Trump and Sanders have made it interesting. Here are my reason's for not voting for some of the candidates on both sides:

1. Trump - Sexist, Egomaniac. I like some of the things he says but he is a bully and mean person. Does not respect woman. Could never vote for him.

2. Clinton - Liar, Liar, Liar. She is not for women's rights as she has steam rolled very woman that has had sex with her husband. Whitewater, Bengahzi, Emails etc.

3. Sanders - Socialist. They interviewed a young woman and said she was voting for him because she wants a "free" education. enough said. No such thing as free.

4. Huckabee. Religion is important to me but being on the christian right is not beneficial to the U.S. as a whole. Security, Economy are two of my concerns. Same can be said for Santorum.

5. Carson - Was my favorite prior to some of the weird comments he has made. I think he is logical but some of wacky faith thoughts threw me for a loop. Very intelligent but weird.

The only two sane and reasonable candidates are Kasich and Paul.

(02-01-2016 01:08 PM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  The only two sane and reasonable candidates are Kasich and Paul.

Sad, isn't it? They don't have a chance.

(02-01-2016 01:08 PM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  The only two sane and reasonable candidates are Kasich and Paul.

I like Rand Paul's libertarian views except for Security of the U.S. He wants to just stick his head in the sand and pretend no danger will come to us.

Kasich and Bush has the best experience (Governors). But both are just blah.

Christie is a blow hard but is a Donald Trump light.

Any of the GOP candidates are flawed because the parties platform isn't inclusive of anyone who isn't white, male, higher up on the money chain either personally or corporately, what Milt said about the 47% reflects the general thought of the party. None of the GOP tax plans makes any sense, while it may true the Democrats believe in giving away things the GOP seems intent to take away as much from the lower and middle classes as they can. I don't trust any of these fruitcakes with access to our nuclear weapons, Goldwater seems like a flaming liberal compared to these guys. Trump panders to the secret thoughts of the GOP voter and their prejudices, Cruz would be make a good Pharisee, Carson qualifies as a satellite since he's in orbit around another solar system or reality, most of the GOP governors have done little for the everyday middle class resident in their state.

Clinton has trust issues, Bernie actually speaks to problems other candidates won't discuss like income equality and the Dems are honest enough to tell they need to raise taxes to keep Social Security and Medicare and of course there's the free stuff like college tuition. Of course a good education does help equalize opportunity but who's interested in helping your neighbor any more? Hillary has more experience but she's a Clinton but at least she doesn't need a map to find Iran or Iraq and knows the pyramids weren't built for grain storage.

If this is the best this country can do for presidential candidates then we're all in trouble.

(02-01-2016 02:11 PM)emu79 Wrote:  Any of the GOP candidates are flawed because the parties platform isn't inclusive of anyone who isn't white, male, higher up on the money chain either personally or corporately, what Milt said about the 47% reflects the general thought of the party. None of the GOP tax plans makes any sense, while it may true the Democrats believe in giving away things the GOP seems intent to take away as much from the lower and middle classes as they can. I don't trust any of these fruitcakes with access to our nuclear weapons, Goldwater seems like a flaming liberal compared to these guys. Trump panders to the secret thoughts of the GOP voter and their prejudices, Cruz would be make a good Pharisee, Carson qualifies as a satellite since he's in orbit around another solar system or reality, most of the GOP governors have done little for the everyday middle class resident in their state.

Clinton has trust issues, Bernie actually speaks to problems other candidates won't discuss like income equality and the Dems are honest enough to tell they need to raise taxes to keep Social Security and Medicare and of course there's the free stuff like college tuition. Of course a good education does help equalize opportunity but who's interested in helping your neighbor any more? Hillary has more experience but she's a Clinton but at least she doesn't need a map to find Iran or Iraq and knows the pyramids weren't built for grain storage.

If this is the best this country can do for presidential candidates then we're all in trouble.

How is government managing "free" grade school and high school. Someone has to pay for schools. Yes, Education is one of the most important things to lift up people from poverty but hand outs don't work. Its easy to get elected by telling everyone you will give them everything. Eventually, the money runs out (See city of Chicago and Detroit) and add Illinois to that list.

