September 14, 2016 7:45 pm at 7:45 pm #618382nishtdayngesheftParticipant
I wanted to take an informal poll of sorts.
Is there anyone who thinks either of the current candidates are actually good candidates.
If so please say which one.
My feeling; Neither are good candidatesSeptember 14, 2016 7:50 pm at 7:50 pm #1195506🍫Syag LchochmaParticipant
Finally – someone says it like it REALLY is. Thank you nisht. I can understand why hilary supporters hate trump and vice versa, but i cannot fathom why hillary supporters support hillary or trump supporters, trump. And when you ask it goes like this:
#1: How could you respect trump/hillary, that liar
#2: What? Do you know what lies Hilary/trump told!?
Never an answer why they possibly think their side is valuable, just why the other isn’t…because really the country is in huge trouble with either one at the helm!!!!September 14, 2016 8:00 pm at 8:00 pm #1195507
None good.September 14, 2016 8:06 pm at 8:06 pm #1195508☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
I actually made a thread about it.
Joseph, do you still think it very unlikely that Trump will win?September 14, 2016 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #1195509TheGoqParticipant
I’m not looking for a good candidate im looking for a good president.September 14, 2016 8:56 pm at 8:56 pm #1195510
DY: I still think Trump is the lesser of the two evils and he would be less bad than Clinton. But, yes, I think it is very unlikely he’ll win. It’s a question of whether he’ll lose a close election or lose in a landslide. My prediction is he’ll lose the popular vote in a somewhat close percentage but lose the electoral college in a landslide.September 14, 2016 9:19 pm at 9:19 pm #1195511benignumanParticipant
In my opinion, neither of the major party candidates are good candidates. This is true in the sense that neither of them are good as representatives of their party and neither of them will be good for their country. Most importantly, in my opinion, neither of them are good people.
In my opinion, Evan McMullin is the only good candidate running.September 14, 2016 9:48 pm at 9:48 pm #1195512
McMullin isn’t on the ballot nationally. He’s only listed on the ballot in 11 states. (A few more states permit him to be written in.)September 14, 2016 11:10 pm at 11:10 pm #1195513benignumanParticipant
Joseph, that is true but if he is on the ballot in your state (or can be written in), I think people should vote for him.
And, in the unlikely event that Hillary doesn’t get 270, McMullin only needs to win one state (most likely Utah) to have a chance at the Presidency.September 15, 2016 4:54 am at 4:54 am #1195514yehudayonaParticipant
Joseph, 43 states allow write-ins. Even if all 11 states he’s on are among the 43 (I’m to lazy to check), that’s still 32 more states. That’s hardly “a few.”September 15, 2016 9:43 am at 9:43 am #1195515
YY, write-ins for presidential races aren’t so simple as they are for other races. You are not voting for president, despite the popular misconception that people vote for president. You are voting for members of the electoral college. And the members elected to the electoral college will vote in December who should become president.
So a write-in vote would only be for membership in the states delegation for the electoral college. If you write in McMullin in most states you aren’t really voting for him since he doesn’t have a recognized slate of candidates for the electoral college in most states.September 15, 2016 11:51 am at 11:51 am #1195516SpiderJerusalemParticipant
You know how some intellectual degenerates will react when pressed about their Israel position? They don’t want to have to make a difficult choice or concede that Israel is more civilized than Palestinian savages. They prefer to dwell in a moral vacuum and it’s all the same to them. That’s when they’ll say something like “I hope they just nuke the whole Middle East.” rather than concede anything to God.
That’s what this thread is about with Trump. If you think there’s no difference then you’re either not paying attention or you would just rather nuke the whole election.September 15, 2016 1:18 pm at 1:18 pm #1195517nishtdayngesheftParticipant
It seems it is you who has a lack of comprehension. The question was whether either of the candidates are good. Not whether if they were the same. They are clearly not the same.
Returning to the original question, would you like to offer your opinion on the original question.September 18, 2016 3:09 pm at 3:09 pm #1195518
Joe -“DY: I still think Trump is the lesser of the two evils and he would be less bad than Clinton. But, yes, I think it is very unlikely he’ll win. It’s a question of whether he’ll lose a close election or lose in a landslide.”
Actually if the terrorist attacks continue, he has a good chance of winning! There have been three attacks in the last two days!
