jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (46 posts)

Jeb Bush vs: Hillary Clinton. Who will you vote for in 2016, and why?

  1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
    Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12110101.jpg
    Both Clinton and Bush have been patiently waiting their turns to be president. The powers that be--the millionaires and billionaires--support them. So it's pretty much a done deal. So how will you vote? And why would you vote for either Jeb or Hillary for president?

    1. Credence2 profile image87
      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't it the same ole' ****?  But I have to work with the system we have rather than the one I prefer to have. A little control and choice is better than none at all.  Between the two, Hillary if preferable if not my absolute choice. With rare exception, any Dem is better than a GOP candidate. Did anyone read about the latest Bush faux pas, this morning, regarding lesbian and gay rights?

    2. Don W profile image82
      Don Wposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It genuinely doesn't matter.

    3. PhoenixV profile image81
      PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      http://gctnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/castaway-wilson.jpg

      I wish there was a place to vote that Hillary and Jeb were sent to some Pacific Island, hundreds of miles away from anywhere else, like on Castaway for 4 years. Just to see if the world would keep on spinning without them.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +!!!!!!!! lol

  2. FatFreddysCat profile image91
    FatFreddysCatposted 2 years ago

    If those are my choices in 2016, I'll sit this one out.

    1. rhamson profile image78
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      They win then.

      1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I think with long polling place lines and tough voting requirements lots of people will be sitting out this election. And yes, the voice of most Americans doesn't get heard. So the wealthy win again.

        1. GA Anderson profile image82
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          What are the "tough voting requirements" that you think will deter voters?

          GA

          1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
            Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I've lived in poor neighborhoods. People don't have cars (they ride the bus) so they don't have state IDs. They also do not know how to get a birth certificate. And they don't have the money to pay for it.
            I've seen people who don't have the 10 cents for a shopping bag so they carry the stuff they buy--sometimes item by item. (No I've never seen a person abuse food stamps)
            I know that having the polls closed down in your neighborhood stops people from getting to the polling place that is across town. And elderly people cannot stand in line for 2 to 4 hours to vote. But legislatures keep closing polling places in poor people's neighborhoods.
            Yes, I know that most folks don't care about these people. But they used to vote without all these issues.

            1. Credence2 profile image87
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              And who do you think would be more likely to stand to benefit from this form of discouragement to this block of the electorate?The so called 'voter integrity folks" are well aware of the adverse effects of their campaigns, but it is part of a larger plan.

              1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
                Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I think what one Republican billionaire said sums it up: Only wealthy people should have the right to vote.

              2. GA Anderson profile image82
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Geesh Credence, that old tune again? It seems a ready response for you initially, but I recall past conversations where revealed and conceded points to the contrary seemed to enough to banish that tired old canard.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image87
                  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No, in an in depth discussion we had on this in the not so distant past, we agreed to an impasse.i agreed to acquiesce to a bull headed GOP position to a solution to voter fraud where there was yet to be a serious problem identified behind it.  Voter ID only, with many of my turquoise conditions attached before I would reluctantly agree.

                  A resident of Australia can see the obvious implications of what is going on here, yet it is not acknowledged by our own politicians when it's right under their noses.

                  I STILL say that behind the voter ID movement spearheaded by the GOP is an attempt to create obstacles for those demographics: poor, elderly and minority who would most likely vote against them.

                  Dr. Kidd assessment of the GOP attitude at its core " only wealthy people people should have the right to vote" is more true than otherwise and is supported by every other 'bite my tongue' statement they have made in the last 2-3 years.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image82
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't argue the probability that the Repub's motives are as described. But on the question of whether this is or isn't a voter fraud problem - I am undecided.

                    My entire point is that from what I have read, states that have voter ID requirements also have programs to make it easy and cost free for people that need help and assistance. Plus with all the efforts by each party, (particularly the Dems), to get their constituency registered and to the polls, I do not agree that getting a voter ID, or getting to the polls would be a hardship on even the smallest significant number of people.

                    Voting is, and should be seen by folks, as an important responsibility. I don't want to stop anyone from exercising their right to vote, but if someone is so apathetic that they can't exert the effort to take advantage of the assistance available, or button-hole a friend to help in order to get what they need to vote - then maybe they aren't any more than a warm body for some vote-getter to herd to the polls. Maybe the real disenfranchised are the vote-getters that can't add one more to the herd because they did not do their homework.

                    My reference to our past conversations was not relative to GOP motives, but to the reality that with all the assistance available - requiring a voter ID should not, and despite the occasional second-person anecdotes, probably does not, present significant hardships to anyone. Unless of course you think getting an ID and voting should be as easy as calling for a pizza delivery.

                    So crying about the Repubs motives is just blowing smoke. The issue is a valid one. When you are talking millions, one or ten or a hundred are not significant numbers.

