DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk K-9 Consensus Election Time

Informal poll: Who do you plan to vote for President? No need for debate in this thread (though I'm sure it will happen).

Presidential Vote single choice
	Donald Trump
	Hillary Clinton
	Gary Johnson
	Jill Stein
	Other
	Undecided
Votes accepted starting: 07/28/16 03:23 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I made it no secret months ago who I was voting for. Gary Johnson (L)

This is the first time that I'll be eligible to vote that I don't anticipate casting one

Can I just weep for our Republic?

I couldn't bring myself, gun to the head, to vote for either Hillary or Donald. Just absolutely no way with either of those. Going to go with Johnson after digging into his views over the last few weeks.

I'm most likely not voting for either of them either. A loud mouth narcissist and a NWO she-devil... Is that really the best we can do?

Exactly. Go read the Turd Polishing thread. Surely Americans deserve better people to cast their votes for.

Looks like Johnson is winning in a landslide so far. If anyone is voting Hillary or Trump specifically so that the other doesn't win, you are wasting your vote!

I have been a Libertarian leaning person on this board for a long time, back when I was the lone person. I was mocked and made fun of for years here. It goes without saying who I am voting for this election.

Johnson steals votes from Trump.

This poll restore my faith in humanity. I wonder how representative it is of the majority of the country.

It could very easily be representative of the country, but you'd be surprised how much pull the whole "I have to vote for this guy or the OTHER guy will win" theory holds.

I remember back in the California recall elections, the choices were Cruz Bustemante, Tim McClintock and Arnold. Cruz was pretty much the same thing as the Governor that just got ousted and Arnold was the "name" candidate that was the official Republican choice, that everyone felt they had to vote in. McClintock was probably the best choice though and scored the best in the debates.

They did a poll where they asked who they felt the "best" candidate was and then who they would actually vote for. McClintock actually won the vote for who they felt was best, but everyone voted for Arnold or Cruz because they were too afraid of the "other" candidate winning.

I just wish the country would get out of that stupid mentality.

Depends on whose website your looking at. Here's one:


by Patrick Howley
at Breitbart News



"Initial polls indicate Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson would not significantly hurt Donald Trump in the general election because he draws votes from both major parties equally".

Most people I know including me will be voting for Donald Trump.

Why would you vote for Trump?

His political experience?

His ability to work w/others?

His open-minded view points?

Or............his hate for certain groups of people?

Justices for the supreme court and enforcement and Secure Borders is a good start.

I honestly cannot get myself to vote for either Trump or Clinton. I'm a huge proponent of American democracy, the pride of being from our country, etc ... but I'm THAT annoyed by both candidates that I won't vote

Can we forward the results of this pool to whomever decides who gets in the debates? Johnson needs to be polling 15% to get invited.

With .013% of the forums user base voting in this poll I'm not sure how scientific it would be considered. Although it will probably be reflective of the turnout in November too.

I will not vote for Trump. (or Clinton, for that matter) However, I think that you over-simplify why people are voting for Trump.

I think that people are sick and tired of the politically correct garbage that has overtaken our country.

I think that many people see our borders as wide open, and as a risk. They see jobs being taken by people who are not legally allowed to be here, government funds going to pay for benefits for people who are legally allowed to be here, and this administration opening immigration to areas that are more likely to have people with terrorist leanings, without proper (or any) vetting.

Further, I think that Trump's stance on trade has hit the right note with a lot of people who see a lot of very rich and well connected people benefiting from recent trade agreements, while the working middle class suffers.

Trump has some good positions, or, at least, the outline of good positions. Unfortunately, the way he speaks also turns a lot of people off. He says some pretty vile and vulgar things, and his "I know better than everyone" attitude is pretty darn scary. However, people know Clinton, and do not want her, and they like the way Trump has talked about some of these problems, which the other side ignores, so they overlook his "jerk factor".

I think that the way Trump has spoken about some groups of people actually makes people cringe, but people look at the other things he has spoken about (that other candidates ignore) and are willing to ignore those things.