DemonCrats are trying their hardest to white wash them, like DeBlasio!
We’ll see how much they can fool most Americans!September 18, 2016 5:01 pm at 5:01 pm #1195519yichusdikParticipant
As I’ve said before, both are terrible. Still don’t think Trump will win. But do you know what’s worse than either of them? The craziness that’s taken hold of people. If you aren’t a trump supporter, you’re a “libtard”, and if you aren’t a Clinton supporter, you’re a “fascist”. The gullibility of people to fall for, and worse, pass on, the propaganda from both sides without using the brain HKBH gave them is astonishing. The proliferation of partisan websites and the click-bait they use, the fear-mongering they employ, and the ruthlessness of their persistence is actually frightening.
In decades past, I think that there would have been more rioting, more anger, and more violence than we have seen with this level of animosity. The only thing positive about the way this is being battled out on the internet is that it is acting like a pressure valve, and people are posting their anger rather than running out into the street with a baseball bat to pummel the opposition. And yes, there is ample precedence for and appetite for violence on both the right and the left.
Its not a pretty picture. And everyone will need to get along after this.September 18, 2016 7:34 pm at 7:34 pm #1195520
Yichusdik -“The gullibility of people to fall for, and worse, pass on, the propaganda from both sides without using the brain HKBH gave them is astonishing. The proliferation of partisan websites and the click-bait they use, the fear-mongering they employ, and the ruthlessness of their persistence is actually frightening.”
Unfortunately you’d be right, if it was Trump against, let’s say Mexicans, but not against Muslims!
We have a very serious problem since 9/11 with radical Islam!
This isn’t fear-mongering, but the reality!
We just had 3 terror attacks and the DemonCrats are in denial!
The only one that I trust that is willing to deal with this threat, is Mr. Trump!September 18, 2016 8:32 pm at 8:32 pm #1195522alwaysASemGirlParticipant
I agree with Joseph – Trump is definitely the lesser evil, but both are far from ideal prospects.September 18, 2016 9:33 pm at 9:33 pm #1195523yichusdikParticipant
Health, part of my work over the last 20 years has been in Jewish and Israel advocacy and in working with governments to safeguard Jewish communities in North America. I am at least as familiar with the threat posed by radical Islam as by anyone here. I know the real parameters of the threat. I think that both candidates do too, but the difference is in how they are prepared to leverage it to create fear or support their candidacy.
Rhetoric is important to win elections. Also, to whip up fear, to help win elections. But Terrorists, radical Islamic especially, aren’t beaten by a fearful or mob-mentality ruled populace. They are beaten by relentless pursuit, by the resilience of an uncowed, unbent, and unbeaten populace, and by an utterly ruthless policy of pursuing the terrorists wherever they are.
They aren’t beaten by telling Americans that there is a bomb inside every burka, or that all Muslims should be kept out. They also aren’t beaten by denying there’s a problem, or by giving in to the most terror promoting regime in the world.
Mr. Trump will deal with the threat to the extent that it attains or extends power for him.
Mrs. Clinton will deal with the threat as incrementally as possible because she is more comfortable with the status quo.
They are both wrong about it, but in different ways.September 18, 2016 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm #1195524
Yichusdik -“Rhetoric is important to win elections. Also, to whip up fear, to help win elections.”
There’s nothing wrong with it, as long as it’s based on the truth!
“But Terrorists, radical Islamic especially, aren’t beaten by a fearful or mob-mentality ruled populace. They are beaten by relentless pursuit, by the resilience of an uncowed, unbent, and unbeaten populace, and by an utterly ruthless policy of pursuing the terrorists wherever they are.”
That’s true! I believe Trump is more probable to do that, than Hillary! Hillary will just continue the liberal policy of Obama!
She won’t be able to protect us from Terrorism!November 28, 2016 6:28 pm at 6:28 pm #1195525It is Time for TruthParticipant
The GOP has a Mandate.
Every country has a system,and the people have to go win the system
If a different country,say Israel,would adopt an electoral system ,we would approach voting differently than now ,in order to go win in that system
PsychologyNovember 29, 2016 1:56 pm at 1:56 pm #1195526👑RebYidd23Participant
So, Machiavellian stuff?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.