                    To your Australia reference you will have to help me out with a little clarification. I took a quick look at Wiki's Australia voter topic and I was floored when I saw the main topic was compulsory voting. I sure hope that isn't the reference you intended.

                    GA

            2. GA Anderson profile image82
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Hmm...  How many polling places do you think would be appropriate? What kind of identification do you think should be sufficient?

              Voting is an important responsibility. Get out the vote drives and neighborhood car pools, and friends, and all the other "get the voter to the polls" efforts would seem to make getting to the polls less of a hardship then you portray.

              My past readings on the various Voter ID controversies left me with the impression that most, (if not all), states with ID laws almost bent over backwards with various transportation and fee waiver programs to ensure that no one that wanted a valid ID was denied one.

              Anecdotal stories of one or two, (symbolically speaking), elderly people, or one or two birth certificate-less folks don't seem much of an argument to me.

              I would be skeptical that any of those type of folks that really wanted to vote would not find the assistance and neighborly help they needed.

              You may have a bit of a point about an elderly person waiting in line for a couple hours, but... common sense and courtesy lead me to think  that chairs and assistance would be readily offered to folks with this obvious need. But that view may be tainted by the friendly community I live in.

              Nope, I don't think the disadvantages you mention are prevalent at all, or that the disadvantaged voters you speak of are a significant number of folks.

              Voting is an important responsibility, and I think any one that really wants to vote will find the help they need to do it.

              Of course if you are referring to apathetic warm bodies, (the ones that didn't think voting was important enough to make the effort until someone asked), to be shepherded to the polls for someone's benefit - then I might agree that the lack of polling places on every street corner and the onerous requirement of proving who they are may be an undue obstacle.

              ps. Aren't most of these poor folks you mention able to get utilities assistance when their electric or gas are about to be disconnected? Aren't there any "meals on wheels" or food pantry programs available to them in dire times? Aren't they courted for their votes by local political organizations?

              I think you might be surprised at just how many people do care about those "folks".


              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image87
                Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                the whole voter ID thing is just so much bs. where is all the outrage concerning absentee ballots, which by their very nature is more subject to abuse? Part on being 'red' is protecting the caprice of the plutocrat against the needs of everyone else?

                If there has been no serious issue in this regard why not just let things be?
                I expect more of our leaders than to be determined to find every manner of ruse to discourage participation in a fundamental tenet of our democratic system, having far greater implications than having ID for alcohol or cigarettes or paying an electric bill.
                These 'poor people' work harder than most subtaining themselves and their families on multiple low wage jobs. Why put up obstacles to their participation in the franchise over nothing more than right wing parlor games?
                I asked you before what does restricting the times polls are open or certain days available to cast ballots have todo with preventing fraud? Never did a  receive a definitive answer from anyone on the Crimson side of isle.

                1. GA Anderson profile image82
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The bulk of this diatribe was addressed in my response to your previous comment, so dropping down to this...

                  " I asked you before what does restricting the times polls are open or certain days available to cast ballots have todo with preventing fraud? Never did a  receive a definitive answer from anyone on the Crimson side of isle."

                  Absentee voting... are you inserting a new topic? I would prefer we finish the voter ID disenfranchisement discussion first, because we may find more common ground than you think on the absentee ballot issue.

                  I am not sure what definitive answer you were expecting, and I am definitely not on the "Crimson" side of the color chart,  but let me give it a go.

                  Restricting times or days polls are open...

                  Hell, national elections are almost a holiday; most governmental offices are closed, schools are closed, banking institutions are closed, most employers are very lenient about "voting time breaks," etc. etc.  - how much more would you ask? A two or three day polling period? Isn't voting a responsibility important enough for someone to fit it into a thirteen hour window?

                  In my area polls are open from 7am to 8pm. 13 hours seems pretty flexible to me. How much more time would you want? 24 hours like a convenience store?

                  Of course it is just my perspective, but I think voting for your leadership, whether national or local,  is an important responsibility, and all this hurrah about inconvenience just makes me think that folks spouting it are bringing that important responsibility down to the level of ordering pizza. Come on Cred, isn't voting for the folks you want to lead your country or township a little more important than a 30-minute delivery time or a midnight munchies attack?

                  "If there has been no serious issue in this regard why not just let things be?"

                  OK. I have to admit that is the most disappointing statement I recall you ever making. *sigh

                  "...having far greater implications than having ID for alcohol or cigarettes or paying an electric bill.

                  I agree whole-heartedly! Voting is an important responsibility. A lot more important than doing what you need to do to buy a pack of cigarettes. So, "Where's the beef?"

                  "These 'poor people' work harder than most subtaining themselves and their families on multiple low wage jobs. Why put up obstacles to their participation in the franchise over nothing more than right wing parlor games?