Maybe Kasich's or Clinton's domestic policy combined with Paul's foreign policy? I don't see anyone on the Republican side I could vote for, and I don't want a Socialist either so I might have to stick with Clinton, but the email thing is obviously a concern. Bloomberg might be a better option, if he actually ran and if it wasn't too late, which it probably is.

(02-01-2016 02:32 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 02:11 PM)emu79 Wrote:  Any of the GOP candidates are flawed because the parties platform isn't inclusive of anyone who isn't white, male, higher up on the money chain either personally or corporately, what Milt said about the 47% reflects the general thought of the party. None of the GOP tax plans makes any sense, while it may true the Democrats believe in giving away things the GOP seems intent to take away as much from the lower and middle classes as they can. I don't trust any of these fruitcakes with access to our nuclear weapons, Goldwater seems like a flaming liberal compared to these guys. Trump panders to the secret thoughts of the GOP voter and their prejudices, Cruz would be make a good Pharisee, Carson qualifies as a satellite since he's in orbit around another solar system or reality, most of the GOP governors have done little for the everyday middle class resident in their state.

Clinton has trust issues, Bernie actually speaks to problems other candidates won't discuss like income equality and the Dems are honest enough to tell they need to raise taxes to keep Social Security and Medicare and of course there's the free stuff like college tuition. Of course a good education does help equalize opportunity but who's interested in helping your neighbor any more? Hillary has more experience but she's a Clinton but at least she doesn't need a map to find Iran or Iraq and knows the pyramids weren't built for grain storage.

If this is the best this country can do for presidential candidates then we're all in trouble.

How is government managing "free" grade school and high school. Someone has to pay for schools. Yes, Education is one of the most important things to lift up people from poverty but hand outs don't work. Its easy to get elected by telling everyone you will give them everything. Eventually, the money runs out (See city of Chicago and Detroit) and add Illinois to that list.

or you can be like most GOP governors slash K-12 education, college funding to give tax breaks to businesses who are the "creators" who use the tax breaks to put more money in their own pocket (a GOP form of socialism by the way). In Kansas there's talk of GOP legislators banning books again, look at Common Core. The GOP far right are what I call the flat earth society. There's nothing in their agenda to move this country forward, look at what a GOP dominated Congress had done in 8 years besides saying no to everything Obama wanted.

(02-01-2016 02:50 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Maybe Kasich's or Clinton's domestic policy combined with Paul's foreign policy? I don't see anyone on the Republican side I could vote for, and I don't want a Socialist either so I might have to stick with Clinton, but the email thing is obviously a concern. Bloomberg might be a better option, if he actually ran and if it wasn't too late, which it probably is.

Bingo.

What it comes down to for many, myself included, is that Clinton is the best of a relatively bad bunch.

Trump & Cruz have no shot, even though one of them will probably get the Republican nomination, because they're really unpopular with general election voters. Rubio would have the best chance of the top 3 in the general election, but it doesn't look like he's gonna win the nomination this year.

My biggest issue with Sanders is while I agree with some of what he's proposing, I seriously doubt he'd be able to get any of it passed, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress. It doesn't seem like he has the support of his own party, and it doesn't seem, at least to me, that he's willing to compromise on anything, so him winning could very likely end up with an Illinois-esque gridlock on a federal level.

That leaves Clinton. Do I agree with everything she supports? No. Do I think she'd do a good job? Maybe. But compared to everybody else who has a realistic shot at one of the two key nominations at the moment, she's the most qualified candidate and probably the one most likely be able to build a consensus with Congress to pass legislation.

Paul is a total and complete idiot. The walls could be falling in around him and all he would care about is that government can't see his sexts. He is a small time guy with small time visions. Certainly not the candidate you want during a time when serious solutions to serious problems are needed. The Republicans at least have 3 or 4 excellent candidates whereas one has yet to emerge on the Democrat side.

(02-01-2016 07:35 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Paul is a total and complete idiot. The walls could be falling in around him and all he would care about is that government can't see his sexts. He is a small time guy with small time visions. Certainly not the candidate you want during a time when serious solutions to serious problems are needed. The Republicans at least have 3 or 4 excellent candidates whereas one has yet to emerge on the Democrat side.

