October Presidential Polling: Who are you voting for?

[DJL 232]

While the left leaning people on this site are more vocal it seems like most skydivers are quiet Republicans. I'm curious what everyone is thinking now that we're getting closer to election time. The previous poll was made at a time when fewer details were out or resolved about each candidate. There are not more people who will vote but will write in, and there are people who just won't vote.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[nolhtairt 0]

None of the above, cause Brewster said so.

[DJL 232]

Uh-oh, Gary Johnson is catching up!

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[headoverheels 291]

DJL

Uh-oh, Gary Johnson is catching up!

Wow, it seems that nearly all of Johnson's voters are on DZ.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi DJL,

Quote

I'm curious . . .

Here's one for you; let's say this election ends up without someone getting to the magical 270 electoral votes. It then goes to the House of Reps to decide.

Will the Republican-controlled House choose Trump?

Jerry Baumchen

[quade 3]

headoverheels

***Uh-oh, Gary Johnson is catching up!

Wow, it seems that nearly all of Johnson's voters are on DZ.

Yep. All 11 of them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DJL 232]

JerryBaumchen

Hi DJL,

Quote

I'm curious . . .

Here's one for you; let's say this election ends up without someone getting to the magical 270 electoral votes. It then goes to the House of Reps to decide.

Will the Republican-controlled House choose Trump?

Jerry Baumchen

They probably would only if he formally agreed to work with them in some type of binding contract. Currently they know that he doesn't care about them any more, he used their party to get to this point and doesn't need them. If elected he wouldn't need the citizens of the country anymore so he could go back on any campaign promises while he uses his Presidential authority to hammer out all the pissing matches he can line up. If anyone thinks his SC choices will be anything but a personal bargaining chip you're kidding yourself; conservative, liberal, who knows.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billeisele 122]

DJL

***Hi DJL,

Quote

I'm curious . . .

Here's one for you; let's say this election ends up without someone getting to the magical 270 electoral votes. It then goes to the House of Reps to decide.

Will the Republican-controlled House choose Trump?

Jerry Baumchen

They probably would only if he formally agreed to work with them in some type of binding contract. Currently they know that he doesn't care about them any more, he used their party to get to this point and doesn't need them. If elected he wouldn't need the citizens of the country anymore so he could go back on any campaign promises while he uses his Presidential authority to hammer out all the pissing matches he can line up. If anyone thinks his SC choices will be anything but a personal bargaining chip you're kidding yourself; conservative, liberal, who knows.

lol - that post maxed out the speculation meter

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[rehmwa 2]

JerryBaumchen

Hi DJL,

Quote

I'm curious . . .

Here's one for you; let's say this election ends up without someone getting to the magical 270 electoral votes. It then goes to the House of Reps to decide.

Will the Republican-controlled House choose Trump?

Jerry Baumchen

I tried in another thread and ended up with I could see rationalization for them picking anyone - Donald, Gary, even Hillary - depends on what strategy they pick and if they are looking for long term or short term gratification. Clearly, this election indicates that they don't have a very deep game, so I can't even guess what'll happen. I'm sure if it comes to them, they'll screw it up - or if they do make a good pick, it won't be for the right reasons.

It's so messed up no matter what. Whatever happens, I'm certain the Reps will have to reset and change a lot - or die off. I'm hoping the Dems also realize they have to do the same, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

One thing I do know is that the right thing for the country (IMHO) is directly the opposite of the right thing for either party.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DanG 1]

Maybe the Republicans will make the same argument about the President that they're making about the Supreme Court. Namely, that the People should be allowed to choose the next President, and since the People couldn't decide this time around, we'll just wait for the next election. Besides, the Constitution says the House picks the President if the Electoral College can't, but it doesn't say they have any deadline.

Think about it. No such thing as a veto. All those pesky government agencies could be shut down. The Congress could run foreign policy like they've always wanted to. The Courts couldn't do anything since the Executive Branch would have to sue, and there won't be an Executive Branch.

- Dan G

[DJL 232]

billeisele

******Hi DJL,

Quote

I'm curious . . .

Here's one for you; let's say this election ends up without someone getting to the magical 270 electoral votes. It then goes to the House of Reps to decide.

Will the Republican-controlled House choose Trump?

