Philosophy Now Forum

For sake of simplicity I've lumped all other candidates into the category "third party." Feel free to specify which particular third party candidate you will or would vote for. Votes can be changed if anyone changes their mind.

My vote so far is for Jill Stein of the Green Party.

You are not supposed to vote for a 'leader' anyway. You are supposed to vote for party policies.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You are not supposed to vote for a 'leader' anyway. You are supposed to vote for party policies.

Valid point. I don't think I can change the poll options now but as a fix, substitute the candidate's name for the party they represent.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein articulating the party position to an audience at Oxford UK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufQ8ijQUFBo

None of your options really apply to me, but have you written off Bernie Sanders? I think Trump will be the next President. I can see him in that job, thundering around the place, putting his foot in his mouth at every chance, offending everyone. Jolly japes all round.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:None of your options really apply to me, but have you written off Bernie Sanders? I think Trump will be the next President. I can see him in that job, thundering around the place, putting his foot in his mouth at every chance, offending everyone. Jolly japes all round.

Sanders lost the Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton so he is out of the race. He's staying in to give his support to Clinton and to try to influence policy within the party toward more progressive goals, which I think is a mistake because Clinton's party isn't going to listen. But I would have voted for Sanders had he led the Democrats because he's been more accountable to his constituents and less to corporate interests than most of our other candidates.

Gary Childress wrote:My vote so far is for Jill Stein of the Green Party.

So, we can vote for any fantasy candidate who has zero chance of winning the race?

If people voted with money there would be much less of that going on.

But there would be less voting.

Lacking the option to vote 'none of the above', I can only register my displeasure with all the candidates -- large and small -- by not voting.

bobevenson wrote:Speaking of the upcoming presidential election, it is outrageous for a Supreme Court justice to make negative comments about one of the candidates. A justice should not even be expressing personal political opinions since his job is only to review specific legal cases from a Constitutional perspective.

She should be impeached!

Gary Childress wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:None of your options really apply to me, but have you written off Bernie Sanders? I think Trump will be the next President. I can see him in that job, thundering around the place, putting his foot in his mouth at every chance, offending everyone. Jolly japes all round.

Sanders lost the Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton so he is out of the race. He's staying in to give his support to Clinton and to try to influence policy within the party toward more progressive goals, which I think is a mistake because Clinton's party isn't going to listen. But I would have voted for Sanders had he led the Democrats because he's been more accountable to his constituents and less to corporate interests than most of our other candidates.

Oh well. If he had been as good a President as it would seem, he would have been shot anyway. I suppose it's appropriate that your next President will be called 'Fart'. All noisy, over-confident hot air and stinks horribly.

Neither are worthy candidates, Trump is a madman, liar and opportunist ..etc.

Clinton is liar, arrogant, utterly corrupt, opportunist ..etc.

..well, that makes no president candidate really worthy ..ever!