None Of The Above.

[Crepitus]

Wouldn't it be great if we could have stopped this crap before it started?

The funny thing is that Trump IS, in effect, a NOTA candidate! The people rejected all the usual suspects, good as they were, in the other SIXTEEN people the GOP offered, and the people overwhelmingly, at least in 30 states, chose him over Hillary------ the QUINTESSENTIAL Washington Insider Career Politician! Trump was as Seinfeld puts it: the EXACT OPPOSITE of every person who has ever run before! So if they were wrong, he would have to be right!

The problem is that he was SO right, that the losing party has spent their entire capital on blocking his administration and getting him removed from office by any and all means possible.

So -- -- -- you will NEVER have a candidate that everyone likes. There is no such thing as an electable "moderate" that lies in that safe neutral ground in the middle. The two parties are so far apart these days due to the continued radicalization of the Left farther and farther from the mainstream, that the more "right" a candidate is to some people, the more "wrong" he will be to the rest. Therefore, NOTA is nothing but a fantasy.

So tRump one the GOP vote by default?

And we don't need a candidate who appeals to everyone, just one that appeals to most.

Then that would be Trump.
He won the Electoral College by a landslide.
He took 30 states.
He won in something like 98-99% of all counties.
He won the popular vote in nearly all thirty states he won compared to Hillary's, indeed, the only state Hillary really crushed him in was California.
Take a few square miles of California out of the equation and he even likely wins the popular vote, and the argument can be made that if not for illegal and undocumented votes, he might have actually won that as well.

Trump was the non-politician political ousider everyone always said they wanted as an alternative to another poll-tested polished pressed suit. Except he just wasn't from the right party.

We need someone who can do it without mortgaging himself to foreign interests.

Funny that all we hear are the necessity and benefits of globalization, yet when a globalized candidate comes along, we hear calls for nationalization instead? The truth we are finding out is that ALL of the options, all of your candidates, senators, and many representatives are ALL mortgaged in "foreign interests," that is why they are always flying around the world meeting up with various heads of state while in office, and long after, when they become lobbyists for foreign interests.

Trump has been the ONLY president to effectively BAN anyone on his cabinet becoming a lobbyist for a foreign country for five years after leaving office.

Unenforceable, sadly.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No

for a multitude of reasons

Like?

Term limits on Presidents, opens us up to anarchy, and many more.

Doesn't open us up to anarchy. Obviously we would need a system to carry on while new candidates are found and new elections run.

The Brits manage to do it in a few months, we could to.

And if NOTA wins the new election?

Choose better candidates.

Which is done before the election, rendering ‘none of the above’ irrelevant and unnecessary.

Everyone gets it: voters feel ignored and excluded by the ‘political establishment’ – where party hacks and insiders are foisted upon the voters absent the consent of voters.

But top down ‘solutions’ such as balance budget amendments, term limits, and ‘none of the above’ aren’t the answer – there is no quick fix.

The fact is that the only viable solution is one the people are too lazy and apathetic to pursue: get out from behind the computer screen, put away the smart phone, get off your ass, and get involved – otherwise, no one is in any position to complain about candidates, and ‘none of the above’ is not an option.

 

[Crepitus]

Like?

Term limits on Presidents, opens us up to anarchy, and many more.

Doesn't open us up to anarchy. Obviously we would need a system to carry on while new candidates are found and new elections run.

The Brits manage to do it in a few months, we could to.

And if NOTA wins the new election?

Choose better candidates.

Which is done before the election, rendering ‘none of the above’ irrelevant and unnecessary.

Everyone gets it: voters feel ignored and excluded by the ‘political establishment’ – where party hacks and insiders are foisted upon the voters absent the consent of voters.

But top down ‘solutions’ such as balance budget amendments, term limits, and ‘none of the above’ aren’t the answer – there is no quick fix.

The fact is that the only viable solution is one the people are too lazy and apathetic to pursue: get out from behind the computer screen, put away the smart phone, get off your ass, and get involved – otherwise, no one is in any position to complain about candidates, and ‘none of the above’ is not an option.

