General Primary Discussion Thread

Originally posted by Robtard
Those are lame voting credentials, but voting for whomever you want for which ever reason is your right as a citizen.

Is it any less lame to vote for a candidate because that's who your spouse voted for? Who your parents voted for? Which from what I understand, is rather common.

No it's just as lame and it's one of the problems with voters in this country. Too stupid to vote based on policy and letting themselves be swayed by who their banging or some feminist spouting off at the mouth.

It might not seem fair, but I'd just rather these folk duck out all together until they can vote like an adult and not let childish shit cloud their judgement. It's the same reason we don't let little kids vote, right?

I agree with Surtur. I really really want a political proficiency test to have to be passed by voters before they can vote. Politicians will need to make their policies and platforms explicit. But my idea would be very expensive and it has plenty of room for bias in the tests (corruption).

I just really get irritated with things like what Surtur pointed out. Voting based on color or gender? That's racist and sexist. Vote on policies and platforms. Require politicians to make clear stands on their campaign. Test people to ensure they actually know those things. Then let people vote. Sure, people would still vote in a biased manner. But we would see an largely informed voting populace at the polls rather than the majority of voters who really do know jack shit about the candidates they are voting for.

That is why I say if you aren't part of the solution just stay home. Vote based on who you think could do a good job. No, not who your spouse is going to vote for, that is asinine.

Or if we're going to play the diversity quota game it's not fair to stop at females. People we have never had as president:

-An Asian
-A Jew
-A latino
-A black guy who is 100% black
-An atheist
-A homosexual
-A transgender

So okay, we have now mapped out a way to fill our diversity quota for the next few decades. Maybe once we do that we can start to vote on shit that matters? So it means Hilary, if she wins, can't ever be allowed to run for a second term. After all we need to diversify and time is a wasting. Then once we've finished our social experiment we can focus on things that matter.

Originally posted by Surtur
No it's just as lame and it's one of the problems with voters in this country. Too stupid to vote based on policy and letting themselves be swayed by who their banging or some feminist spouting off at the mouth.

It might not seem fair, but I'd just rather these folk duck out all together until they can vote like an adult and not let childish shit cloud their judgement. It's the same reason we don't let little kids vote, right?

What you're suggesting is well, loony. Maybe some citizen isn't a moron (not that morons shouldn't be allowed to vote, cos equality and that), but he/she wasn't given a proper education where they know the ins and outs of politics; why should they lose a Right because of that?

Do you think you'd pass this political acumen test yourself?

Originally posted by Robtard
iirc, the 18 age limit was set to match the age of being able to join the military without parental consent. Old enough to fight = old enough to vote. The 26th amendment.

Ah yes I always loved that. 18? Okay, want a gun? Okay, want a beer? F*ck you see you in 3 years.

YouTube video

I did wonder why I saw Hilary pissing on a fire hydrant..and now I know.

People have complained about calling her Hildog. I wonder if they will change their tune since she is actually barking like a dog now.

I think people should just refer to her as Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Good posts guys 👆

And her barking like a dog?

I used to like Hillary. Back in the 90s.

Does that help? I still like Bill. 🙂 I'd go for a third term under Bill.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good posts guys 👆

Thanks. I imagine you find them good because you have indeed made joking/sarcastic comments of a similar nature numerous times before, even putting them in the titles of threads you create.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I used to like Hillary. Back in the 90s.

Which is more then Bill can say, zing!

Yeah, really doesn't seem like Hillary is more electable than Bernie: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2324

I'm guessing part of the reason is Bernie hasn't gone out and said to certain voters "vote for me because we have the same genitalia". He also doesn't have pro male supporters spouting off with the same rhetoric.

Though I'm guessing the youtube video of 13 straight minutes of Hilary lying probably didn't win many over either.

God's right-hand-man says Trump isn't a true Christian.

"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel." -Pope Francis

The response:

"No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith." -Trump

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/

Imagine that, considering Trump has questioned whether Obama is not Christian but a Muslim.

Wow, what a hypocrite. That's low even for Trump.

"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president." -Donald Trump

Seems like Trump is sort of butthurt over the comment, aside from the hypocrisy

Originally posted by Robtard
"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president." -Donald Trump

Seems like Trump is sort of butthurt over the comment, aside from the hypocrisy

I don't understand your stance (I think you're just plain wrong, actually). He's implying that he'd save the Vatican, and the Pope, from death if he is president. That doesn't sound like butthurt, sounds more like he's cautioning the Pope from an anti-Trump stance (because the Pope can clearly swing Catholic votes away from Trump...which is a ton of Italian and Latino votes).

This makes more sense:

"If Trump president. Pope and church people safe. If Trump not president, Pope and church people not safe."

Not sure how President Trump would save the Vatican and the Pope after an ISIS attack. Unless Trump's imagining it won't be something like a bombing, but a full scale siege?

Or maybe what I said, it's just a nonsense butthurt fueled retort.

edit: To your rewording, unless Trump thinks he'd stop ISIS before an attack ever happened. That's fair enough, but still seems like an angry childish retort

Trump might be better at swinging Latino votes away from himself