I think that Hillary's lies, and changes in political positions as the political winds shift, also helps Trump. I think that a lot of people see Clinton as someone who will say or do anything to win the Presidency. (and I think that Trump is, as well) However, they are willing to take a chance on Trump, since they already know what they can expect from Hillary.

I am either voting for Johnson, or writing in GM's name. Personally, I see no other reasonable choice. However, a lot of people disagree, and will vote for one of the 2 the Dems and Reps nominated.

We keep getting worse and worse candidates. It's truly sad that a country with so much to offer, can't do better than this.

I didn't pick Trump in this poll, I went for the Johnson... but I can still answer your question.

the reason I would consider voting for Trump is because I think he has an outside chance to try to get our economy back on a stronger footing... If we are going to fight and hate each other over differing social views any way, we might as well help the economy... I don't see Hillary fixing anything... and while I did pick Johnson in this poll, I'm not sure he could get a single thing that he wants to do through congress...

And if that were to happen, I would imagine a bigger divide between the american people and the D's/R's, leading to more libertarians or other 3rd party.

I honestly don't know if the R's can survive a loss in this election.

The theory is that something like that would force the Ds/Rs to move closer to the middle. But every time I think there is a reason for the Ds/Rs to become more reasonable, they seem to adopt a philosophy of moving farther out would work better.

Haven't made my mind up yet, in order: 1. Johnson 2. Clinton 3. Absolutely anyone else on the planet. 4. Trump

I would vote for Trump before I would vote for Clinton .... and I will vote for GM before I would vote for Trump.

There is no way on earth that I will ever vote for Hillary Clinton.

I don't know about AK (or HI), Rocket but, regarding the mainland....This poll could also be representative of the rural/agricultural area of the west coast. However, Hillary will win Seattle down to SD (SD often flips between Republican due to the Navy and retired community but, I think this year they go HRC) & that is where the population is.

Fixed it for ya.

People saying whatever they please and being insensitive and downright rude is not an answer nor productive for the most diverse nation in the world. We cannot have a President being insensitive, insulting or alienating entire sections of our population or the world outside our borders.




This is hilarious. Tell me, right now as it stands with illegal immigrants and the jobs they may be doing in our country...what jobs are YOU losing? Are you really telling me that the Guatemalan lady with three kids who can't speak English is going to take YOUR job? Are you telling me you would be willing to do back breaking agricultural work? If so, be prepared to spend a lot more on your food. Same with bringing manufacturing back from Asia. Great idea. In theory. Until prices of everyday items that Americans want to buy for cheap immediately go up by triple and the average person can no longer afford them. Food will also go up as we are now paying people minimum wage so the middle class has no expendable income and the American economy, which is built on people spending their money tanks. But, somehow people will still blame Hillary Clinton or the Democrats.

Regarding the terror thing...we seem to demonize the foreigner and somehow forget that with exception to the Sept. 11 attacks the attackers in recent terror incidents have been Americans. Even OKC was done by an American. Same with the major European incidents. Brussels, Paris, Nice and even the murder of the Catholic Priest in Rouen were all committed by European citizens.

So then you are saying that when Bill signed NAFTA with Hillary's support that sending those jobs overseas was a part of the plan for our benefit? So we could have more (cheaper) stuff?

No. But, the US economy is built on people buying and spending. People want cheap stuff. There will always be poor and rich but, the economy is essentially geared towards the average middle class income and buying goods. Lets look at a cell phone...if an I-phone 6 costs...what...$600 already? Imagine what it would cost if it were completely made here. $1200? Maybe more. How many people would buy it and how many would change their phones as often as they do? Few. Same with TVs, Electronics, Clothing, Shoes, Furniture, etc. Have you ever been inside a Walmart or a Costco? Look at all the people with gigantic carts buying "STUFF". All of this would disappear. I can handle that as I absolutely hate both these stores. But, the average American and the US Economy cannot handle it.