Who are the 3-4 good Republican candidates? And don't say Cruz/Carson/etc as the ultra conservative republicans are quickly fading out and not good for today's society.

Still Evaluating Republican candidates but Rubio, Kasich, and Bush are viable. I bet Biden wishes he would have run. Clinton is only gonna get weaker as the race goes along. I still feel she will get indicted for the email scandal. 22 emails found that are too damaging to release. (I still wonder how many emails between Obama and Clinton are being supressed).

(02-02-2016 08:46 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Still Evaluating Republican candidates but Rubio, Kasich, and Bush are viable. I bet Biden wishes he would have run. Clinton is only gonna get weaker as the race goes along. I still feel she will get indicted for the email scandal. 22 emails found that are too damaging to release. (I still wonder how many emails between Obama and Clinton are being supressed).

Those are definitely my top 3 as well.

(02-02-2016 08:51 AM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:46 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Still Evaluating Republican candidates but Rubio, Kasich, and Bush are viable. I bet Biden wishes he would have run. Clinton is only gonna get weaker as the race goes along. I still feel she will get indicted for the email scandal. 22 emails found that are too damaging to release. (I still wonder how many emails between Obama and Clinton are being supressed).

Those are definitely my top 3 as well.

The only one of those three that might have a shot is Rubio and that's only if he manages to stay strong in the remaining primaries. I follow Nate Silver when it comes to election coverage, because he's been right in his analysis more often than not, and his verdict on Iowa for the Republicans was that the only loser was Trump because he didn't win. Cruz did what he needed to do and Rubio did better than people expected, so, of the ones you listed, he's probably the only one with a realistic shot, and that's if he can string together further strong performances in bigger states.

Regarding the Democrats, the results in Iowa are actually better for Clinton than much of the media seems to be reporting it. The majority of people who poll Democrat in Iowa, and New Hampshire as well which is next, are white. So essentially, Clinton & Sanders split the white vote, which is a reasonable thing to expect going forward. However, when it comes to the minority vote (blacks, latinos, etc), polls have repeatedly shown that Clinton is beating Sanders with those voters, sometimes badly, many of whom will make up the Democrat pollsters in upcoming primaries such as South Carolina, North Carolina, & Florida.

It would not surprise me if Sanders wins New Hampshire, which everyone seems to expect given that he's from neighboring Vermont, but then Clinton strings together several victories in bigger states where minority groups make up larger portions of the Democratic vote.

(02-02-2016 12:56 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:51 AM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:46 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Still Evaluating Republican candidates but Rubio, Kasich, and Bush are viable. I bet Biden wishes he would have run. Clinton is only gonna get weaker as the race goes along. I still feel she will get indicted for the email scandal. 22 emails found that are too damaging to release. (I still wonder how many emails between Obama and Clinton are being supressed).

Those are definitely my top 3 as well.

The only one of those three that might have a shot is Rubio and that's only if he manages to stay strong in the remaining primaries. I follow Nate Silver when it comes to election coverage, because he's been right in his analysis more often than not, and his verdict on Iowa for the Republicans was that the only loser was Trump because he didn't win. Cruz did what he needed to do and Rubio did better than people expected, so, of the ones you listed, he's probably the only one with a realistic shot, and that's if he can string together further strong performances in bigger states.

Regarding the Democrats, the results in Iowa are actually better for Clinton than much of the media seems to be reporting it. The majority of people who poll Democrat in Iowa, and New Hampshire as well which is next, are white. So essentially, Clinton & Sanders split the white vote, which is a reasonable thing to expect going forward. However, when it comes to the minority vote (blacks, latinos, etc), polls have repeatedly shown that Clinton is beating Sanders with those voters, sometimes badly, many of whom will make up the Democrat pollsters in upcoming primaries such as South Carolina, North Carolina, & Florida.

It would not surprise me if Sanders wins New Hampshire, which everyone seems to expect given that he's from neighboring Vermont, but then Clinton strings together several victories in bigger states where minority groups make up larger portions of the Democratic vote.

Kasich is polling 2nd in New Hampshire so he may be able to gain some momentum moving forward if he finishes well there.

