posted names and political parties ONLY. And, you only posted two of these with negative descriptions, and only one of these with a short, positive description. Makes it quite obvious which way you're leaning, LG!
And why limit the choices to only 3? I went to a website and counted 12 additional candidates of so-called "Third Parties," many of which have been on statewide ballots as long or longer than the Libertarian Party! Hmmm... I guess everyone has an agenda.
Taking all of this into account makes your survey quite meaningless in my eyes.
Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.
Her campaign is much more on task as of now .
The Trump could stay on his present course , have a spectacular self destruct episode , or, he can see his poll numbers , he is losing , he could change his tone .
We'll know by convention time which path he chooses. ( I'm reluctantly signed up to volunteer there ) .
You could post a poll too . I like that idea
And, you don't have to reveal it to anyone!
My main point is, a real poll in which we really want to get an idea of how people feel, includes the names and, in a partisan election, the party affiliations only. Your descriptions skew the results. And, the information you provided makes it obvious what results you wish to achieve. For example, many polls are now including the Green Party nominee, as a fourth candidate. Her name is Dr. Jill Stein. As of early this month, the Green Party was on schedule to be on at least 47 of the possible 51 state and D.C. ballots. Dr. Stein was the Green Party candidate in 2012 and was on ballots in 36 states that year.
I mostly turn, as Mikey does, to polls posted on the website of "Realclearpolitics." They usually have the latest polling data. But, remember, the only polls which count are the polls where people actually vote, which are counted on election night. The rest is all fun to look at, and fun to discuss. That's it!
As far as Lyin' Don the Michelin Man who never met a burger he didn't like, he can say anything he wants to say! If he would "change his tone," he would still be: a narcissist, a racist, a serial marrier, a xenophobe, war happy, and a misogynist. In 1900, Teddy Roosevelt first stated that the best foreign policy was to, "Speak softly, and carry a big stick; you will go far." That's the opposite of the foreign policy that the current presumptive Republican nominee is following.
Hitler changed his tone. Once he got into a position of power he changed back to his original tone and murdered 6 million Jews and caused the death of 50 million more. Is America going to make the same mistake? Anyone with an IQ above 60 can see that Trump is the wrong person for POTUS.
How did Hitler change his tone?
After the Beer Hall Putsch, where he tried to overthrow the German government, he was in prison and published Mein Kompf which out laid his plans for the systemic destruction of the Jews and plans to invade other countries.
So he public stated and published what he intended to do. What tone changed? His thoughts on the economy?
On here with more candidates .
And which candidate am I leaning toward ?
You may post anything you want. With all of the descriptions posted with Hillary and Lyin' Don, and with Gary Johnson described by you merely as "surging," your poll certainly seemed to favor Gary Johnson. I must add, that as a two-term governor, with another two-term governor as a running mate, the Johnson-Weld ticket is better prepared to lead the nation, if elected, than the ticket being headed by the self-absorbed narcissist who insults so many people here and around the world with his divisive rhetoric!
Now, I have actually formulated questions for polls. If one truly wants to get a feel for the pulse of the population being polled, one of the most important, and trickiest, things to do is to write poll questions that do not lead those being polled to one answer more than another. All one needs to do, is write the names of the candidates and their party affiliation just as they appear on the ballot in Ohio.
With more choices
in American political campaigns. Among other things in the 1800 Election, Jefferson was called, "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." And, "...a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward." And, as the article states: "Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was 'one of the most detestable of mankind.'"
The article went on, "Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him. Adams, on the other hand, considered himself above such tactics. To Jefferson's credit, Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely untrue, voters bought it, and Jefferson stole the election.
Jefferson paid a price for his dirty campaign tactics, though. Callendar served jail time for the slander he wrote about Adams, and when he emerged from prison in 1801, he felt Jefferson still owed him. After Jefferson did little to appease him, Callendar broke a story in 1802 that had only been a rumor until then -- that the President was having an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. In a series of articles, Callendar claimed that Jefferson had lived with Hemings in France and that she had given birth to five of his children.
