If it's inevitable that the OTHER party will win

[kallend 1,806]

Assume that your party's candidate is certain to lose.

Who from the OTHER party would you like to see in the White House?

This is not "Who from the other party do I want to be its candidate because they are sure to lose?"

My choice from the GOP field would be Rand Paul (or possibly Rubio).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[yoink 321]

Probably Rubio.

[NewGuy2005 51]

Bernie Sanders.

[cvfd1399 0]

I will repeat it again but I am independent/right leaning and unless a bombshell drops about sanders I will be voting for him regardless what the GOP puts up.

[DanG 1]

I'm not party affiliated, but I'd probably go with Christie and Sanders.

- Dan G

[jclalor 12]

John Kasick. He appears to be a serious person who doesn't pander to the nutty right.

[kallend 1,806]

jclalor

John Kasick. He appears to be a serious person who doesn't pander to the nutty right.

Yes, I rather like Kasick too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 220]

kallend

Assume that your party's candidate is certain to lose.

Who from the OTHER party would you like to see in the White House?

This is not "Who from the other party do I want to be its candidate because they are sure to lose?"

My choice from the GOP field would be Rand Paul (or possibly Rubio).

Paul/Webb

[billvon 2,687]

>I'm not party affiliated, but I'd probably go with Christie and Sanders.


Probably what I would do as well.

[brenthutch 416]

Sanders, I can't see him renting out the Lincoln bedroom. Besides the house and/or the senate are likely to remain in Republican hands, assuring more gridlock.

[turtlespeed 212]

brenthutch

Sanders, I can't see him renting out the Lincoln bedroom. Besides the house and/or the senate are likely to remain in Republican hands, assuring more gridlock.

Can't really see him using his power for sexual harassment either.

I can see him greasing some palms later on though, but not as much as trump.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mirage62 0]

Sanders, for sure.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[turtlespeed 212]

mirage62

Sanders, for sure.

If that is the only choice besides trump, then, yeah. I'll vote for sanders.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[chedlin 0]

I will probably end up with an R vote, but Jim Webb would likely be my first choice at the moment. Kasich is my 2nd choice. Any of the current front runners will cause me to toss my vote to a 3rd party. But thanks to the electoral college, my presidential votes doesn't really count from a solid red state.

[chedlin 0]

Good point. It's also important to stress that local and regional elections are very important. It's sad that turnout for city elections is usually less than 15%.

[DanG 1]

Voting for Jim Webb at this point is kinda wasting your time, since he's withdrawn.

- Dan G

[jclalor 12]

After watching tonight's debate, no question that John Kasich would be the best match against Hillary.

Donald just looked like a stooge, particularly on immigration and operation "Wetback".

[grue 1]

kallend

Assume that your party's candidate is certain to lose.

Who from the OTHER party would you like to see in the White House?

This is not "Who from the other party do I want to be its candidate because they are sure to lose?"

My choice from the GOP field would be Rand Paul (or possibly Rubio).

Who cares? Both sides are basically the same except for their views on sexually transmitted parasite removal and whose genitals should touch whose.

The individual president shouldn't (EDITED: was "doesn't") matter, anyway, except as the answer to a Jeopardy! question 50 years from now. Congress will continue to be awful. The judicial branch will continue to be awful. 2/3 is enough to ensure bad policies can be made and will be upheld.

This will be my first presidential election where I'm back in the US since Bush was in office and will have my vote 'matter' (except it won't). I'll write in someone random for president, possibly myself since I'm eligible now, and will pay more attention to the local and congressional battles where a difference can possibly be made. Except that the political makeup of my area means that I'm still unlikely to make a damned bit of difference.

cavete terrae.

[cvfd1399 0]

Quote

Both sides are basically the same except for their views on sexually transmitted parasite removal and whose genitals should touch whose.

Warn a brother next time lmfao!!

[SkyDekker 1,277]

Quote

The individual president doesn't matter, anyway, except as the answer to a Jeopardy

Seriously?

I would think Iraq would look significantly different right now if Bush had not been president.

If you think that the leader of a country has absolutely no impact on that country, you may want to lay of the mind altering substances and read a history book.

[grue 1]

SkyDekker

Quote

The individual president doesn't matter, anyway, except as the answer to a Jeopardy

Seriously?

I would think Iraq would look significantly different right now if Bush had not been president.

If you think that the leader of a country has absolutely no impact on that country, you may want to lay of the mind altering substances and read a history book.

I'll correct myself: The individual president SHOULDN'T matter, in theory. In practice, William Henry Harrison remains the only president I admire.

Pretty funny that you just accused someone who has never had alcohol or recreational drugs of being drunk or high, though.

cavete terrae.

[SkyDekker 1,277]

grue

***

Quote

The individual president doesn't matter, anyway, except as the answer to a Jeopardy

Seriously?

I would think Iraq would look significantly different right now if Bush had not been president.

If you think that the leader of a country has absolutely no impact on that country, you may want to lay of the mind altering substances and read a history book.

I'll correct myself: The individual president SHOULDN'T matter, in theory. In practice, William Henry Harrison remains the only president I admire.

Pretty funny that you just accused someone who has never had alcohol or recreational drugs of being drunk or high, though.

There are non-recreational mind altering substances. Quite a few of them.

It was either that, utterly naïve, or incredibly dumb.

And the individual President should matter. It should matter a lot. Why you would think that the leader of a country shouldn't matter?

Do you think all leaders should have no influence over those they lead?

[grue 1]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

The individual president doesn't matter, anyway, except as the answer to a Jeopardy

Seriously?

I would think Iraq would look significantly different right now if Bush had not been president.

If you think that the leader of a country has absolutely no impact on that country, you may want to lay of the mind altering substances and read a history book.

I'll correct myself: The individual president SHOULDN'T matter, in theory. In practice, William Henry Harrison remains the only president I admire.

Pretty funny that you just accused someone who has never had alcohol or recreational drugs of being drunk or high, though.

There are non-recreational mind altering substances. Quite a few of them.

It was either that, utterly naïve, or incredibly dumb.

And the individual President should matter. It should matter a lot. Why you would think that the leader of a country shouldn't matter?

Do you think all leaders should have no influence over those they lead?

His job, in my mind, should be to either sign laws or veto them, and represent the nation when meeting with other people who represent their nation. Certainly he's going to have involvement with economic matters, military and so forth, but most of the things of consequence should be handled by other branches.

In my opinion, of course.

cavete terrae.

[SkyDekker 1,277]

Quote

His job, in my mind, should be to either sign laws or veto them, and represent the nation when meeting with other people who represent their nation. Certainly he's going to have involvement with economic matters, military and so forth, but most of the things of consequence should be handled by other branches.

Signing laws, vetoing laws and meeting with leaders of other countries have consequences, sometimes very serious consequences.

Invading other countries is pretty serious, specially when you end up spending a couple of trillion on it.

Guess you label those as not of consequence?

Not really following you here.

[grue 1]

SkyDekker

Quote

His job, in my mind, should be to either sign laws or veto them, and represent the nation when meeting with other people who represent their nation. Certainly he's going to have involvement with economic matters, military and so forth, but most of the things of consequence should be handled by other branches.

Signing laws, vetoing laws and meeting with leaders of other countries have consequences, sometimes very serious consequences.

Invading other countries is pretty serious, specially when you end up spending a couple of trillion on it.

Guess you label those as not of consequence?

Not really following you here.

In my mind, invading other countries shouldn't be something the president is ordering, that should be for congress.

Consider, though, that my favorite president is william henry harrison, who remains the only president who had the good grace to die before he fucked anything up.

cavete terrae.