                  I hope I am making some inroads on your perception that a voter ID is an obstacle. Maybe you can offer more proof than Dem's talking points that it really is. Do "poor folks" have cable TV? A cell phone? Do they cash payroll checks without a bank account? All these require an ID. Isn't voting for your national or community leadership at least as important as having access to ET, (Entertainment Tonight - my wife insists on watching this - I have to leave the room),  or Judge Judy?

                  The above was the gist of my previous conversations reference. I have yet to be shown that a Voter ID requirement is a significant hardship on a significant number of people. I take voting seriously. I take my responsibility to ensure I am eligible and informed to vote seriously. If I have to take an extra step or two to vote - then I am damn well going to find a way to do it. So to me, your disenfranchisement and hardship arguments are no more than a smokescreen trying to hide your partisan argument that it is the evil Repubs doing their typical dastardly deeds.

                  Get some perspective. Is voting for your leadership important, or is it just a numbers game?

                  GA

              2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
                Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It seems I read an internet article that said that only about 10% of  the poor in the U.S. vote. So perhaps this is another media-created mime--the idea there is a problem with limiting voting rights. Or perhaps, poor people have just give up on the system. Kind of like Speak Boehner who said yesterday he was the most anti-Establishment Speaker in history (whatever that means).

                1. GA Anderson profile image82
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you have made an important point - but for reasons other than intended.

                  10% of the poor vote. That is a tragedy. Regardless of which party line you want to espouse, that is a telling statement.

                  The poor should be the ones that are the most driven to vote. But it is kinda hard to think about taking the time to vote when you are freaking over how to get a payment to the electric company to keep the electric on another day or two, or how to stretch $5 bucks into dinner for a you and the kids.

                  Save me, save me, please don't make me offer a comment on Boehner, (spell checker = Boner : ) ).

                  But... I still do not believe there is a voter disenfranchisement with the Voter ID Issue. You can give it a shot, but I am fairly confident of my opinion on this issue.

                  GA

                  1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
                    Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Like I said, voter disenfranchisement may just be a new political meme that does not reflect reality. Closing down polling places in Democratic districts does have its effects, however.
                    Still, I'm more concerned that the U.S. looks like it's bringing out only 2 choices---Hillary and Jeb--for 2016. Looking at it from afar, it seems crazy that the political class is so limited. There isn't even a Green Party despite all this yelling about save the environment.

      2. FatFreddysCat profile image91
        FatFreddysCatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        In that case I'll write in Howard the Duck. Marvel Comics ran him as a candidate in 1976 as a joke. I think his time has come!

    2. Writer Fox profile image79
      Writer Foxposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That's just what I was going to say.  You beat me to it! big_smile

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image89
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, if no one votes… the votes will be tallied anyway and Jeb will be the winner.

        I agree... why bother.
        Poor Jeb Bush.

        1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Election rigging is another matter in itself. I realize that Jeb Bush is the one who got his brother elected to fight in Iraq by stopping the recount of the 2000 vote in Florida.

  3. profile image60
    Francessavincentposted 2 years ago

    Yes it might be true

  4. Stacie L profile image87
    Stacie Lposted 2 years ago

    Why are we Americans limited to two of the same families of politics?
    Is this a new Nepotism?
    We need some fresh blood and someone that isn't bought by billionaires. Yeah, I may naïve but how do ordinary citizens fight the system?

    1. rhamson profile image78
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      ....Why are we Americans limited to two of the same families of politics?....

      The apathy has a lot to do with it. I think is was around a 30% voter turnout in November that voted in a new majority. I am not saying they would not have won anyway but we will never know what the other 70% would have chosen.

      As far as Hilary and Jeb if they are offered by the mobs (democrats/republicans) that nominate them, you can be rest assured they will bend backwards to their corporate masters just as their fore runners did. The plutocracy is what elects these characters. The Kock brothers and Soros control through their money to help to sway these elections right along with the new Superpac money that will see more billion dollar races in an effort to buy the votes again.

      Did I mention it is all the American voters fault?

      1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
        Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The unlimited donations now available to billionaires concerns me. If you've got a spare billion you can give it to one of the parties to spend however they wish.
        The Koch brothers have gathered together a group of billionaires who will probably do this. A spare billion is nothing to the 6 Walmart children who own as much as 1/2 of all Americans.
        Soros? He's small change next to these folks.
        My real concern is that people are addicted to their TVs and the fake news. Nobody seems to talk the facts. They talk about what the TV tells them to talk about. And they believe it.
        And that will be Hillary and Jeb.

        1. Credence2 profile image87
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Getting all the tainted money out of the political process and that of governance might help? Term limits will help to discourage "empire building" and direct our representative's focus on serving their constituency rather than lining their pockets. This goes for both parties, but the conservatives has always been the more troubled when it is suggested that staunching  the flow of crony cash might contribute to bringing integrity back into the system.

