Do you like not having any choice about whom you may choose to vote?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:55:21 -0400

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3273404/Democratic-National-Committeewoman-says-party-clearing-path-Hillary-women-charge-want-way.html

Tsgt. Hunter Logan

DNC committeewoman: 'Women in charge' put the party all-in for Hillary

Female DNC member rattled off all the women at the top of the party hierarchy and said two vice chairs helped craft a decision this summer to favor Clinton. 'Is this a secret?' she asked.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 3:56 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:56:25 -0400

This has always been the case with both parties. And it absolutely makes me livid when my choices are artificially limited.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 4:07 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:07:12 -0400

When women sing her name to a hymn by replacing her name for God, we have a problem.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 4:12 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:12:29 -0400

You could always vote for Vermin Supreme. He promises a free pony for every American.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

Vermin Supreme: When I'm President Everyone Gets A Free Pony

Vermin Supreme At the Lesser-Known Democratic Candidates Presidential Forum. Forget The Phony, Vote For The Pony: http://bit.ly/zlqK3a The full debate is ava...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 4:13 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:13:43 -0400

This is why we should do away with the parties and decide who we want to vote for with no party affiliation.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 15 at 2015 4:15 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:15:21 -0400

Allow me to disagree respectfully...

Once upon a time candidates were chosen in "smoke-filled rooms" by the "movers and shakers" of each party. They chose the candidates with proven track records of organizing and leading, the ones who had paid their dues. In my lifetime, they offered choices such as Truman and Dewey, Eisenhower and Stevenson, Kennedy and Nixon, Goldwater and Johnson. Interestingly, I found them all to be admirable choices and, although I had strong feelings in support of one or the other, I was willing to accept the choice of We the People and respect whomever rose to the office of President. Then came the democratization of the primary process. We the People were allowed to choose the candidates and with the exception of only one, I have found them to be poor choices regardless of their party affiliation. Carter. Clinton. Bush. Dole. Obama. McCain. Romney. Little there to respect. Of course, that's just my opinion.

It puts me in mind of the lessons I've learned in parenting. For example, only a fool would offer their child the choice of eating their broccoli or going to their room. Of course, the child will choose to go to their room. No. You offer children choices in which they benefit whichever way they decide. Eat your broccoli or your carrots.

I pine for an election in which I could be happy with either candidate. Instead, I'm confronted with choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Maybe it's time to return to those glorious days of yesteryear...

Response by CW4 Guy Butler made Oct 15 at 2015 4:19 PM

CW4 Guy Butler — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:19:42 -0400

I'll go with "C"...

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Oct 15 at 2015 4:42 PM

PO3 Steven Sherrill — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:42:25 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member We are falsely led to believe that there is a vast difference between the R and the D. The truth is that they are two sides of the same coin. It is a coin that is in the pocket of big business. The only time they look at the people is when it is time to cast our ballots. We should have several candidates with a legitimate chance to be elected. The commission on presidential debates squashes that in that it is run by the R and the D. There is no way that in a nation as diverse and populous as the United States that there are two candidates that actually represent the majority of the people.

As for Swillary NOPE NOPE NOPE. I am very much tempted to give up my independent voter status so I can go vote in the primary for Bernie Sanders just because I think that bitch does not belong on the final ballot.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Oct 15 at 2015 4:59 PM

LTC John Shaw — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:59:42 -0400

LTC Private RallyPoint Member meh, it's the Democratic party, I don't expect otherwise.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 15 at 2015 5:01 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:01:12 -0400

It is as if, the clown factory opened and all these candidates showed up.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 5:43 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:43:18 -0400

No that would make the whole matter a show , a fake - B.S. style show. And i for one don't go for that.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Oct 15 at 2015 8:27 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 20:27:54 -0400

I always exercise a choice, and its usually a candidate I agree almost wholly with.... Typically that candidate is Libertarian. I never feel bad then about voting for a lesser of evils, and I don't fail into the one party with two branches (RepubliCrats), trap of the false choice. Regards

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Oct 15 at 2015 9:07 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:07:44 -0400

This problem will be solved if/when the election system is ever improved.

What is needed is a runoff election. That way, we can start off with any number of presidential candidates from any number of parties. The general election would determine the top two candidates, who would then be elected in a runoff election. That would allow people to vote for the candidate they really like in the general election, without having the concern about wasting a vote for a candidate that normally wouldn't have a chance. If the Democrats & Republicans choose milquetoast or wingnut nominees, good candidates who got rejected could still run in a third party or even under their own name. It would help solve the problem of certain states having undue influence in the candidate pool because their primaries were held earlier than in other states.

For that same reason, I am also a proponent of having all polling places everywhere in the country open all at the same time. From 6:00 am to midnight on the east coast, and from midnight to 6:00 pm in Hawaii. Everybody in the country would have the same 18 hours to cast their ballot, which means there is no possible way the election could be already determined by the time people in the west end got to vote. Which means that people's votes in Oregon and Alaska would count just as much as people's votes in Maryland and New Hampshire. It also means that the media could never again throw an election by calling states for a particular candidate before the polls close in other states.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 18 at 2015 12:10 AM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 00:10:43 -0400

I think we should do away with the Electoral College. Some people have said that it would be disastrous for lower populated areas but I don't see it. The larger the population of a state, the more electoral votes it gets. So that tells me that my state's votes don't matter as much as California's because they have more people? Unacceptable.