Gas is no different. If we raise gas prices people freak out. The knock on effect is huge with food prices and movement of goods and it trickles down and eventually hits the economy as your middle classes have less disposable cash to put back into the economy.

American people expect and want things to be cheap. Fact. This will not happen if all jobs leave Asia tomorrow and relocate back here. Are you prepared to spend $100-200 on your next pair of shoes that you can now buy for $50?

Not to mention...the other knock on effect that is never mentioned...with the US, Europe, Australia etc. investing in Asia it has changed that continents standard of living dramatically. Yes, it is still poor. Yes, we could discuss for hours about the standards of working environments and how tragic they are compared to ours. Yes, we could discuss the exploitation of people. But, it is a fact that life is better for many today than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago. Infrastructure is also better and more are educated. It would be interesting to hear how the people who live there think and feel about the US and other western countries pulling out their jobs disappearing. That said, I bet many also can't believe the amount of crap they build to sell to the Americans.

I am not an economist so I am sure others could articulate in much greater depth and educate me further on this. But, point is...I think we tend to ignore this side of the argument.

Well, we have a Constitutional right to be rude, to be insensitive, and to be politically incorrect.

Look at the founders. Man, some of them were downright cruel in the treatment of the political adversaries. Some of their political ads and speeches about their rivals were almost criminal. Politics was a blood sport.

Once upon a time people spoke their minds,m instead of cowering in fear over what people might think about them if they hold an unpopular opinion. Today people think that an opposition opinion is somehow hate speech, even if there is no hate involved whatsoever. People invent hate as a means of trying to keep people from saying things they disagree with.

The Constitution protects politically incorrect speech. It protects rude speech. It even protects the right of some repugnant groups, like the KKK, and those who would bunr the flag. (among many others) Believe it or not, there are even some groups on the left who say some things that are pretty revolting, and hateful, towards some of us. I still stand for their right of free speech.

I would hate to live in a country where no one was allowed to have a different opinion, and where that person was unable to express that opinion freely and legally. We don't have to agree, or even like all speech. Believe me, there is plenty of speech out there that I dislike, and even that offends and repulses me. However, I still stand up for their right to offend me.

It positively frightens me to see college campuses with "free speech zones", where people can express themselves freely ..... but if they do so outside of those zones .... then they can be in trouble. Ridiculous. The higher education process should be about challenging convention, and expressing oneself as they see fit. It is scary, and appalling, to think that kids are graduating college afraid to express different opinions .... or that they have to be extremely careful about where and when they stand up for what they believe.

I would also say this ...... maybe the rest of the world needs to be a little offended by us. Maybe they need to understand that we cannot continue to support our allies militarily, without some contribution from them. When our allies are supposed to be contributing to alliances, like NATO ... but don't ..... are they then being members of the alliance ... or are they just taking from us? Maybe they need to be reminded that they have to pay what they are supposed to pay. We, the US taxpayers, cannot support the whole world. I think that some of our allies need to understand this, and I think that the rush to have everyone like us (almost at all costs) has cost us in respect and prestige around the world.

As far as the rest ... you go ask the guy who has done manual labor his entire life, but cannot find a job because the jobs are being filled, illegally, by people with no right to work here, and by employers who take advantage of these people to play lower wages. tell him that illegal immigration doesn't hurt anyone. There are also millions and millions of people in this country who have never held a job. Ever. Yes, they should be filling those jobs. They should have the choice to work, or not receive any benefits. (unless physically or mentally unable to work, and this should be established by a doctor, and then subject to constant review, as Social Security Disability is) We can do a lot better than just looking the other way as criminal activity takes place, in hiring, and in entering the country from another country. If we open those jobs, then those employers may have to pay more to attract workers. That's the way the market works. We also should not be giving benefits to people who are here illegally. Yes, we should have compassion for those who are truly sick, or injured, and care for them ..... but if they are here illegally, then they should be shown the exit.

Reagan once gave millions of illegal immigrants legal status, somehow thinking that this would stop others from coming here. That was just ludicrous. Today we think the same. That's insane. It didn't work before ..... but it'll work now?