The story plagued Jefferson for the rest of his career. And although generations of historians shrugged off the story as part of Callendar's propaganda, DNA testing in 1998 showed a link between Hemings' descendents and the Jefferson family."
As a student of history, I disagree with the analysis of why Jefferson won the Election of 1800. During his four year term as POTUS, Adams signed into law bills passed by the Federalists in Congress called the Alien and Sedition Acts. Among other things, the Sedition Acts made it illegal for anyone to criticize the POTUS. People were convicted and jailed for violating this act, especially newspaper publishers. The Alien Acts made it much more difficult for foreigners to become citizens of the United States. The Federalists passed this legislation because most of the newly minted citizens voted for Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican Party. These acts were huge issues in the 1800 Election. Jefferson avenged his loss to Adams in 1796 by defeating his former good friend in 1800, and issues had at least as much to do with Jefferson's victory as did dirty campaigning!
Am I the only one who notices that immigration was an issue even in the Election of 1800 over 200 years ago? Xenophobia is a recurring American malady, and its origins are very old indeed! That neither legitimizes xenophobia nor excuses it!
Trump won't win. Americans aren't that stupid. There is too much information about how Hitler came to power. Thank God people kept the memories of the Holocaust alive.
media savvy candidate for POTUS we've ever had. Don't count him out!
Why do I call the Michelin Man who never met a burger he didn't like, Lyin' Don? Here's a link to a very recent lie about the severe drought conditions in California that Lyin' Don states are fabricated: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/05/28/donald...
This Trump fellow sounds absolutely horrible and only a fool would follow him. I guess Hillary is easily beating him by at least 15 pts already since she's a learned and experienced civil servant who puts the people before herself. Right?
Lyin' Don does just what the Hitler play book says. To remind you, here are some of Hitler's words from that play book: "Great liars are also great magicians." And, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." And, "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they believe it." And, finally, "It is not truth that matters, but victory."
Remember, the political party headed by Adolf Hitler won the 1933 election in Germany, and placed Hitler into the most powerful position in the German government as Chancellor. Lyin' Don the Michelin Man who never met a burger he didn't like is described like this by Stephen Hawking, "He is a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator." And this is what Speaker of the House and Republican leader Paul Ryan said about Lyin' Don's vicious verbal attack on a federal judge who had the temerity to assess information on its merit, and rule against Lyin' Don: "Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment," Hitler would be proud!
At what point did ZC write "media savvy" in the post I replied to? Or is replied to a difficult concept to understand?
You must state clearly to whose post you are responding, if you are going to accuse someone of not properly responding to a post of yours! Otherwise, do not criticize a response to something you post which appears directly below another post, and appears to be a response to that post!
On each comment there is a little button marked reply. When you click that it responds directly to the comment that was replied too. If you're responding to the next comment it indents it. Just has it has from day 1 of SB.
it is clear, don't use the name or pseudonym of the person to whom you are directing your reply. But, don't criticize others for not knowing to whom you are commenting if you do not use that person's name or pseudonym.
It could not be any easier.
your comments. That's OK with me!
The site self identifies. Replies are located below and indented to the post replied to. Thus there is no need for me to identify further.
isn't it? Your "reply" was indented below my previous post, right?
I don't want to reply to something directed at someone else. That would be sinful!
Dale, why argue with MikeyA? None of us can successfully have a dialogue with MikyA.
Chris Rock is also media savvy. Let's elect him POTUS.
years ago. Robin Williams played a comedian on a TV news satire program, who was elected POTUS. It was entitled, Man of the Year. Talk about life reflecting art!
With all due respect, ZC, Chris Rock is not currently a candidate for POTUS, or any other public office. However, Al Franken is a United States Senator, and is one of the names being bandied about as a possible VPOTUS selection of Hillary. And, remember the late Sonny Bono as a member of Congress? How about Clint Eastwood being Mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea? Back in the 1960s, many people wanted Woody Hayes to run for Governor of Ohio, too!
