Well, Both parties have had there WL primary with the democrats coming out with Sanders and Clinton while the conservatives came out with Trump and Rubio. The final test has arrived, who will be WLs choice for America?



http://vote.pollcode.com/35392546#sthash.lvwedksC.dpuf


^ The final poll to decide WLs pick for President


( Poll will remain open two weeks as always )

Edited 1/30/2016 21:52:37

I'm not voting. Protest vote = No vote.

Your policy is what's wrong with America XD Would you rather have Bernie or Trump? its simple

their*, neither they're both awful. Also wolf you're an illiterate.

Ok its confirmed this guy is 674 lol. Just waiting for him to trip up again...

?

If I have to choose, this is the order:

Rubio (one of the not-crazy candidates)
Clinton (I agree with her views, I just hate Clinton herself)
Sanders (I'm only a little more him due to me being a bit on the left)
Trump (obvious reasons. I see why he says the things he says, I just can't see him becoming president. Plus when he talks, he looks stupid.)

Oh, Rubio's going to be VP? Well, it's better than Cruz

Wait, Sanders supports Obama and his "accomplishments overseas"? Oh so he's just a imperialist puppet, that makes a lot more sense than what he framed himself to be.

San Bernadino and the Paris Shooting and Clinton's Foreign Policy Hawkishness has forced Bernie to move to the right on oversees imperialism. The only committed non-interventionist in the entire Presidential Race is Rand Paul. He'll slash military spending, pull the troops out of Afghanistan, and crack down on NSA spying.

Trump is winning so far.

honestly i would not for any of them

+1 to you HomeLess

Yes, that's exactly the attitude most countries had when histories worst dictators came to power

just as it is my right to vote it is also my right to abstain from voting. as for your point about dictators, please tell us which one of those candidates are potential dictators? I am so very curious

Apparently you did not pay very much attention to what I said. Why would I refer to history, you know? As in the past? If I was talking current presidential candidates? Anyway history has proven that historically bad leaders or dictators almost always come to power in a low turn out election. Even if the candidate isn't necessarily a bad guy, unpopular leaders come to power or reaffirm it when a portion of the public abstains from national politics because if a large portion of the public abstain, it usually means the other half doesn't pay as much attention for the same reason which is eithe non satisfaction or plain not caring. Obama is a good example. The 2012 election was Lower then more recent ones, and thus since a lot of moderate conservatives stayed home, it gave Obama an edge. Today, Obama has become almost as unpopular as Bush or Carter. Even fellow democrats don't want there names associated with much of the time.

you are citing low voter turnout as a cause for rise of dictatorships. so please tell me, if I and others don't bother to show up what? would there be a military coup? would Clinton or Trump or some other politican turn America into a totalitarian military state? and as for your point about Obama, you may have been too young to remember this but when he was elected to office in 08 there was a historic voter turnout.

I voted sanders as the poll said we were the same person.

Too young? and that is matters because?.......Actually that election is what started my intrest in politics. I did not say that every time an a future unpopular candidate was elected it would be that way. Obama did not win because of policy, he did not win because he was good at debating, he won because of four things...



1 he was a black guy. He took advantage of a conservative movement trying to wipe out an image democrats had been telling minorities for years, which is republicans are racist white guys. This made McCains position very hard, he had to be careful what he said about Obama. Obama also used his color to his advantage on polling out minority votes.


2 Sarah Palin was the worst political mistake as a VP in recent history, utterly a nightmare.


3 McCain is a bad debater, Obama actually is bad himself because he has a pattern of going on a propaganda raid in his time on stage and when Obama gets stumped, he looks like a deer about to be run over by a truck. Why did he beat McCain then? because McCain is even worse

4 Bush made his victory possible, both democrats and republicans can usually agree that anyone claiming to be nothing close to Bush had a better shot then Abraham Lincoln in that election year.

your still not paying attention to what I am saying? I am saying that if a large portion of the public does not vote, that's means that the chance increases that the guy they don't want gets in, simple. I only used the dictatorship example as a side show not the main point which is that a low turnout much of the time gets the guy the majority of the public ends up mad at.

Why? Because the lower the turnout for an election, the less attention is payed to the smarter, better fitted candidate, which in turn leads to the fact that it puts both candidates on an equal scale no matter if one is better then the other.

McCain was a bumbling two faced idiot, but out of the two I firmly believed he would have made a better president ( Under either of them, i still probably would have ended up screaming at the press secretaries like i do now XD )

Edited 1/31/2016 07:02:57

Btw I enjoy our debates very much homeless :) I don't always engage you because I am not always in the mood but I like debating you because you always make me think outside the box ( even though usually I end up rejecting your position, I will always consider it ) I hope I have that same affect on you lol