Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Who do you prefer in the Republican and Democrat camp? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Who you want to be the Republican nominee? Marco Rubio (but would be happy with Jeb Bush, or Kassich, now that Rand Paul is out).
    Who do you want to be the Democrat nominee? Bernie Sanders (I would even prefer Trump as President compared to Clinton).
    Who do you want to be President (out of the candidates)? Marco Rubio.

    Who did you prefer during the last Presidential election? Obama.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I would prefer rand paul for the republican nomination because he's the most libertarian, but he's dropped out. now I'd say donald trump purely because of how much I loathe the others. in terms of the democrats, I prefer bernie not because I like his economic policies, but because I hate hilary clinton for her "vote for me because I'm a woman" message, her continuation of nepotism from bill, her shameful hypocrisy, her disastrous middle eastern policies, her audacity of hiding her department's emails (there is obviously some kind of corruption motivation) and the fact that bernie is at least a social libertarian regarding things like the war on drugs etc. both bernie and donald seem to have a kind of change agenda (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst) but I have a problem with status quo mediocrity career politics - it would be more positive more so than obama ever did (his only real "change" was the presidential skin colour in his years in office, and that's extremely shallow "change"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I would prefer rand paul for the republican nomination because he's the most libertarian, but he's dropped out. now I'd say donald trump purely because of how much I loathe the others. in terms of the democrats, I prefer bernie not because I like his economic policies, but because I hate hilary clinton for her "vote for me because I'm a woman" message, her continuation of nepotism from bill, her shameful hypocrisy, her disastrous middle eastern policies, her audacity of hiding her department's emails (there is obviously some kind of corruption motivation) and the fact that bernie is at least a social libertarian regarding things like the war on drugs etc
    I think Trump would have been okay if he behaved more like he did a decade or so ago and didn't come up with silly policies like "ban all Muslims". Hillary Clinton would be the best president money could buy.

    Clinton is a nasty campaigner, power and money-hungry, and incompetent - the best president money could buy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    In the Democrat camp, I prefer Bernie Sanders.

    In the Republican camp, I prefer John Kasich. He seems like a relatively reasonable person. In 2013, at a conference addressing wealthy conservative donors, he defended expanding Medicaid to the poor. One woman vehemently disagreed with him, but Kasich responded: "I don’t know about you, lady. But when I get to the pearly gates, I’m going to have an answer for what I’ve done for the poor."

    So, here's a Christian who at least takes the Gospel teachings on the poor at least partially seriously, although he's still a terrible candidate for President, and I'd much prefer Clinton to any Republican candidate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    I think Trump would have been okay if he behaved more like he did a decade or so ago and didn't come up with silly policies like "ban all Muslims". Hillary Clinton would be the best president money could buy.

    Clinton is a nasty campaigner, power and money-hungry, and incompetent - the best president money could buy.
    is banning muslims *really* that bad? do muslims around the world really have an innate right to come to america? are they going to integrate well there as other groups have? is their religion a moral one in the first place? I'm just considering it. I mean, do I, as an atheist, have a right to move to saudi arabia when the saudi state has labelled atheists as terrorists? I really don't see it as a huge problem considering these kinds of factors. it's not as if most muslims from the middle east are liberal democrats or something - anybody who thinks the majority of muslims are tolerant and accepting individuals (especially in regards to women and homosexuals) is extremely naive
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    is banning muslims *really* that bad? do muslims around the world really have an innate right to come to america? are they going to integrate well there as other groups have? is their religion a moral one in the first place? I'm just considering it. I mean, do I, as an atheist, have a right to move to saudi arabia when the saudi state has labelled atheists as terrorists? I really don't see it as a huge problem considering these kinds of factors. it's not as if most muslims from the middle east are liberal democrats or something - anybody who thinks the majority of muslims are tolerant and accepting individuals (especially in regards to women and homosexuals) is extremely naive
    I don't think you need to argue that anybody has an innate right to come to America to point out that a policy of banning all Muslims is unworkable. How do you know if someone is a Muslim? I'm against banning people on the grounds of harmless beliefs (and most Muslims I know do hold harmless beliefs), both on free-speech grounds and grounds of civility.

    I would equally think it would be stupid for Saudi Arabia to ban atheists.

    I think it's easy to assume that most Muslims are illiberal (e.g. with respect to women and homosexuality) - and many are, especially those born in Muslim countries who are used to illiberal political culture; but Muslims, like atheists, are found within all walks of life - entrepreneurs, bankers, doctors, etc. And I find banning an individual without being able to point to any action he himself has specifically committed to be a dangerous precedent, for the US economy and in general.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    I don't think you need to argue that anybody has an innate right to come to America to point out that a policy of banning all Muslims is unworkable. How do you know if someone is a Muslim? I'm against banning people on the grounds of harmless beliefs (and most Muslims I know do hold harmless beliefs), both on free-speech grounds and grounds of civility.

    I would equally think it would be stupid for Saudi Arabia to ban atheists.