As previously mentioned, the party leaders.decide who's running before the primaries. To me those choices are unacceptable most of the time.

 

[toobfreak]

No, you think it sucks now? How do you think it would be after repeatedly having to do a re-election again and again because no one like the available choices.

Why settle for candidates no one likes?

Clearly, one of the main problems, and solutions, to better elections is to:

1. Get money out of politics. Eliminate the need for funding, advertisements, financing, and level the playing field. This would take lobbyists and special interests out of the equation as well as at the same time open the door for those people who ordinarily never even get a say in running.
2. Get political ads out of politics. Instead of biased, slanted, fictitious and misleading spin and claims by candidates, most of which attack and smear the other person and try to appeal emotionally to the voter, have voting based on objective, factual lists of each candidates resume and 'curriculum vitae,' a list of their background, history, experience and accomplishments. Treat candidates the same way as you would when looking to hire a new person to fill a position at your company.
3. When testing, debating and comparing candidates on the national stage, ask them relevant questions to the things that actually matter to the voters, and require them to have credible plans and timelines for actually achieving them, rather than just boasts, promises, and nebulous positions, along with penalties for not achieving them.

I wouldn't tolerate an employee who promises to be able to do a certain job to as certain level but falls short, why should I expect less from a president?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The expected media colonoscopy performed on political candidates - more so on the right than the left, of course, but still - pretty much guarantees that no candidates of the highest quality and intellect will present themselves for the procedure.

Citizens in this time vote "none of the above" by simply not voting.

by not voting you assures one of the turds wins. a NOTA above could beat them both.

NOTA means you arent voting for anybody which is kinda stupid on its face,,,

as for POTUS there are options,,,

yep, there are options...

shitty and shittyer

 

[Terri4Trump]

I didn't vote........

Then what the fuck are you crying about dickless

 

[candycorn]

Term limits on Presidents, opens us up to anarchy, and many more.

Doesn't open us up to anarchy. Obviously we would need a system to carry on while new candidates are found and new elections run.

The Brits manage to do it in a few months, we could to.

And if NOTA wins the new election?

Choose better candidates.

Which is done before the election, rendering ‘none of the above’ irrelevant and unnecessary.

Everyone gets it: voters feel ignored and excluded by the ‘political establishment’ – where party hacks and insiders are foisted upon the voters absent the consent of voters.

But top down ‘solutions’ such as balance budget amendments, term limits, and ‘none of the above’ aren’t the answer – there is no quick fix.

The fact is that the only viable solution is one the people are too lazy and apathetic to pursue: get out from behind the computer screen, put away the smart phone, get off your ass, and get involved – otherwise, no one is in any position to complain about candidates, and ‘none of the above’ is not an option.

As previously mentioned, the party leaders.decide who's running before the primaries. To me those choices are unacceptable most of the time.

You’re wrong. Did the party leaders pick Trump and Bloomberg?

 

[Crepitus]

I didn't vote........

Then what the fuck are you crying about dickless

Changing quotes is against the rules.

 

[candycorn]

We have a term limit on Presidents.

Nothing to do with this topic. We need to keep the crazies from getting the to start with, not just be glad they are gone later.

so, if NOTA won in 2016... what would have happened.

TBD. As previously noted, we would need a system in place to keep they government running for a few months.

such as...please be specific

Hold the previous administration for 3 months, but with the stipulation that they are there only to respond to emergencies and no new legislation will be permitted or existing legislation advanced.


Speaker of the house acts as interim executive?

Maybe a new position, the transition executive?

Something could be worked out, I'm not talking about jumping into this without considering the consequences.

Since we can’t decide what an emergency is... you’ll have chaos. If the speaker is voted out in the same election? A transition body? Lol.

and what if NOTA wins again?

 

[candycorn]

No, you think it sucks now? How do you think it would be after repeatedly having to do a re-election again and again because no one like the available choices.

Why settle for candidates no one likes?

