Free Flight, Free Speech

This time I'll let everyone else state their mind first. The title should explain all--what is your opinion of the US presidential candidates?

I don't like any of them this time.
(At least, the majors, Hilary and Trump. Don't know any others)

Did you mean candidates [Pl.] or did you mean Mr. D. Trump?
He is, as far as I am aware, only one of several.

Any and all.

So what do you mean with the title "Trump or Dump"? it sounds biased to me. (and possibly slanderous)

[suggestion; title]
What is your position towards the Candidates for the U.S.A presidency 2016?
[/suggestion]

OTOH. I am uninterested in the political debate for the Presidency. Mostly. For me it goes more like: Good luck to all, and be the "best" elected.

You don't vote?
(Venezuelan -- but most other politics is too)
Politics is:
1 ounce of corruption
2 pounds of lying
3 teaspoons of bribery
4 kilos of false promises
5 pinches of doing nothing when in office.

Usually.
At least, in Venezuela, when 'red'.
Pedro Loreto is one exception (my town's mayor). He is the first one who has done anything besides partying for many, many years)

Israel are you an American citizen?

MIG29pilot wrote:Israel are you an American citizen?

Can a country be an American citizen?

IAHM-COL wrote:I am uninterested in the political debate for the Presidency. Mostly. For me it goes more like: Good luck to all, and be the "best" elected.

We do not get to elect a president. A parliament is elected and within it a majority coalition is formed between mostly 2 or 3 parties. From that a prime minister emerges. I vote for a party that i am sure will never get very big, because it is too reasonable. Most people seem to vote more polarized. Yet i find it important that the reasonable voice is heard in parliament too, so i do not turn away from politics. [edit] If i were to vote for a president and my candidate looses, then it still makes a difference if the other one wins with 51% or 75%. [/edit]

legoboyvdlp wrote:4 kilos of false promises

This i hear a lot from people that only look at the short term campaigns. I look at what has been done in the long term. Political background (party) and choices made in earlier political functions. That is what you get. Not what is said in a campaign. Even though the current election is internal of parties for a presidents candidate, one can still determine if the candidate has been on the moderate side or on the more extreme side of the party.

Yet if a candidate makes unrealistic statements he becomes untrustworthy and i do not need to spend time looking in his political background. When a candidate says something like: "If there is a problem in the world, we'll just bomb them from the face of the earth", then he has an unrealistic view on the proportions between the size of the earth and the size of the bombs. Momentarily we can see how hard it is to cover an area of the size of Iraq and Syria. The combined firepower of the strongest countries in the world are bombing an odd 40.000 young men with mostly rifles there for months now. All without impressive progress.

Kind regards, Vincent

Admittedly, I am at the moment unhappy with all of them ...

Trump: He forgot some important things about the Constitution, namely the 1st Amendment. And sice that is, what America once great, I think, he shouldn't become President. Aside of that, he is just like one of those "look at me", "look at me", "look at me" Hollywood celebrity types.

Clinton (now without Rodham): She is, given her past, more eligible for a trial for dozens of felonies (uranium deal, bribery in office via the Clinton Foundation, tax evasion come to mind, There is still the subject of some blocked homicide investigations and as Secretary of State, she was guilt of neglect which led to the death of four Americans in Benghazi. And before we forget about it, she made almost thousand sensible emails available toany enemy of America via her private server because in her endless narcissism and arrogance, she has no touch with the realities of the world anymore.

Cruz: Could have been a candidate for me, but when his campaign started to blur the lines between illegal and legal immigration, he lost me. And I don't get how a man with the name Cruz can cater so mindless to the outer right fringe ... dammit, I am aconservative, but those guys scare the hell out of me and they should scare everybody because they walk always on the line to the next McVeigh style psychotic break.

Sanders: If a man promotes an ideology that, under a lot different labels, has failed since five-thousand years over and over, he is no valid candidate. End of the story.

Carson ... well, he tried to be integrative, then was caught up with the usual mud-slinging battle. He is African-American, so he will be anyway the first victim of Axelrodt's successors. But he really lost me already earlier when he blurred out the thing about pyramids as wheat storehouses. If someone can't bring up the wisdom to keep his mouth shut because he doesn't know the facts, he is probably not a good candidate.

The rest of the bunch? What I could say about some of them would probably even stretch the politeness rules on this pretty free forum. Words like "mutants" come occasionally to mind. And those, who show more than the occasional spark of common sense are any not the ones getting the job. So, the future looks at the moment quite bleak.

#FeelTheBern

Considering what Sanders has proposed has worked in 58 other countries....
Contrary to conservative belief, Sanders is not a Marxist-Leninist.