(02-02-2016 12:56 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:51 AM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:46 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Still Evaluating Republican candidates but Rubio, Kasich, and Bush are viable. I bet Biden wishes he would have run. Clinton is only gonna get weaker as the race goes along. I still feel she will get indicted for the email scandal. 22 emails found that are too damaging to release. (I still wonder how many emails between Obama and Clinton are being supressed).

Those are definitely my top 3 as well.

The only one of those three that might have a shot is Rubio and that's only if he manages to stay strong in the remaining primaries. I follow Nate Silver when it comes to election coverage, because he's been right in his analysis more often than not, and his verdict on Iowa for the Republicans was that the only loser was Trump because he didn't win. Cruz did what he needed to do and Rubio did better than people expected, so, of the ones you listed, he's probably the only one with a realistic shot, and that's if he can string together further strong performances in bigger states.

Regarding the Democrats, the results in Iowa are actually better for Clinton than much of the media seems to be reporting it. The majority of people who poll Democrat in Iowa, and New Hampshire as well which is next, are white. So essentially, Clinton & Sanders split the white vote, which is a reasonable thing to expect going forward. However, when it comes to the minority vote (blacks, latinos, etc), polls have repeatedly shown that Clinton is beating Sanders with those voters, sometimes badly, many of whom will make up the Democrat pollsters in upcoming primaries such as South Carolina, North Carolina, & Florida.

It would not surprise me if Sanders wins New Hampshire, which everyone seems to expect given that he's from neighboring Vermont, but then Clinton strings together several victories in bigger states where minority groups make up larger portions of the Democratic vote.

I am just saying that those three are probably the best candidates for President on the republican side. Never said any would win. In Presidential elections, I am usually voting for my 4th or 5th favorite candidate. Kasich and Bush have been Governors of states (Christie too but he is just a blow hard). Rubio seems practical.

(02-02-2016 01:33 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 12:56 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:51 AM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:46 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Still Evaluating Republican candidates but Rubio, Kasich, and Bush are viable. I bet Biden wishes he would have run. Clinton is only gonna get weaker as the race goes along. I still feel she will get indicted for the email scandal. 22 emails found that are too damaging to release. (I still wonder how many emails between Obama and Clinton are being supressed).

Those are definitely my top 3 as well.

The only one of those three that might have a shot is Rubio and that's only if he manages to stay strong in the remaining primaries. I follow Nate Silver when it comes to election coverage, because he's been right in his analysis more often than not, and his verdict on Iowa for the Republicans was that the only loser was Trump because he didn't win. Cruz did what he needed to do and Rubio did better than people expected, so, of the ones you listed, he's probably the only one with a realistic shot, and that's if he can string together further strong performances in bigger states.

Regarding the Democrats, the results in Iowa are actually better for Clinton than much of the media seems to be reporting it. The majority of people who poll Democrat in Iowa, and New Hampshire as well which is next, are white. So essentially, Clinton & Sanders split the white vote, which is a reasonable thing to expect going forward. However, when it comes to the minority vote (blacks, latinos, etc), polls have repeatedly shown that Clinton is beating Sanders with those voters, sometimes badly, many of whom will make up the Democrat pollsters in upcoming primaries such as South Carolina, North Carolina, & Florida.

It would not surprise me if Sanders wins New Hampshire, which everyone seems to expect given that he's from neighboring Vermont, but then Clinton strings together several victories in bigger states where minority groups make up larger portions of the Democratic vote.

I am just saying that those three are probably the best candidates for President on the republican side. Never said any would win. In Presidential elections, I am usually voting for my 4th or 5th favorite candidate. Kasich and Bush have been Governors of states (Christie too but he is just a blow hard). Rubio seems practical.

I would agree that those three would be the best candidates; personally I prefer Kasich. However, at the moment, the only one who seems to have a realistic shot at the nomination is Rubio.

(02-02-2016 01:32 PM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 12:56 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:51 AM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:46 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Still Evaluating Republican candidates but Rubio, Kasich, and Bush are viable. I bet Biden wishes he would have run. Clinton is only gonna get weaker as the race goes along. I still feel she will get indicted for the email scandal. 22 emails found that are too damaging to release. (I still wonder how many emails between Obama and Clinton are being supressed).