Clearly, one of the main problems, and solutions, to better elections is to:

1. Get money out of politics. Eliminate the need for funding, advertisements, financing, and level the playing field. This would take lobbyists and special interests out of the equation as well as at the same time open the door for those people who ordinarily never even get a say in running.
2. Get political ads out of politics. Instead of biased, slanted, fictitious and misleading spin and claims by candidates, most of which attack and smear the other person and try to appeal emotionally to the voter, have voting based on objective, factual lists of each candidates resume and 'curriculum vitae,' a list of their background, history, experience and accomplishments. Treat candidates the same way as you would when looking to hire a new person to fill a position at your company.
3. When testing, debating and comparing candidates on the national stage, ask them relevant questions to the things that actually matter to the voters, and require them to have credible plans and timelines for actually achieving them, rather than just boasts, promises, and nebulous positions, along with penalties for not achieving them.

I wouldn't tolerate an employee who promises to be able to do a certain job to as certain level but falls short, why should I expect less from a president?

you’re accepting it currently.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Term limits on Presidents, opens us up to anarchy, and many more.

Doesn't open us up to anarchy. Obviously we would need a system to carry on while new candidates are found and new elections run.

The Brits manage to do it in a few months, we could to.

And if NOTA wins the new election?

Choose better candidates.

Which is done before the election, rendering ‘none of the above’ irrelevant and unnecessary.

Everyone gets it: voters feel ignored and excluded by the ‘political establishment’ – where party hacks and insiders are foisted upon the voters absent the consent of voters.

But top down ‘solutions’ such as balance budget amendments, term limits, and ‘none of the above’ aren’t the answer – there is no quick fix.

The fact is that the only viable solution is one the people are too lazy and apathetic to pursue: get out from behind the computer screen, put away the smart phone, get off your ass, and get involved – otherwise, no one is in any position to complain about candidates, and ‘none of the above’ is not an option.

As previously mentioned, the party leaders.decide who's running before the primaries. To me those choices are unacceptable most of the time.

And yet again: get involved to compel party leaders to select primary candidates you approve of; become a party leader yourself, or join with others to end party leadership and have candidates selected by a more comprehensive consensus.

But ‘none of the above’ remains anti-democratic, not viable, and in no manner a ‘solution.’

 

[Crepitus]

Doesn't open us up to anarchy. Obviously we would need a system to carry on while new candidates are found and new elections run.

The Brits manage to do it in a few months, we could to.

And if NOTA wins the new election?

Choose better candidates.

Which is done before the election, rendering ‘none of the above’ irrelevant and unnecessary.

Everyone gets it: voters feel ignored and excluded by the ‘political establishment’ – where party hacks and insiders are foisted upon the voters absent the consent of voters.

But top down ‘solutions’ such as balance budget amendments, term limits, and ‘none of the above’ aren’t the answer – there is no quick fix.

The fact is that the only viable solution is one the people are too lazy and apathetic to pursue: get out from behind the computer screen, put away the smart phone, get off your ass, and get involved – otherwise, no one is in any position to complain about candidates, and ‘none of the above’ is not an option.

As previously mentioned, the party leaders.decide who's running before the primaries. To me those choices are unacceptable most of the time.

You’re wrong. Did the party leaders pick Trump and Bloomberg?

Bloomberg will go nowhere without party support.

The party clearly picked Clinton.

tRump, probably not to start with, but eventually they came around.

Doesn't open us up to anarchy. Obviously we would need a system to carry on while new candidates are found and new elections run.

The Brits manage to do it in a few months, we could to.

And if NOTA wins the new election?

Choose better candidates.

Which is done before the election, rendering ‘none of the above’ irrelevant and unnecessary.

Everyone gets it: voters feel ignored and excluded by the ‘political establishment’ – where party hacks and insiders are foisted upon the voters absent the consent of voters.

But top down ‘solutions’ such as balance budget amendments, term limits, and ‘none of the above’ aren’t the answer – there is no quick fix.

The fact is that the only viable solution is one the people are too lazy and apathetic to pursue: get out from behind the computer screen, put away the smart phone, get off your ass, and get involved – otherwise, no one is in any position to complain about candidates, and ‘none of the above’ is not an option.

As previously mentioned, the party leaders.decide who's running before the primaries. To me those choices are unacceptable most of the time.

