who would you have voted for if you could re-cast a vote for the US 2016 election

[Guest]

who would you vote for in US 2016 if you could re-vote

@Patine@Bruce Fischer@vcczar@wolves@jvikings1@SirLagsalott@victor1313@CalebsParadox@pilight

[Bruce Fischer 1]

Who do you think?

(Hint: profile picture )

[Bruce Fischer 1]

@LokiLoki22 wait did you vote last year?

[pilight 237]

I voted for Gary Johnson and I'd do it again

[Patine 469]

42 minutes ago, republicaninnyc said:

who would you vote for in US 2016 if you could re-vote

@Patine@Bruce Fischer@vcczar@wolves@jvikings1@SirLagsalott@victor1313@CalebsParadox@pilight

I had been saying since it was obvious who the two major parties nominees were (you weren't yet on these forums, but there's others here who can verify) that it was the two WORST candidates by both major parties in the same US Presidential election since 1852, and I couldn't even get behind any of the Third Party candidates like I probably could have gotten behind Hale had I been able to vote in 1852. I wasn't resident in the United States and was unable to vote, and I am somewhat glad for that. I still have no support for any of those candidates, and it's elections like this that make me miss the Natural Law Party of the '90's - a fun and harmless protest vote, if needed.

[vcczar 1,224]

Why is Clinton listed as Hillary and Trump not listed as Donald? 

I voted for Clinton and I would again. I voted for Sanders in the primary. Of Republicans, I greatly respected Kasich in the campaign. 

[pilight 237]

36 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Why is Clinton listed as Hillary and Trump not listed as Donald? 

It's a depressingly common bit of (hopefully not conscious) sexism. It's a way to infantilize threatening women by asymmetrical practice of calling them by their first names (like you would a child) instead of their last (like you would an adult).  When you hear it enough, you start doing it yourself even when it's not proper.

[jvikings1 40]

11 minutes ago, pilight said:

It's a depressingly common bit of (hopefully not conscious) sexism. It's a way to infantilize threatening women by asymmetrical practice of calling them by their first names (like you would a child) instead of their last (like you would an adult).  When you hear it enough, you start doing it yourself even when it's not proper.

Or maybe because that is what everyone refers to her by because there was actually a President Clinton, as in Bill Clinton.

[Bruce Fischer 1]

1 hour ago, pilight said:

It's a depressingly common bit of (hopefully not conscious) sexism. It's a way to infantilize threatening women by asymmetrical practice of calling them by their first names (like you would a child) instead of their last (like you would an adult).  When you hear it enough, you start doing it yourself even when it's not proper.

I would definitely say yes and agree with this if Clinton hadn't explicitly branded herself as "Hillary" for the past 8 years. This may, of course, be exploiting this (usually) subconscious sexism to gain instant recognizability, but regardless, it's how she's chosen to portray herself. For literally anyone else, I'd say yes, that's sexist, but I'm hesitant with Hillary Clinton.

(To your point; calling Hillary by her first name is commonplace, while calling Donald Trump by his first name is seen as demeaning, which is why Clinton did that all throughout the debates)

52 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Or maybe because that is what everyone refers to her by because there was actually a President Clinton, as in Bill Clinton.

To be fair, there is no possible way you'd conflate Hillary with Bill in the context of this poll. Of course, all of this could've been avoided by just using their full names (though even then, Don the Con usually gets a "J." in between his first and last names, whereas I've never seen HRC's name displayed as "Hillary D. R. Clinton")

[Guest]

I'm no fan of Trump, but I can respect that during the debates he properly referred to her as "Secretary Clinton" while she just called him "Donald" the whole time.

[jvikings1 40]

10 hours ago, Bruce Fischer said:

I would definitely say yes and agree with this if Clinton hadn't explicitly branded herself as "Hillary" for the past 8 years. This may, of course, be exploiting this (usually) subconscious sexism to gain instant recognizability, but regardless, it's how she's chosen to portray herself. For literally anyone else, I'd say yes, that's sexist, but I'm hesitant with Hillary Clinton.

(To your point; calling Hillary by her first name is commonplace, while calling Donald Trump by his first name is seen as demeaning, which is why Clinton did that all throughout the debates)

To be fair, there is no possible way you'd conflate Hillary with Bill in the context of this poll. Of course, all of this could've been avoided by just using their full names (though even then, Don the Con usually gets a "J." in between his first and last names, whereas I've never seen HRC's name displayed as "Hillary D. R. Clinton")

I was referring to the statement that it is sexist to refer to Hillary as Hillary.