Jerry Baumchen

They probably would only if he formally agreed to work with them in some type of binding contract. Currently they know that he doesn't care about them any more, he used their party to get to this point and doesn't need them. If elected he wouldn't need the citizens of the country anymore so he could go back on any campaign promises while he uses his Presidential authority to hammer out all the pissing matches he can line up. If anyone thinks his SC choices will be anything but a personal bargaining chip you're kidding yourself; conservative, liberal, who knows.

lol - that post maxed out the speculation meter

Do you think anything involving Trump would resemble something other than a loose cannon rolling around the decks with a lit fuse? All we know about him is that when he gets mad about something he just wants to win and doesn't care who he steps on to make that happen.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[wolfriverjoe 1,341]

DJL

*********Hi DJL,

Quote

I'm curious . . .

Here's one for you; let's say this election ends up without someone getting to the magical 270 electoral votes. It then goes to the House of Reps to decide.

Will the Republican-controlled House choose Trump?

Jerry Baumchen

They probably would only if he formally agreed to work with them in some type of binding contract. Currently they know that he doesn't care about them any more, he used their party to get to this point and doesn't need them. If elected he wouldn't need the citizens of the country anymore so he could go back on any campaign promises while he uses his Presidential authority to hammer out all the pissing matches he can line up. If anyone thinks his SC choices will be anything but a personal bargaining chip you're kidding yourself; conservative, liberal, who knows.

lol - that post maxed out the speculation meter

Do you think anything involving Trump would resemble something other than a loose cannon rolling around the decks with a lit fuse? All we know about him is that when he gets mad about something he just wants to win and doesn't care who he steps on to make that happen.

While it certainly is speculation, all one has to do is look at his history to take pretty good guess at what "President Trump" (I just threw up a little bit in the back of my mouth at that) might do.

He has shown pretty clearly that whatever he may have said or done in the past, he is willing to promise anything to get what he wants.

From the "Illegal Immigrant" promise. He says he's against illegal immigrants and will deport them (leaving out all the racial/xenophobic crap).
He hired models that were not legal to employ. He hired construction workers that were illegal immigrants, failed to give them proper safety equipment (hard hats among other things) and paid them well under the going wage. Interestingly, he had zero issues with the unions while doing this... In New York City. You know who runs the construction unions in NYC, right?

He claims to be fully in support of the 2nd amendment. The NRA even endorsed him (which may cost them my membership when it comes up for renewal). Yet he published in "his" book that he supported the AWB and that ordinary people shouldn't have those sorts of guns.
He also brags that he has a NYC carry permit. And brags how hard it is to get, so he must be "special" to have one.
He doesn't say anything about that difficulty for the ordinary citizen. He has yet to say anything specific on gun rights that I know of (other than "I support the 2nd").

He claims to be against abortion. Yet he has said repeatedly in the past that while he personally opposes it, he 100% supports a woman's right to choose.

And, last but not least, "make America great again." (sorry, I think it's pretty great right now).
He's repeatedly gotten a group of investors together and purchased a company of some sort. Typically, he has a big meeting, where he gives a rousing speech, promising to "Make This Company GREAT Again."

He then proceeds to run the company into the ground. Paying himself a huge salary, dumping personal debts onto the company, using his other companies as contractors and vendors to make more money for himself. Then, when the company has been totally plundered, he declares bankruptcy. His investors lose their money. The contractors and vendors are left with unpaid invoices (except, of course, for Trump owned vendors - those were paid up front), and the employees lose their jobs.

The casino bankruptcies were classic. He walked away with a huge payout (and dumped his own debt onto the company) and the investors, contractors & vendors and employees got screwed.

I don't think it's unreasonable speculation to think he would behave any differently as President.

Note: None of this addresses his issues with women, or the whole Trump U con job/bribery issues. Those are a whole different can of worms.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Maybe the Republicans will make the same argument about the President that they're making about the Supreme Court. Namely, that the People should be allowed to choose the next President, and since the People couldn't decide this time around, we'll just wait for the next election. Besides, the Constitution says the House picks the President if the Electoral College can't, but it doesn't say they have any deadline.

Think about it. No such thing as a veto. All those pesky government agencies could be shut down. The Congress could run foreign policy like they've always wanted to. The Courts couldn't do anything since the Executive Branch would have to sue, and there won't be an Executive Branch.

oh crap "yeah, we'll pick someone. We're GETTING AROUND TO IT" and then just put it off for year or two....

don't give them any ideas

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[yoink 321]

rehmwa

***Maybe the Republicans will make the same argument about the President that they're making about the Supreme Court. Namely, that the People should be allowed to choose the next President, and since the People couldn't decide this time around, we'll just wait for the next election. Besides, the Constitution says the House picks the President if the Electoral College can't, but it doesn't say they have any deadline.

