...it takes just a few seconds if you use Classic TER.
You know what a "tell" is? It's when you "lol" when you can't reply substantively; when you receive the information requested but got nuttin' to come back with.
I ask purely out of curiosity in regards to American politics and that it is very much a two-party election, which is very different to home and thus every election I've taken part in. For me personally I am left leaning, but who I vote for in an election is dependent on a great deal of factors - so while I'll admit that I disregard the very far right parties automatically (those that would deport every single non-white person in the nation, for example), in the lead up to the day most other parties are at least in some manner a possibility for me.
Do you vote based on your own personal beliefs (i.e. purely left or right), or what party represents what is best for you personally, whatever that may mean? Have you already decided because the other dog in the fight is just the total opposite of your own political beliefs and therefore is and was never an option? Do you take independents into account seriously?
I suppose I qualify as "right leaning", but I have serious issues with many on the right, and with most social conservatives.
I still don't have a clue as to who I am going to vote for in '16 as I have no idea who my choices are going to be, so I strongly disagree with you about the "other dog in the fight" as I don't yet know who which dogs will "be in the fight"
I will say that right now I am leaning towards voting for the Hildabeast, despite my personal dislike for the woman, I say this expecting the GOP to maintain at least split control of Congress and it's basically my vote for gridlock. I don't trust either party to be completely in charge because when either party is in complete control "things get done" and we end up with things like The Patriot Act and ObamaCare. IMO gridlock means government is much less likely to break anything.
Thanks for the response.
There are things that government does well, that should never be privatized IMO. Defense is one such thing that comes to mind, but when the federal government attempts to "fix" something, like healthcare for example, the fix is a hundred times worse than the problem itself.
If I have to take the chance that by not being able to break anything, government also will be in no position to fix anything either, that seems like a fair trade off to me, and is much preferable to either of the two parties being in total control.
Only my opinion, though I suspect I am not alone, that this great nation of ours has been on a slippery slope for so long that the climb back up may never happen. And it is my opinion that our mostly two party system is to blame for that. When I found myself casting ballots for the lesser of two evils is when I really began to feel unrepresented. When you get down to it, is there really a difference between Dems and Reps? From where I stand and observe, both parties seem more interested in being in control than they are in the common good. Both parties march to the tune of more and bigger government, just differ in how to accomplish it. Congress approval rating is abysmal, yet 90+% of incumbents are re-elected. That's just insane. There is the point of view that as voters we should be more involved in local and state politics, because that is the training ground for the majority of who ends up in Washington. Take care of business at home and the rest should fall in place it is said. As a nation we tend to look for a new savior every presidential election cycle, because by and large, the bulk of us are apolitical. Mostly we don't get involved until the last minute, it's election day, and the chad needs to be punched, if we even bother to visit the polls.
Then there are statistics. Google is your friend, and a simple search will tell you that, historically, whichever party in a congressional election, or whichever presidential candidate, received the largest campaign contributions from Goldman-Sachs is in. So if you want to pick a winner, follow the money every time.
...CONSERVATIVE group who took a case all the way to the Supreme Court. The CONSERVATIVE justices, appointed by Republican presidents, used the case as a springboard and opened the floodgates for the buying of politicians.
Follow the money indeed!
At the moment, it is Hillary. I also give credit to experience and knowledge.
Simply making stupid statements, senseless partisan attacks is big turn off.
You not making stupid statements would be like FatVern not making "enigmatic" statements, it's just never going to happen
You may go back to the dumpster and lay there GARBAGE
She hasn't come forward and expressed anything really since her most recent book tour.
In due time, she'll have to talk. Then maybe the country will know what to expect when she inevitably gets sworn in
But you like to wedge between Garbage!
I'm voting Bernie Sanders.
At this point in time the winner of the Democrat or Republican Party are not known.
There are those that believe Hillary has already been chosen on the Democrat side.
That identical thought was prevalent in 2007 though I knew she wouldn't stand a chance winning the youth vote against Obama.
I found it amazing so many people in 2007 denied her inevitable downfall.
Eight years later her endurance is more than gone.
Once again, she won't gain trust of American youth or their vote.
One of five could win the Republican Presidential nomination.
There are no serious Independents in my district.
Has anyone noticed President Obama has not endorsed Queen Hillary 2016?
Do you vote based on your own personal beliefs (i.e. purely left or right), or what party represents what is best for you personally, whatever that may mean? Have you already decided because the other dog in the fight is just the total opposite of your own political beliefs and therefore is and was never an option? Do you take independents into account seriously?
uneducated, not able to understand the issues, depend on TV for information and end up voting for the wrong candidate.