Donald Trump

[Elamarna]

They all scare me. except Kasich.

full disclosure-American here. registered Independent. I don't fit with Republican or democratic as I feel strongly for and against many issues on both sides. There isn't a party that fits me.

but they scare me, or at least make me nervous.

Trump-too controversial. egomaniac, says (and maybe believes?) things that are simply unconstitutional.

Cruz-way to conservative. hard to read his true personality. and if other politicians don't even like him-yikes.

Rubio-vacuous pretty boy. cant or wont even do his job in the senate. too inexperienced.

Hillary-a flat out liar. she only wants the job because she reeeeeally wants the job (and for personal power reasons only sad to say). Her and her husband have serious moral deficiancies.

Sanders-truly a good guy, but a socialist. Darn.


Kasich is the only one Id feel OK with but unfortunately he dosnt have a chance.

Dear Abby, there is nothing wrong with being a Socialist. And actually Sanders is not. however he would fit into the middle of the British labour party, certainly not the left wing bit of it.

[Robert]

I think in all the elections, Congress, President, Senate, primaries etc there should be a box you can mark which says "none of the above." Or even "stop offering me this ****."

[Mayerling]

Trump and Adolf? At least the hair on the head of Der Fuhrer was definitely real, and the moustache too - but too much like Chaplin, who noticed it.

Two of the candidates in this election, even if I disagreed with their politics or policies, I would have had no problem having dinner with: Bernie Sanders and Dr. Carson. Carson at time shows too rigid a belief in conservatist theory and in mistrust of anyone from Islam, but he is a highly competent surgeon and his intentions (mostly) are decent ones. I could see him, like Dr. C. Everett Coop (another anti-abortionist) as a highly competent Surgeon General. Bernie is not a total left Socialist, but I really doubt if he could push his tax reforms totally through (Hillary might get some through, with her husband's advice). But Bernie is the real thing. To me, Bill probably is close to the real thing. Hillary is (on a personal level) fairly scary.

I keep hoping for a miracle for John Kalich!

To me, living four hundred miles from the St. Laurence River and Seaway, the idiocy about the birth of Senator Cruz and how it makes him not eligible for the White House is not insulting to Cruz and Latinos (another group Trump dislikes) but to our neighbors to the North.* Yes, we have that clause in the U.S. Constitution regarding not having foreign born Presidents (but note, it does not go below the President and Vice President) but it could be reconsidered and amended now. Trump tried to blow out Obama claiming he was actually not U.S. born but Kenyan and Islamic. It flopped (though Trump chooses not to mention it was a failure - he hates to admit he fails many times). If I were from Africa or from Islam I'd be uptight for that one. But this is Canada - across the NORTHERN border. Had the U.S. been luckier (we did not deserve to be) in the War of 1812, Cruz would have been safely born in a U.S. City. Gee, maybe (since Trump's father is of southern German ancestry) we ought to make sure he was born in the U.S., and that none of his family's relatives were members of the Gestapo or S.S. or S.A. from 1933 - 1945.

Jeff

*Not many people know of this, but when Chester Arthur became President in 1881, succeeding the dead Garfield, a similar story was put up about him. Many feared that Arthur, a political associate of the controversial head of the New York State Republican Party, Senator Roscoe Conkling, would be a figure-head for Conkling to run the country. Arthur was from Vermont, but close to the Canadian border. He had gone to Union College in New York State (he is our first President who was a Phi Beta Kappa member), went to Albany Law School, and practiced law in New York City. For all intents and purposes he was a New York resident. but his opponents insisted he was born not in Vermont but Canada. He too lived down this political lie. Arthur also proved to be his own man in the White House, and performed quite well (if not a great President, a respectable one) keeping Conkling at bay and dropping him.

[Shaggyrand]

Trump and Adolf? At least the hair on the head of Der Fuhrer was definitely real, and the moustache too - but too much like Chaplin, who noticed it.

The toothbrush mustache was very popular from 1900 until around 1943 or so. Oliver Hardy, George Orwell, Charles de Gaulle and Max Fleischer all rocked one. Chaplin's was fake though

Personally, I have always prefered the classic Van Dyke.

[Errata]

Sanders-truly a good guy, but a socialist. Darn.

Great thing about our system, it doesn't matter if Sanders is a socialist as long as Congress isn't.

[John G]

They all scare me. except Kasich.

full disclosure-American here. registered Independent. I don't fit with Republican or democratic as I feel strongly for and against many issues on both sides. There isn't a party that fits me.

but they scare me, or at least make me nervous.

Trump-too controversial. egomaniac, says (and maybe believes?) things that are simply unconstitutional.

