at least he's not a religious nutcase like all the other Republicans.
Re: (Score:3)
I think a huge part of his popularity is that he won't conform entirely to the Republican Party consensus. The Republican Party hasn't been putting up leaders recently, they've been putting up committee-groomed figureheads. He's willing to stand his ground, speak his mind, and have differences with the main party platform. Not being a religious nutcase may be a large portion of that. It also means he appears like he'll be conservative fiscally, but more centrist on social issues, which is something many Rep
Re: (Score:3)
The Evangelicals aren't going to like that. I guess it remains to be seen whether someone can get the Republican Party nomination without the Evangelical vote.
Re:Where the choice for Roger Goodell (Score:4, Informative)
How do you resign from running for office? The poll does not make sense.
You resign from the race. The word basically means to give up without resistence, surrender, cede. It also means to withdraw before the event/term is up. It makes sense thinking of the race as an event that ends in Nov 2016, so you resign from that race. Granted, this is a pretty kludgy use of the word, but I think technically it could be correct.