    I think it's easy to assume that most Muslims are illiberal (e.g. with respect to women and homosexuality) - and many are, especially those born in Muslim countries who are used to illiberal political culture; but Muslims, like atheists, are found within all walks of life - entrepreneurs, bankers, doctors, etc. And I find banning an individual without being able to point to any action he himself has specifically committed to be a dangerous precedent, for the US economy and in general.
    it's pretty obvious that almost everybody living in the middle east is a muslim (in many of those states it's actually illegal not to be one) so it wouldn't be that difficult in practice to "ban" muslims, only in theory would it really be difficult or impossible. and if you think that banning muslims is only bad because of the economic implications then that's certainly a new perspective.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Sanders is my pick for POTUS. He's more exciting, more progressive and more genuine than Clinton. I think I'd still take Clinton over any of the Republican candidates though. She may be super political, but at least she's not evil (Cruz) or insane (Trump) or a glitchy robot (Rubio) or asleep half the time (Carson) or the saddest man on the face of the earth (Bush).
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Who you want to be the Republican nominee? Marco Rubio (but would be happy with Jeb Bush, or Kassich, now that Rand Paul is out).
    Who do you want to be the Democrat nominee? Bernie Sanders (I would even prefer Trump as President compared to Clinton).
    Who do you want to be President (out of the candidates)? Marco Rubio.

    Who did you prefer during the last Presidential election? Obama.
    I have a mild preference for kasich, Bush or Trump to be the Republican nominee. Kasich is actually pretty sane, Bush comes across as a soft conservative and while Trump's plan to build a wall is nutty, i support his plan to restrict Muslim immigration to the US. His attitudes to abortion, gun control, defense and even (from what i've read) healthcare are actually pretty reasonable. Cruz and Rubio i would not tolerate, i'm alarmed that Rubio has been considered the moderate.

    There's no real choice here, Clinton is superior to Sanders even if Clinton is only my 4th choice as president (behind the three Republicans above).

    Both Kasich and Bush have experience in being Governer's of Ohio and Florida. I therefore believe that they are the best candidates for president.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Sanders for the Democrats because he's actually doing maths on his economic policy and changing the framework as far as the nomination race is concerned. Kasich for the Republicans because he's the most sane as far as I know. The front runners in that race all live in cloud cuckoo land. Trump doesn't have any substance; he just talks 'winning' more than Charlie Sheen on tiger blood. Ted Cruz is so religious he's actually scary and Marco Rubio just doesn't know if he's coming or going when people put the microscope on him.

    EDIT: Having discovered Kasich's reaction to the Supreme Court appointment which must follow Scalia's death I have to conclude that he is also an obstructionist wingnut and therefore there are no remotely acceptable Republican candidates and the only permissible solution to me is that whomever is elected as their candidate loses the election to Clinton or Sanders and does so handsomely,
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Sanders for the dems, and at this point deciding who I prefer from the republican candidates is like asking which limb I'd prefer to have hacked off with a butter knife. Gun to head, probably Kasich. In my ideal world Sanders would get the democrat's nom, Katich would get the republican nom, then Trump would run as an independent anyway and split the republican vote.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Democrats: Bernie all the way!

    Republicans: Nobody...they all suck.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Bernie is the guy.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Gofre)
    In my ideal world Sanders would get the democrat's nom, Katich would get the republican nom, then Trump would run as an independent anyway and split the republican vote.
    Agreed. :borat:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Castro Saint)
    Bernie is the guy.
    yeeeeah!
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I have a mild preference for kasich, Bush or Trump to be the Republican nominee. Kasich is actually pretty sane, Bush comes across as a soft conservative and while Trump's plan to build a wall is nutty, i support his plan to restrict Muslim immigration to the US. His attitudes to abortion, gun control, defense and even (from what i've read) healthcare are actually pretty reasonable. Cruz and Rubio i would not tolerate, i'm alarmed that Rubio has been considered the moderate.

    There's no real choice here, Clinton is superior to Sanders even if Clinton is only my 4th choice as president (behind the three Republicans above).

    Both Kasich and Bush have experience in being Governer's of Ohio and Florida. I therefore believe that they are the best candidates for president.
    May I ask why building a wall is "nutty"?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Sanders and Trump.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    May I ask why building a wall is "nutty"?
    Because it costs a fortune (no -- the Mexicans aren't going to pay for it) and, when it's done, people can still dig tunnels under it. Nutty indeed.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Because it costs a fortune (no -- the Mexicans aren't going to pay for it) and, when it's done, people can still dig tunnels under it. Nutty indeed.
    The Mexicans would pay for it one way or another, that is easy.

    They wont be able to dig under it, and even if they could, the number of illegals and drugs smuggled over the border would be vastly vastly reduced.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by The_Opinion)
    The Mexicans would pay for it one way or another, that is easy.
    Evidence?

    They wont be able to dig under it, and even if they could, the number of illegals and drugs smuggled over the border would be vastly vastly reduced.
    Evidence?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.