        2. rhamson profile image78
          rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          +1

          1. GA Anderson profile image82
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Why is it not surprising that any comment mentioning the Koch Bros. gets a +1 from you?

            GA

  5. handymanbill profile image60
    handymanbillposted 2 years ago

    I'm hoping that neither one runs. To much Clinton and to much Bush.

  6. profile image60
    Michelle Zalacoposted 2 years ago

    It is fair to note that in any individual who serves as our President, finds a certain amount of trouble in their second term--but, Obama, never quite made it beyond the starting line.  Certainly, you think 'Well, we have a health care system in place now.'  Perhaps, but it is still proving to be a disaster especially with tax time right around the corner.  My vote will be given to Jeb Bush, it is time to reinstate Republicans to the Oval Office.  It is in my opinion, that he will continue to follow the impending immigration laws.

  7. Fred Arnold profile image60
    Fred Arnoldposted 2 years ago

    The amount of people who come together with like minded angst against the system on the internet is pretty astounding, yet there's no organization. Life keeps people too busy to push for anything except a half assed system.

  8. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    We set the price for getting elected.  I've said it before.  (http://kathleencochran.hubpages.com/hub … ional-debt)

    It is beyond rational reason that the party that was willing to shut down the government less than a year ago for - nothing - got itself elected to the majority of both houses of Congress.  So I can't say this with a great deal of conviction.  But no reasonable person would give the White House to another person named Bush.  We've yet to recover from the last one. 

    And I don't intend to like Hillary Clinton.  I don't expect to admire her.  But I expect her to do the things I care about.  Obama has.  Basically, any democrat would.  I've lived through Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes.  It's going to take more than on Democratic administration to fix all the mistakes we are still suffering from under Republicans.  Democrats certainly make mistakes.  Republicans have made disasters - in my lifetime any way.

    1. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It's going to take more than one . . .

    2. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      ...that the party that was willing to shut down the government ...
      If you looked into this subject deeply enough to write any political hub ... why would you risk your apparent credibility on such a shallow and easily disproved statement as that?

      I won't bore you with the readily available information that shows how wrong that perspective is, because I don't think you would believe it anyway. But there is ample evidence available to anyone willing to do even the quickest "20 minute Google search" that would show the Dems were just as much to blame as the Repubs.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        If memory serves i recalled Obama offering cuts that those on his left flank considered draconian. The GOP was damn stubborn about allowing ANY tax increases as a compromise. I am with Kathleen, just as in 1995, the GOP was the obstinate party and thereby the most responsible for the gridlock. That is how I saw it at the time and my opinion has not changed. Sorry...

        1. GA Anderson profile image82
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          OK, since I am not inclined to spend the time to dig up the old threads and links, I will only say that my perspective is that the Dems also threatened a shutdown over other issues. The Dems also presented unacceptable positions that forced the Repubs  to take a stand. etc. etc. etc.

          This is all a rehashed topic. I am confident that on another night and with the inclination to search I can present the proof of what I say. But, perception is what it is. I will hold mine and leave you to yours.

          But... here is a thought... what part of the government was really shut down? Hint; National Parks, the D.C. Mall, and other very "news friendly" sites. What essential government functions were curtailed?

          It was all a PR show. Do you really still want to place all your chips on one bet?

          GA

      2. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "I won't bore you with the readily available information that shows how wrong that perspective is, because I don't think you would believe it anyway."  On the contrary, I am always interested in readily available information.  That's how I keep my apparent credibility.  It is also how I form my opinions even though there are always those who see the same information differently.  I respect that.

        1. GA Anderson profile image82
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Good. I do too... as long as the other perspective is grounded in reality. Try this. Google "government shutdown,"  then check the Red-leaning sites. You will find ample references to the points that the Repubs could not swallow, but the news media also did not report. The spotlight - and the viewership, was on the Repubs intransigence, so that is what made the news.

          Since I don't recall us having other discussions, let me offer the tidbit that I am not a Republican voter. I am am equal-opportunity offender that thinks both sides of the isle have poopy diapers that need to be changed.

          And... partisan talking points and obedient party responses are like red meat to my carnivorous instincts - don't get between the teeth and the meat.

          GA

  9. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    We can put a man on the moon but can't see an obvious solution to the voter ID issue?  Let people register to vote at their polling place on election day.  Issue them a photo ID at that time. From that day on, they are - for voting purposes - that name and picture, which is now in a data bank whether they keep their ID card or not.  Problem solved.

  10. siswizer profile image59
    siswizerposted 2 years ago

    Dose any one know what that movie is the one with a Allen dog that crashes down and meets a little boy and then bad stuff happens

  11. Dr Billy Kidd profile image91
    Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago

    Amen.

 
working