StickerMann

Stand corrected--However apparently they should have demanded them?

And who was it that freed those slaves, Reps or Dems?? Can't remember??

Despite the fact this has turned into a lesbian discussion; I'm stunned that an ex-governor from Massachusetts is supporting a Democrat--Shocking!!

Maybe it's time to dust off the old "Throw 'Em All Out" bumper stickers again?? Or institute term limits??

Understand and we agree that a Clinton Presidency would be dangerous, and who knows about Trump? Regarding any lecture, I'm simply stating facts, not directed at you in particular--Maybe Obama or similar supporters? And if that's a lecture; someone needs to retreat to their "safe space"?

More importantly why are we, the electorate, allowing these type people to run OUR government?? I'll state again, I see less & less difference between the parties; and more & more of one party--The Political Class. The only solution I can think of is a better informed electorate; but that's not seeming very likely. Most news is slanted in one direction, and most voters are only concerned with "what's in it for me"; and virtually ALL politicians are ONLY concerned with getting re-elected!

Starting to think these polls are a real joke! I know some are slanted to support the reporter's point of view, as I've been polled several times; and can easily understand where the questioner is trying to lead me. No way a ABC poll moves 14 points in one week for example?? I heard this opinion voiced weeks ago, that we should watch the polls the last week or so; as they would begin to more accurately reflect the true nature of the race, once the "political stunt" was removed. The pollsters want to be somewhat accurate near the end, regardless of their motives earlier on.

I'm scared primarily of more debt--Greece on steroids doesn't have a good ring to it to me? I did read your post, and while certainly not a Hillary fan (especially after many of these e-mails substantiate the "right wing nut job bloggers" theories); but I honestly felt she would have been a better choice than Obama back in 2008. He mostly lacked any meaningful experience at much of anything--No business, little political, etc. That concerned me, and in my eyes has been borne out; as I don't believe we are better off than 8 years ago. Understand your context, but don't think we'd fare better under more tripling of the debt--Getting unsustainable. Math never lies; only those that interpret it!

That would be delightful! Heck he might be able to get the National Debt up to $40 trillion by then? We could have family health policies that "only" cost $3500-4000/month with maybe $15,000-20,000 out of pocket minimums? Russia could take over most of Europe, etc. There's a reason the Founders wanted term limits!

Curious, as a registered independent, what is a "true democrat"??

Guess we'll agree to disagree, as I feel there's a big difference between offering a wage earner the ability to keep some of their hard earned dollars vs. letting the government squander it on increased bureaucracy; and giveaways to someone for putting forth no useful effort to aid society? Somehow feel we're on the same page however?

We've got a candidate that essentially called them a "Cult"?

Agreed, but one first must EARN some money to take advantage of a tax cut? EARN being the operative word!!

Can't believe a President can pardon someone for "Uncharged Federal Crimes"?? Seriously??

The words she doesn't want to hear are "It's Attorney General Christie calling for you"

If the Cubs lose, it will go back to pulling Hendricks too early. On the walk when he was pulled (no one on and two outs), he threw 4-5 strikes to the batter, but only got two called--He was fine. Leave him in and try to get him through the sixth, and then let Lester try and start the 7th if you'd like. I'd have tried to set up Chapman for no more than one inning due to the overwork last night.

Agree with this premise as well, but it's kinda' hard not to cater to most groups when you essentially offer free stuff to everyone but the 1%? Tough to dislike Santa Claus, unless you understand real math; but most seem to be more concerned about what's in it for me, than whether or not the country can succeed? Dems also consistently do a better job of sticking together, regardless of the circumstances or allegations against their candidates. No matter how tainted their candidate may be, or how much they disagree; they circle the wagons and show unity to the masses--See Clintons & Obamas, or Clinton and Sanders.

Moving into the last week of polling, and maybe we might start seeing some "real" polling data vs. the politically motivated polling that we've seen to date--That's why the race is "tightening". Now way things are changing 12 points, etc. in a week, as some of these "polls" suggest--Strictly now starting to poll more accurately as the final numbers are the only ones anyone remembers.

Hard to argue with this one, but a businessman might just change the status quo for the political class?

Reading the other thread about Kasich's decision to go back on his word to support his party's candidate, made me realize how true this thread's title is becoming. The Republican establishment would rather lose to HRC than see an outsider get in office who might actually effect true change. One thing I'll say for the Dems, no matter how bad it gets, or how corrupt their candidate; they always circle the wagons and support their own!!

McCain had his chance and lost. Why vote for him now?? I understand we are free to write in anyone we like, but when you've pledged to the voters to support your party's candidate; and then renege, you've lost any respect I had for you. Of course lying to the voters is just like breathing for the political class in this country.

Even scarier!! Also, if you recall; Kasich (and many others) were polling well behind Hillary in hypothetical head to heads?

"Lyin Eyes"--Eagles. "You can't hide your lyin' eyes..." Pick your candidate.

Another meaningless vote by another meaningless political hack--Great gesture by Mr. Kasich. Say goodbye to your once promising political career.

This probably was the election for a very good third party candidate to get some traction, but most of the electorate is so ignorant to what's going on; that it would be difficult for a true reform candidate to get his message out, without the help of the full spectrum of media. A good case could be made that Trump is a third party candidate, as he's certainly not getting much support from his own party; in fact is getting a good deal of opposition (Much of it warranted). The vast majority of the media is speaking in lockstep with the DNC's talking points, so I'm not sure how an alternative candidate would get his/her message out to the casual voter. Trump has done a remarkable job in that regard, mostly due to his celebrity going in.