On the other hand, being a media celebrity should not disqualify someone from running for POTUS. However, I do not recall Al Franken, Sonny Bono, or Clint Eastwood making anything like the outrageous, racially-tinged, demagogic statements being made by Lyin' Don the Michelin Man who never met a burger he didn't like. I also do not recall any of the above-mentioned other celebrities making any harsh attacks against the way a person looks, or the way a person eats! Nor do I recall any of these other celebrities referring to the size of their private parts!! Talk about rude and crude; and a serial marrier, too! Some candidate for the self-proclaimed "Family Values Party," huh!
You are right, Chris Rock is not running for office, but he played the role of a candidate and elected POTUS in the movie, "Head of State"., in 2003. Rock has more experience at being the POTUS than Trump.
Furious GOP donors stew over Trump
PARK CITY, Utah — Donald Trump is trying to win over a skeptical Republican donor class, but they’ve closed their wallets — and they’re angry.
On Friday afternoon, at an exclusive Republican donor retreat here hosted by Mitt Romney, frustration boiled over. During an off-the-record question-and-answer session with House Speaker Paul Ryan, Meg Whitman, the billionaire Hewlett Packard chief executive officer, confronted the speaker over his endorsement of Trump. Whitman, a major GOP giver who ran for California governor in 2010, compared Trump to historical demagogues like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and wanted to know how the speaker could get behind him.
history in America. I am linking to an article under Ohio history about the Know-Nothing Party. This was a political party which organized in America in the 1840s and 1850s, opposing new immigrants in general, and Catholic immigrants in particular. So, once again, it's nothing new for Americans to take a stand against new immigrants to America based upon their religion.
Please note the main group making up the Know-Nothings according to this article: "The majority of Know-Nothings came from middle and working-class backgrounds. These people feared competition for jobs from immigrants coming to the United States." But, they had another fear as well, directly based upon the Catholic faith of so many of these new immigrants at that time: "The majority of white Americans followed Protestant faiths. Many of these people feared Catholics because members of this faith followed the teachings of the Pope. The Know-Nothings feared that the Catholics were more loyal to the Pope than to the United States." The parallels between then and now are just plain eerie!
The main difference seems to be that the Know-Nothings were called that name because they were embarrassed to express their xenophobia openly. When asked what their position was regarding immigration, most of them would respond with, "I know nothing." Today's xenophobes, led by Lyin' Don the Michelin Man who never met a burger he didn't like, flaunt their xenophobia. They are proud of seeking to deny entry to America by immigrants, the vast majority of whom are coming to America for the same reasons as did our progenitors, including the Drumpfs [the original family name of the Trump family], came here -- for freedom and economic opportunity.
Here's a link to the entire article: http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Know-Nothing_Party?rec=911
How Donald Trump Bankrupted His Atlantic City Casinos, but Still Earned Millions
“Atlantic City fueled a lot of growth for me,” Mr. Trump said in an interview in May, summing up his 25-year history here. “The money I took out of there was incredible.”
His audacious personality and opulent properties brought attention — and countless players — to Atlantic City as it sought to overtake Las Vegas as the country’s gambling capital. But a close examination of regulatory reviews, court records and security filings by The New York Times leaves little doubt that Mr. Trump’s casino business was a protracted failure. Though he now says his casinos were overtaken by the same tidal wave that eventually slammed this seaside city’s gambling industry, in reality he was failing in Atlantic City long before Atlantic City itself was failing.
But even as his companies did poorly, Mr. Trump did well. He put up little of his own money, shifted personal debts to the casinos and collected millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and other payments. The burden of his failures fell on investors and others who had bet on his business acumen.
Anyone notice the Trump's Bromance with Putin looks similar to that of Hitler and Mussolini?
The chicken have come home to roost. Trump represents the real Republican Party. A Party dedicated to a feudal philosophy, which is so Un-American..