We need to get our borders somewhat under control, and then we can look at maybe offering some pathway to legal status inside the US. However, until we stop the stream of people in and out of the country, it is as bad as no solution at all.

If we don't want to have laws mandating that we are a sovereign nation, and that we have an absolute right to protect our borders and determine who we allow in ..... then we should just change our laws to reflect that attitude. Unfortunately, the laws say one thing, and in many cases, the politicians have decided that they simple will not follow or obey the law. That is truly frightening. We should be a nation of laws, not a nation that is ruled by the way one person, or a small group of people, feel they want to govern, whether what they do follows the law, or not.

I look at it like Wal-Mart. At one point, Wal-Mart had a policy that they would not even attempt to recover theft under a certain dollar amount. If a person had a package of toilet paper, paper towels, and diapers in a buggy, for example, and went running out the door with it, they would just let it go. Did this stop theft? No. More and more people found out what they could get away with, and *surprise* theft increased. Now Wal-Mart has security at the doors again. If our country were a building like Wal_mart, the doors would be wide open, and we'd be telling people to take whatever they want. We don't even deport people who have committed crimes.

Well, the saying goes that we get the government we deserve ..... and that's never so true as today. It will be even worse soon ..... and I never thought that would be possible.

And yes, that does scare me.

You said "No" and then spent 5 paragraphs telling me why your answer was really "Yes"...

I do believe that the democratic party (and maybe some within the republican party as well) view these trade deals and environmental regulations as an opportunity to advance other parts of the world at the expense of the the United States.

If you believe it is the job of our government to raise the standard of living in Asia and Central America while lowering (or at best stagnating) our own.. then have at it.

No I didn't. I said "no" to your question about Bill's NAFTA deal. I was merely pointing out many are not seeing the big picture.



This has nothing to do with making decisions at the expense of the USA. There is nothing wrong with raising people out of extreme poverty. The more you do that the better the world is. Much research also shows that the better opportunities one has in their own country the less they want to leave it. So, for anybody who bemoans immigration (legal or illegal)...helping rid the world of poverty, providing better infrastructure, stability & education is one answer to the question.

Like I said, if you think it is our governments job to elevate the standard of living of those in poorer nations at the expense of people here.. then have at it.

What bothers me about the whole PC debate is simple. Extremist liberals are awful. They're the ones who deserve the criticism. They are a HUGE reason guys like Trump are born. However, extremist conservatives can now just hide behind the term of political correct because it's taken on a negative connotation. It's like they can say "your mother is a whore and if you disagree with me it's because you're politically correct." Someone being too politically correct or sensitive doesn't eliminate the fact that you're a douche for what you just said.

Trump is portrayed as being anti PC, all for free speech, and just being allowed to say whatever you want. Yet he sued Bill Maher and the Onion because of jokes they made about him. He wants to open up libel laws so that he can sue reporters. Where exactly is the free speech champion in that?

We are free to say what we want to. However, we are not free from the consequences of doing so in certain instances or being socially ostracized.

Apparently, if the media says something about him that he doesn't like, for Trump, it's the media. He's losing in PA by 9 points in the polls... His answer to that is not to get out in PA and fight for his votes, but instead, he wants to complain about the media being against him.

FYI, maybe it's just me, but I think extremes of either side are dangerous.

My whole problem with the "PC debate" is simply that it is inconsistently applied by many, especially those on the left.

I literally had a person on FB unload the worst string of insults at how our country was being destroyed by "rednecks" "white trash" "bible thumping" "inbred".. etc..

Two days later I posted something about having concerns about allowing men in the women's bathroom and he tore into me and told me I should just shut up for stereotyping and being homophobic, bigoted, and insensitive..

The same person. And I'm 100% sure if you asked this person, he will tell you how tolerant he is.... He just doesn't see his own hypocrisy, at all.

Modern politics seems to be about who you are voting against. The sound bites are full of logical fallacies. Tearing down your opponent doesn't make you better qualified. Just a heartbreaking campaign. Saddens me.