And yet again: get involved to compel party leaders to select primary candidates you approve of; become a party leader yourself, or join with others to end party leadership and have candidates selected by a more comprehensive consensus.

But ‘none of the above’ remains anti-democratic, not viable, and in no manner a ‘solution.’

I disagree. The party leadership of either party is not open to change.

 

[candycorn]

And if NOTA wins the new election?

Choose better candidates.

Which is done before the election, rendering ‘none of the above’ irrelevant and unnecessary.

Everyone gets it: voters feel ignored and excluded by the ‘political establishment’ – where party hacks and insiders are foisted upon the voters absent the consent of voters.

But top down ‘solutions’ such as balance budget amendments, term limits, and ‘none of the above’ aren’t the answer – there is no quick fix.

The fact is that the only viable solution is one the people are too lazy and apathetic to pursue: get out from behind the computer screen, put away the smart phone, get off your ass, and get involved – otherwise, no one is in any position to complain about candidates, and ‘none of the above’ is not an option.

As previously mentioned, the party leaders.decide who's running before the primaries. To me those choices are unacceptable most of the time.

You’re wrong. Did the party leaders pick Trump and Bloomberg?

Bloomberg will go nowhere without party support.

The party clearly picked Clinton.

tRump, probably not to start with, but eventually they came around.

And if NOTA wins the new election?

Choose better candidates.

Which is done before the election, rendering ‘none of the above’ irrelevant and unnecessary.

Everyone gets it: voters feel ignored and excluded by the ‘political establishment’ – where party hacks and insiders are foisted upon the voters absent the consent of voters.

But top down ‘solutions’ such as balance budget amendments, term limits, and ‘none of the above’ aren’t the answer – there is no quick fix.

The fact is that the only viable solution is one the people are too lazy and apathetic to pursue: get out from behind the computer screen, put away the smart phone, get off your ass, and get involved – otherwise, no one is in any position to complain about candidates, and ‘none of the above’ is not an option.

As previously mentioned, the party leaders.decide who's running before the primaries. To me those choices are unacceptable most of the time.

And yet again: get involved to compel party leaders to select primary candidates you approve of; become a party leader yourself, or join with others to end party leadership and have candidates selected by a more comprehensive consensus.

But ‘none of the above’ remains anti-democratic, not viable, and in no manner a ‘solution.’

I disagree. The party leadership of either party is not open to change.

If picking candidates results in two consecutive conventions where no candidate has a winning margin, one has to wonder what the DNC leaders are picking. Voters pick the candidates

 

[Crepitus]

Choose better candidates.

Which is done before the election, rendering ‘none of the above’ irrelevant and unnecessary.

Everyone gets it: voters feel ignored and excluded by the ‘political establishment’ – where party hacks and insiders are foisted upon the voters absent the consent of voters.

But top down ‘solutions’ such as balance budget amendments, term limits, and ‘none of the above’ aren’t the answer – there is no quick fix.

The fact is that the only viable solution is one the people are too lazy and apathetic to pursue: get out from behind the computer screen, put away the smart phone, get off your ass, and get involved – otherwise, no one is in any position to complain about candidates, and ‘none of the above’ is not an option.

As previously mentioned, the party leaders.decide who's running before the primaries. To me those choices are unacceptable most of the time.

You’re wrong. Did the party leaders pick Trump and Bloomberg?

Bloomberg will go nowhere without party support.

The party clearly picked Clinton.

tRump, probably not to start with, but eventually they came around.

Choose better candidates.

Which is done before the election, rendering ‘none of the above’ irrelevant and unnecessary.

Everyone gets it: voters feel ignored and excluded by the ‘political establishment’ – where party hacks and insiders are foisted upon the voters absent the consent of voters.

But top down ‘solutions’ such as balance budget amendments, term limits, and ‘none of the above’ aren’t the answer – there is no quick fix.

The fact is that the only viable solution is one the people are too lazy and apathetic to pursue: get out from behind the computer screen, put away the smart phone, get off your ass, and get involved – otherwise, no one is in any position to complain about candidates, and ‘none of the above’ is not an option.