Cruz-way to conservative. hard to read his true personality. and if other politicians don't even like him-yikes.

Rubio-vacuous pretty boy. cant or wont even do his job in the senate. too inexperienced.

Hillary-a flat out liar. she only wants the job because she reeeeeally wants the job (and for personal power reasons only sad to say). Her and her husband have serious moral deficiancies.

Sanders-truly a good guy, but a socialist. Darn.


Kasich is the only one Id feel OK with but unfortunately he dosnt have a chance.

I believe Bernie Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist, which is exactly how Tony Blair identified his political position, although he also said he was just as happy being referred to as a social democrat. In reality, however, he was probably neither!

I find it interesting how political labels can become confusing. For instance, liberalism, or classic liberalism, in 19th century Britain was essentially a right wing philosophy, espoused by the likes of John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith- The Adam Smith institute today is a right wing economic think tank-and advocating individual freedoms, free markets and minimal government.

I also tend to agree with with Michael Bloomberg, who I think would have made a good candidate: Trump is extreme, and Cruz no less so, although he's less "bombastic."

[c.d.]

Ben Carson: Evolution is Satanic and the Big Bang is a Fairy Tale.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/24/ben_carson_anti_science.html

And yet this guy made it through med school.

c.d.

[Rosella]

Well, Carson has gone on to endorse Trump so maybe, like Christie, he is hoping for a job in the Trump administration. In my view though that would be more a horror story than any fairy tale.

I think if Sanders had entered political life in Britain, Europe or Australasia he would have fitted in unremarkably as a minister in any Labour government.

What a choice you all have, and yet it's bringing out more voters than ever before, especially the young. That has to be good for the political process, no?

[Mayerling]

If only we had a button or switch that said, "None of the above". It might surprise the candidates.

Jeff

[Rosella]

I must say I'm a bit mystified about the role of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and other overseas territories in the US political process. I do understand about them not being States, but why are their citizens allowed to vote in primaries, hold conventions and so forth but are not allowed to vote in the general election for President? It just seems a little odd.

[GUT]

I must say I'm a bit mystified about the role of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and other overseas territories in the US political process. I do understand about them not being States, but why are their citizens allowed to vote in primaries, hold conventions and so forth but are not allowed to vote in the general election for President? It just seems a little odd.

I struggle with the whole system, seems they campaign forever and you can't even get a start without mucho dinero, either your own or that of a special interest group.

[Ginger]

I must say I'm a bit mystified about the role of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and other overseas territories in the US political process. I do understand about them not being States, but why are their citizens allowed to vote in primaries, hold conventions and so forth but are not allowed to vote in the general election for President? It just seems a little odd.

Well, the primaries belong to the parties, so they can say (within constitutional limits) who participates and who doesn't. That's why some states have their Republican and Democratic primaries on different days, or even use different methods. The Commonwealth of Kentucky is a case in point - there's a Republican caucus on March 5th, and a Democratic primary on May 17th.

Both parties let the overseas territories participate in the nominating process. I think that's a fairly recent development, but I'm not sure. The overseas territiories can't vote in the actual election (that would require an actual amendment to the Constitution, like the 23rd which let the District of Columbia vote), but their inhabitants are American citizens*, and can vote if they become residents of the 50 states or DC.

It's kind of a mess, and has its historical roots in the fact that the Union was originally composed of sovereign states, but it seems to more or less work.

* Except American Samoa, as Shaggyrand points out.

[Shaggyrand]

I must say I'm a bit mystified about the role of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and other overseas territories in the US political process. I do understand about them not being States, but why are their citizens allowed to vote in primaries, hold conventions and so forth but are not allowed to vote in the general election for President? It just seems a little odd.

American Samoa is a different classification from the others, being completely self governing. American Samoans do not have birthright citizenship in the US either. It's kinda like Canada's relationship with the English Monarchy, for the best comparison I can think of offhand that only kinda works.
As for the others, they can't vote in the general election because they aren't states. The US Constitution doesn't allow for anything besides states to have electors. The good old Electoral College at work. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change that. Not that the change might not happen in the future. DC wasn't able to vote in the general election until 1961 when the 23rd Amendment was ratified.
They don't carry enough delegates to make any impact in the primaries anyway. It's basically for show.

[Ginger]

American Samoa is a different classification from the others, being completely self governing. American Samoans do not have birthright citizenship in the US either.

I stand corrected. I'd thought that they did.

[Shaggyrand]

They can get US citizenship really easily. They just need to be in the states for a few months consecutively, three I think, to be automatically given naturalized citizenship. Though, really, they should have birthright. Especially when you consider their rate of military enlistment. Pago Pago has been the top recruitment center for something like 30 years.