Those are definitely my top 3 as well.

The only one of those three that might have a shot is Rubio and that's only if he manages to stay strong in the remaining primaries. I follow Nate Silver when it comes to election coverage, because he's been right in his analysis more often than not, and his verdict on Iowa for the Republicans was that the only loser was Trump because he didn't win. Cruz did what he needed to do and Rubio did better than people expected, so, of the ones you listed, he's probably the only one with a realistic shot, and that's if he can string together further strong performances in bigger states.

Regarding the Democrats, the results in Iowa are actually better for Clinton than much of the media seems to be reporting it. The majority of people who poll Democrat in Iowa, and New Hampshire as well which is next, are white. So essentially, Clinton & Sanders split the white vote, which is a reasonable thing to expect going forward. However, when it comes to the minority vote (blacks, latinos, etc), polls have repeatedly shown that Clinton is beating Sanders with those voters, sometimes badly, many of whom will make up the Democrat pollsters in upcoming primaries such as South Carolina, North Carolina, & Florida.

It would not surprise me if Sanders wins New Hampshire, which everyone seems to expect given that he's from neighboring Vermont, but then Clinton strings together several victories in bigger states where minority groups make up larger portions of the Democratic vote.

Kasich is polling 2nd in New Hampshire so he may be able to gain some momentum moving forward if he finishes well there.

Maybe. I just get the sense that of the more viable candidates, as klake called them, that Rubio has the best chance at the moment.

Like I said, we won't know who gains an edge on either side until we get to states like Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania, which are always key battleground states in the national elections.

(02-02-2016 01:45 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 01:32 PM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 12:56 PM)BarsemaBone2 Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:51 AM)RedandBlackAttack Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:46 AM)klake87 Wrote:  Still Evaluating Republican candidates but Rubio, Kasich, and Bush are viable. I bet Biden wishes he would have run. Clinton is only gonna get weaker as the race goes along. I still feel she will get indicted for the email scandal. 22 emails found that are too damaging to release. (I still wonder how many emails between Obama and Clinton are being supressed).

Those are definitely my top 3 as well.

The only one of those three that might have a shot is Rubio and that's only if he manages to stay strong in the remaining primaries. I follow Nate Silver when it comes to election coverage, because he's been right in his analysis more often than not, and his verdict on Iowa for the Republicans was that the only loser was Trump because he didn't win. Cruz did what he needed to do and Rubio did better than people expected, so, of the ones you listed, he's probably the only one with a realistic shot, and that's if he can string together further strong performances in bigger states.

Regarding the Democrats, the results in Iowa are actually better for Clinton than much of the media seems to be reporting it. The majority of people who poll Democrat in Iowa, and New Hampshire as well which is next, are white. So essentially, Clinton & Sanders split the white vote, which is a reasonable thing to expect going forward. However, when it comes to the minority vote (blacks, latinos, etc), polls have repeatedly shown that Clinton is beating Sanders with those voters, sometimes badly, many of whom will make up the Democrat pollsters in upcoming primaries such as South Carolina, North Carolina, & Florida.

It would not surprise me if Sanders wins New Hampshire, which everyone seems to expect given that he's from neighboring Vermont, but then Clinton strings together several victories in bigger states where minority groups make up larger portions of the Democratic vote.

Kasich is polling 2nd in New Hampshire so he may be able to gain some momentum moving forward if he finishes well there.

Maybe. I just get the sense that of the more viable candidates, as klake called them, that Rubio has the best chance at the moment.

Like I said, we won't know who gains an edge on either side until we get to states like Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania, which are always key battleground states in the national elections.

I want the best person to be President. One that will protect our country, grow our economy and let me live my life. My problem with Rubio is he is considered the best public speaker. I don't want a talker, I want a doer.

Glad Trump got beat. If it was an interview for the job , I would hire Christie, but it's not.

I know it's a long shot now, but I would still bet the Dems don't run Hilary. She has to get sick for them to have a better chance, they want a better candidate. So HRC your choice is Cancer or an indictment? Let us know we have the papers ready either way.