As previously mentioned, the party leaders.decide who's running before the primaries. To me those choices are unacceptable most of the time.

And yet again: get involved to compel party leaders to select primary candidates you approve of; become a party leader yourself, or join with others to end party leadership and have candidates selected by a more comprehensive consensus.

But ‘none of the above’ remains anti-democratic, not viable, and in no manner a ‘solution.’

I disagree. The party leadership of either party is not open to change.

If picking candidates results in two consecutive conventions where no candidate has a winning margin, one has to wonder what the DNC leaders are picking. Voters pick the candidates

Not really, no.

 

[progressive hunter]

The expected media colonoscopy performed on political candidates - more so on the right than the left, of course, but still - pretty much guarantees that no candidates of the highest quality and intellect will present themselves for the procedure.

Citizens in this time vote "none of the above" by simply not voting.

by not voting you assures one of the turds wins. a NOTA above could beat them both.

NOTA means you arent voting for anybody which is kinda stupid on its face,,,

as for POTUS there are options,,,

yep, there are options...

shitty and shittyer

what was so shitty about daryl castle of the constitution party???

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The expected media colonoscopy performed on political candidates - more so on the right than the left, of course, but still - pretty much guarantees that no candidates of the highest quality and intellect will present themselves for the procedure.

Citizens in this time vote "none of the above" by simply not voting.

by not voting you assures one of the turds wins. a NOTA above could beat them both.

NOTA means you arent voting for anybody which is kinda stupid on its face,,,

as for POTUS there are options,,,

yep, there are options...

shitty and shittyer

what was so shitty about daryl castle of the constitution party???

other than the fact he was only on 24 state ballots, my state was not one of them.

 

[progressive hunter]

The expected media colonoscopy performed on political candidates - more so on the right than the left, of course, but still - pretty much guarantees that no candidates of the highest quality and intellect will present themselves for the procedure.

Citizens in this time vote "none of the above" by simply not voting.

by not voting you assures one of the turds wins. a NOTA above could beat them both.

NOTA means you arent voting for anybody which is kinda stupid on its face,,,

as for POTUS there are options,,,

yep, there are options...

shitty and shittyer

what was so shitty about daryl castle of the constitution party???

other than the fact he was only on 24 state ballots, my state was not one of them.

thats shitty for you,,,and doesnt prove he was shitty ,,,

do you guys have write in ballots??

 

[Harpy Eagle]

by not voting you assures one of the turds wins. a NOTA above could beat them both.

NOTA means you arent voting for anybody which is kinda stupid on its face,,,

as for POTUS there are options,,,

yep, there are options...

shitty and shittyer

what was so shitty about daryl castle of the constitution party???

other than the fact he was only on 24 state ballots, my state was not one of them.

thats shitty for you,,,and doesnt prove he was shitty ,,,

do you guys have write in ballots??

I was speaking of the two major party candidates...sorry that was too confusing for you.

I will try to make my jokes simpler for you little mind so you can grasp them.

 

[progressive hunter]

NOTA means you arent voting for anybody which is kinda stupid on its face,,,

as for POTUS there are options,,,

yep, there are options...

shitty and shittyer

what was so shitty about daryl castle of the constitution party???

other than the fact he was only on 24 state ballots, my state was not one of them.

thats shitty for you,,,and doesnt prove he was shitty ,,,

do you guys have write in ballots??

I was speaking of the two major party candidates...sorry that was too confusing for you.

I will try to make my jokes simpler for you little mind so you can grasp them.

I didnt know it was joking time,,I thought we were having a serious debate,,

 

[Harpy Eagle]

yep, there are options...

shitty and shittyer

what was so shitty about daryl castle of the constitution party???

other than the fact he was only on 24 state ballots, my state was not one of them.

thats shitty for you,,,and doesnt prove he was shitty ,,,

do you guys have write in ballots??

I was speaking of the two major party candidates...sorry that was too confusing for you.

I will try to make my jokes simpler for you little mind so you can grasp them.

I didnt know it was joking time,,I thought we were having a serious debate,,

Even serious debates have room for a little levity.

Pull the stick out of your ass, it is Thanksgiving after all.