[Bruce Fischer 1]

4 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

I'm no fan of Trump, but I can respect that during the debates he properly referred to her as "Secretary Clinton" while she just called him "Donald" the whole time.

Keep in mind the context; Donald had just spent 6 months calling her "crooked Hillary" (and would continue to do so until the election).

 

[LokiLoki22 0]

14 hours ago, pilight said:

It's a depressingly common bit of (hopefully not conscious) sexism. It's a way to infantilize threatening women by asymmetrical practice of calling them by their first names (like you would a child) instead of their last (like you would an adult).  When you hear it enough, you start doing it yourself even when it's not proper.

How about Burnie. He chose that. Jeb bush called himself Jeb, etc. It may be unprofessional, but she is far from alone on it. 

[Patine 469]

6 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

I'm no fan of Trump, but I can respect that during the debates he properly referred to her as "Secretary Clinton" while she just called him "Donald" the whole time.

Sarah Palin did exactly the same thing to Joe Biden in the 2008 VP debate. "Can I call you Joe?"

[Guest]

15 hours ago, pilight said:

It's a depressingly common bit of (hopefully not conscious) sexism. It's a way to infantilize threatening women by asymmetrical practice of calling them by their first names (like you would a child) instead of their last (like you would an adult).  When you hear it enough, you start doing it yourself even when it's not proper.

Um,It has nothing to do with sexism at all.It's just what came to mind since many people called her that(including on the news sometimes)

[Bruce Fischer 1]

59 minutes ago, LokiLoki22 said:

Jeb bush called himself Jeb, etc.

*Jeb!

[jvikings1 40]

2 hours ago, Bruce Fischer said:

*Jeb!

Let's be exciting

[LokiLoki22 0]

5 hours ago, Bruce Fischer said:

*Jeb!

The exclamation mark seems more ironic than anything. 

[Bruce Fischer 1]

2 minutes ago, LokiLoki22 said:

The exclamation mark seems more ironic than anything. 

I'm not sure it's possible to enthusiastically support Jeb Bush, and a million exclamation points wouldn't change that.

[LokiLoki22 0]

1 minute ago, Bruce Fischer said:

I'm not sure it's possible to enthusiastically support Jeb Bush, and a million exclamation points wouldn't change that.

I enthusiastically support not ending the nation. 

[Bruce Fischer 1]

2 minutes ago, LokiLoki22 said:

I enthusiastically support not ending the nation. 

Yes I too would take Jeb! over cheeto Mussolini.

[servo75 30]

Though I have been a bit disappointed by some parts of Trump's presidency, I'm not convinced that any of the others would have done better, not even Johnson.

[servo75 30]

On 4/20/2017 at 4:17 PM, pilight said:

I voted for Gary Johnson and I'd do it again

I sooooo much wanted to vote for Johnson, but in the end I feel he's too much of a "LINO".  I loved his financial and regulatory policies, but he was too weak in foreign policy and religious rights.  Also while this is not a Libertarian policy, he seemed too weak on border security.  I noticed how my isidewith.com results, while at first a virtual tie between Johnson & Trump, started trending more towards Trump and away from Johnson the closer we got to Election Day.

If Trump's administration continues its "flexibility" and the Congressional GOP continues their bungling incompetence then I'd definitely consider Libertarian in 2020, if they put up someone like Austin Petersen or Rand Paul.  I really am starting to feel that it's time for more 3rd parties, it's the only solution to our current problems.

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by servo75

[jvikings1 40]

57 minutes ago, servo75 said:

I sooooo much wanted to vote for Johnson, but in the end I feel he's too much of a "LINO".  That is my thinking as well.  I loved his financial and regulatory policies, but he was too weak in foreign policy and religious rights.  Also while this is not a Libertarian policy, he seemed too weak on border security.  I noticed how my isidewith.com results, while at first a virtual tie between Johnson & Trump, started trending more towards Trump and away from Johnson the closer we got to Election Day.

If Trump's administration continues its "flexibility" and the Congressional GOP continues their bungling incompetence then I'd definitely consider Libertarian in 2020, if they put up someone like Austin Petersen or Rand Paul.  Being from Kentucky and having interned for Rand, I don't see him running as a Libertarian unless Trump starts to go way off of his platform.  I could see Austin Peterson trying again.  He is very likeable, and I wish he had gotten the nomination in this last election.  I really am starting to feel that it's time for more 3rd parties, it's the only solution to our current problems.

 

 

[pilight 237]

Rand Paul would be even more of a LINO than Johnson.

I'm not a huge Johnson fan, but he was the best of a slate of bad options IMO.