Think about it. No such thing as a veto. All those pesky government agencies could be shut down. The Congress could run foreign policy like they've always wanted to. The Courts couldn't do anything since the Executive Branch would have to sue, and there won't be an Executive Branch.

oh crap "yeah, we'll pick someone. We're GETTING AROUND TO IT" and then just put it off for year or two....

don't give them any ideas

Jesus. That is an entirely terrifying thought...

And if you think the corruption in the parties is bad now just imagine what it would be like as an open race decided solely by politicians.

[TriGirl 268]

DanG

Maybe the Republicans will make the same argument about the President that they're making about the Supreme Court. Namely, that the People should be allowed to choose the next President, and since the People couldn't decide this time around, we'll just wait for the next election. Besides, the Constitution says the House picks the President if the Electoral College can't, but it doesn't say they have any deadline.

Think about it. No such thing as a veto. All those pesky government agencies could be shut down. The Congress could run foreign policy like they've always wanted to. The Courts couldn't do anything since the Executive Branch would have to sue, and there won't be an Executive Branch.

Oh thanks, Dan. Just rock me to sleep, why don't ya?

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[DJL 232]

Looks like we're finding that a majority of skydivers enjoy watching dumpster fires. This is not a surprise.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[ryoder 1,387]

wolfriverjoe

He claims to be fully in support of the 2nd amendment. The NRA even endorsed him (which may cost them my membership when it comes up for renewal). Yet he published in "his" book that he supported the AWB and that ordinary people shouldn't have those sorts of guns.
He also brags that he has a NYC carry permit. And brags how hard it is to get, so he must be "special" to have one.
He doesn't say anything about that difficulty for the ordinary citizen. He has yet to say anything specific on gun rights that I know of (other than "I support the 2nd").

He claims to be against abortion. Yet he has said repeatedly in the past that while he personally opposes it, he 100% supports a woman's right to choose.

The NRA lost me when they started inviting the likes of Ted Nugent and Glenn Beck to speak at their conventions. Nugent should only be allowed to sing, not speak. However, since Beck has come out as detesting Trump, perhaps he is not as crazy as we once thought.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[DJL 232]

ryoder

***
He claims to be fully in support of the 2nd amendment. The NRA even endorsed him (which may cost them my membership when it comes up for renewal). Yet he published in "his" book that he supported the AWB and that ordinary people shouldn't have those sorts of guns.
He also brags that he has a NYC carry permit. And brags how hard it is to get, so he must be "special" to have one.
He doesn't say anything about that difficulty for the ordinary citizen. He has yet to say anything specific on gun rights that I know of (other than "I support the 2nd").

He claims to be against abortion. Yet he has said repeatedly in the past that while he personally opposes it, he 100% supports a woman's right to choose.

The NRA lost me when they started inviting the likes of Ted Nugent and Glenn Beck to speak at their conventions. Nugent should only be allowed to sing, not speak. However, since Beck has come out as detesting Trump, perhaps he is not as crazy as we once thought.

The whole GOP lost me when they started pandering to the Tea Party crowd and invited idiots like Sarah Palin to the ticket. That was when I quit voting for Republicans. At the beginning of this election cycle I kept telling my Republican friends that it was already lost, the GOP was imploding because they were giving right wing nationalist extremists control of the reigns and once that starts it's almost impossible to get them back. Now here we are nearing election and it's certain that they've lost the Presidency, likely that they've lost the house, and possible that they'll lose the Senate. The emotion towards action out there indicated by things like record viewing of debates shows that more people than ever have their eye on this election. In parallel Republicans are becoming frustrated by Trump and thereby uninspired to vote at all while Democrats more and more want to make sure that Trump will not become President. The voting booths may be faced with no only a higher than normal (54%) percentage of voter turnout who are already polled to favor the democrat but also new voters who are only voting to vote against Trump and typically will vote along the Democratic party line.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi DJL,

Quote

The whole GOP lost me when they started pandering to the Tea Party crowd and invited idiots like Sarah Palin to the ticket.

I registered to vote in 1964, as a D. By about late 1967 I switched to a R. By the time McCain picked Palin I was already 'leaving' the R party. When McCain went far right in '08 that did it for me. Been an Indie ever since. Though I do seem to vote for the D candidates.

Jerry Baumchen