knapplc Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I would probably have voted for Romney/Rubio before I voted for Clinton, but those of you opposed to Clinton, you do all realize that Romney/Rubio/Cruz/etc would have been just more of the same, just like Clinton, right? The only difference in corruption would be the R behind their name instead of Clinton's D. Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 I would probably have voted for Romney/Rubio before I voted for Clinton, but those of you opposed to Clinton, you do all realize that Romney/Rubio/Cruz/etc would have been just more of the same, just like Clinton, right? The only difference in corruption would be the R behind their name instead of Clinton's D. There is no need to drag Romney and Rubio down just because Clinton is the most corrupt person to ever run for the White House. It's true that nearly all politicians have flaws and are not completely pure, but Hillary and Trump are in their own league. Romney is one of the most squeaky clean POTUS candidates I have ever seen, and most of my more liberal friends wish he would be in the race as they would vote for him this year over Hillary and Trump. 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I would probably have voted for Romney/Rubio before I voted for Clinton, but those of you opposed to Clinton, you do all realize that Romney/Rubio/Cruz/etc would have been just more of the same, just like Clinton, right? The only difference in corruption would be the R behind their name instead of Clinton's D. There is no need to drag Romney and Rubio down just because Clinton is the most corrupt person to ever run for the White House. It's true that nearly all politicians have flaws and are not completely pure, but Hillary and Trump are in their own league. Romney is one of the most squeaky clean POTUS candidates I have ever seen, and most of my more liberal friends wish he would be in the race as they would vote for him this year over Hillary and Trump. I'd agree. I generally lean Democratic but with the potential scenario of Romney, Kasich, Clinton, and Trump my order would be: 1. Kasich: simply because he seems sensible with regards to comments on the "Iran Deal" and same sex marriage. 2. Romney/Clinton: I put them on the same level because of trade-offs "fiscally" vs. "socially". If Romney played his "social issues" cards right, would probably get my vote. . . . . . . .. . . .. . I don't want to assign an number to Trump because there isn't a number large enough to show how far down the list he is..... Link to comment
HuskerNation1 Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 I would probably have voted for Romney/Rubio before I voted for Clinton, but those of you opposed to Clinton, you do all realize that Romney/Rubio/Cruz/etc would have been just more of the same, just like Clinton, right? The only difference in corruption would be the R behind their name instead of Clinton's D. There is no need to drag Romney and Rubio down just because Clinton is the most corrupt person to ever run for the White House. It's true that nearly all politicians have flaws and are not completely pure, but Hillary and Trump are in their own league. Romney is one of the most squeaky clean POTUS candidates I have ever seen, and most of my more liberal friends wish he would be in the race as they would vote for him this year over Hillary and Trump. I'd agree. I generally lean Democratic but with the potential scenario of Romney, Kasich, Clinton, and Trump my order would be: 1. Kasich: simply because he seems sensible with regards to comments on the "Iran Deal" and same sex marriage. 2. Romney/Clinton: I put them on the same level because of trade-offs "fiscally" vs. "socially". If Romney played his "social issues" cards right, would probably get my vote. . . . . . . .. . . .. . I don't want to assign an number to Trump because there isn't a number large enough to show how far down the list he is..... My order for those 4 would be: 1. Romney 2. Kasich 3. Trump 4. Hillary Yes, as bad as Trump is, I fear Hillary even more. Hillary has gone so far to the left and has no clue how to deal with terrorism as we are seeing with the world blowing up under her watch (and Obama's). Security and safety is my top issue and she's had her chance to keep the nation safe and failed. 2 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I was about to post my order of some of the 21st century Presidential candidates being mentioned too, as far as who I'd vote for if they were up against each other. Obama > Sanders > Gore > McCain = Biden > Nader > Kerry >> Clinton = Romney = Kasich(?) > Bush >>> Cruz >>> Trump (Don't know much about Kasich - just that he wasn't a total buffoon on stage) Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I would probably have voted for Romney/Rubio before I voted for Clinton, but those of you opposed to Clinton, you do all realize that Romney/Rubio/Cruz/etc would have been just more of the same, just like Clinton, right? The only difference in corruption would be the R behind their name instead of Clinton's D. I agree. I don't think they would have been as bad as Clinton, but no way I would vote for any of those guys. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I would probably have voted for Romney/Rubio before I voted for Clinton, but those of you opposed to Clinton, you do all realize that Romney/Rubio/Cruz/etc would have been just more of the same, just like Clinton, right? The only difference in corruption would be the R behind their name instead of Clinton's D. I agree. I don't think they would have been as bad as Clinton, but no way I would vote for any of those guys. Just curious, who did you vote for in 2012? Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I would probably have voted for Romney/Rubio before I voted for Clinton, but those of you opposed to Clinton, you do all realize that Romney/Rubio/Cruz/etc would have been just more of the same, just like Clinton, right? The only difference in corruption would be the R behind their name instead of Clinton's D. I agree. I don't think they would have been as bad as Clinton, but no way I would vote for any of those guys. Just curious, who did you vote for in 2012? Barack Obama Link to comment
TGHusker Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I would probably have voted for Romney/Rubio before I voted for Clinton, but those of you opposed to Clinton, you do all realize that Romney/Rubio/Cruz/etc would have been just more of the same, just like Clinton, right? The only difference in corruption would be the R behind their name instead of Clinton's D. There is no need to drag Romney and Rubio down just because Clinton is the most corrupt person to ever run for the White House. It's true that nearly all politicians have flaws and are not completely pure, but Hillary and Trump are in their own league. Romney is one of the most squeaky clean POTUS candidates I have ever seen, and most of my more liberal friends wish he would be in the race as they would vote for him this year over Hillary and Trump. Agreed. No way are Romney and Clinton equals in the area of trust/corruption. The establishment, due to their blind faith in Jeb, shouldn't have blocked Romney's exploration of running again. Of course most of us, me included, didn't think a 3rd try by Mitt would be good for the party, however, in hindsight, he would have been a no brainer and Hillary would be lagging far behind him. For some reason, the establishment felt people were ready for a new Bush - a kinder Bush. But a Bush/Hillary GE may have been as polarizing as the current one. The nomination of Trump may be one of the all time 'fails' of the nomination process - not that Hilary will beat him like Reagan beat Mondale - Mondale was very qualified to be president. But his time had passed. Trump is not qualified in so many ways. Michael Dukakis may come to mind as being in Trump's league but at least he had experience as a governor. The same is true of Carter who actually won but proved that he wasn't qualified - he won against a damaged republican in Ford and his damaged party - both stained by Nixon. Yet, even Carter had been a governor and had some reasonable basis of support. Goldwater was more qualified - his conservative revolution was ahead of his time. I mentioned in another thread, some before the convention, that the stars might be aliening for a Trump victory - The dems nominate a terrible candidate in Hilary, ISIS and terror, stagnant economy, immigration tying in to terrorism fear, etc. All of these fears that Trump is emphasizing and exaggerating and taking advantage of opens the door for his victory. However, after yet another foot in the mouth episode, I'm beginning to think, Hilary may walk away with this election wt ease. Trump is his own worse enemy. He acts and talks so very un-presidential that it makes Hilary look like a queen of virtue in comparison. It also takes the attention off of her many negatives. If Trump could discipline himself and stick to message, then he'd have a chance. But, Trump is Trump and Trump and Discipline cannot be mentioned in the same sentence. Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Found the liberal. Don't be silly. The REAL liberal was the Creighton Duke who voted for Nader in 2000 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Found the liberal. Don't be silly. The REAL liberal was the Creighton Duke who voted for Nader in 2000 I voted for him in 2004 Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Found the liberal. Don't be silly. The REAL liberal was the Creighton Duke who voted for Nader in 2000 I voted for him in 2004 Would you consider that your.... nadir? 1 Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Found the liberal. Don't be silly. The REAL liberal was the Creighton Duke who voted for Nader in 2000 I voted for him in 2004 2004 seemed like too important of an election to vote third party...seems funny that I thought that back then... Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Found the liberal. Don't be silly. The REAL liberal was the Creighton Duke who voted for Nader in 2000 I voted for him in 2004 Hate to quote/post twice, but this raises a very interesting question. Looking at the HB poll (which I doubt is representative of the U.S. voting population, but I digress), many want to vote third party. That being said, what would the breakdown be for Trump-Clinton-Third Party Candidates if Nader was involved and in 2000 mode? Probably wouldn't be Perot-esque, but I could see him taking A LOT of the Bernie vote and ending up with ~15-18% of the GE vote. Sorry to derail...once again. Link to comment
Recommended Posts