The Most Dangerous Presidential Candidates

[BwareDWare94 723]

Who do you view as the most dangerous candidates for the Presidency? It doesn't matter if it's one of the nine hundred Republicans with no shot, but if they've declared, and you think they're cuckoo, tell us. I'm off to supper, so I'll post mine later.

Edited August 9, 2015 by BwareDWare94

[Bucman 891]

Clinton would cause a bunch of constitutionalist to weep. Not sure why people are still pounding the table on the constitution. Its old and outdated. Our founding fathers probably didn't think about the technology we have now. Its something that needs updating for the age we live in.

 

Jeb Bush would just be a disaster, we don't need another Bush in office. The dude struggled hard at the GOP debate, so his chances are next to nothing at getting the nod.

 

Donald Trump would be hilarious to see as president. He has zero filter. He is proving this "politically correct" society the media is trying to push..doesn't exist. Its a false positive.

[oochymp 2,393]

[BwareDWare94 723]

Walker, Cruz, and Huckabee could all set this country back 50 years by forcing Christianity down everybody's throats. Walker is also clearly in favor of taking care of the 1% first.

 

 

Trump because he's a racist, sexist pig

 

Hillary because of the constant media shit storm created by all of the misogynist Republicans out there who will constantly run their mouths

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Trump is kind of a breath of fresh air. He's an asshole, but maybe we need an asshole.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Favre4Ever

[RazorStar 4,025]

Dunno, you guys have had assholes pretty much since after Lincoln. Jimmy Carter might be the lone exception... I mean Trump is unabashed about it, but filling the POTUS with shit seems utterly counter productive. Until the republican members of congress are taken out back to be shot, I doubt any democrat president will be able to change anything, and i doubt any republican candidate will rebel against the party. So really they're all dangerous.

[OSUViking 505]

 

Hillary because of the constant media shit storm created by all of the misogynist Republicans out there who will constantly run their mouths

 

I'm not necessarily accusing Hillary of anything, or saying the controversies are true, but it says something about someone when they're constantly involved in them. I'm of the opinion that a lot of what happens in life is because of the situations we put ourselves in, and the sheer fact that Hillary is in a position where she can so easily be accused and people believe it. She's been in what, like two controversies regarding her email practices alone this year? Again, I'm not saying people are right about what they're saying about her, but I think she's a cancerous candidate and would be a cancerous president as well.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump cut a deal with the Clintons to run for the GOP, get their nomination and basically make it a sure thing for Hill-Dawg if she can beat Sanders. I could see Trump winning the GOP nomination but this guy will get killed when it comes to independents.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Trump has no shot in hell of winning the general election. I don't think there's a back-room deal, its just his ego.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Trump is an asshole alright...

 

[BwareDWare94 723]

I don't see it happening, but the best candidate is without a doubt Bernie Sanders. If you believe his rhetoric, and are a member of the middle class, you should be standing behind him 100%.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Trump has no shot in hell of winning the general election. I don't think there's a back-room deal, its just his ego.

 

Yeah but if he runs as third party, that clinches it for the democrats.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I honestly think it already is clinched. Guys like Huckabee, Cruz, Walker, Santorum, and Trump reflect so badly on the entire GOP.

[Bucman 891]

Bernie is a hippie socialist that will fuck the entire economy up.

15 dollars an hour min. wage?

Edited August 12, 2015 by Bucman

[Sarge+ 3,436]

That's gonna happen eventually, with or without Bernie. lol

[RazorStar 4,025]

Yeah, how dare people be paid an affordable living wage?

[Sarge+ 3,436]

The cost of things would definitely go up, but it's not like everything would double in price overnight. Over the course of 4-5 years, yea, inflation would probably get bad. Time will tell though.

[BJORN 679]

 

I do actually like Bernie, much much more than Sata....I mean Hilary....but I do disagree with him on things like healthcare and minimum wage. Two things that could end up being a gigantic disaster if he puts his ideas into policy.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I just can't agree with people who think "unskilled" people shouldn't be able to live off what they make.

[oochymp 2,393]

I absolutely hate the idea of a $15 federal minimum wage, I think the federal standard can be raised, but I don't think it should double (current federal minimum wage is $7.25). The federal minimum wage sets a floor that states and localities can go above, but not below. While there are certainly places where you can't live on less than $15 an hour, there are plenty of areas where you can. I'm fine with some big cities, where cost of living is ridiculous, going to a $15/hour minimum, but I'd worry about the effects in small towns, where a person can support themselves for a lot less, of a $15/hour minimum wage.

[Bucman 891]

Everyone who works full time jobs should make a livable wage. That livable wage is not 15 dollars an hour though.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

A single person can get by on 10 bucks an hour. What about families?

[BJORN 679]

I just can't agree with people who think "unskilled" people shouldn't be able to live off what they make.

Firstly, I semi-like the idea of this....I just don't think it can be implemented. But also, my belief is that people should be fairly compensated for the job that they do. Are cashiers at McDonalds really worth $15 a hour? And do we want to set the standard that you can be just fine having a career at a unskilled position like a cashier?

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Firstly, I semi-like the idea of this....I just don't think it can be implemented. But also, my belief is that people should be fairly compensated for the job that they do. Are cashiers at McDonalds really worth $15 a hour? And do we want to set the standard that you can be just fine having a career at a unskilled position like a cashier?

 

I have a few problems with this line of thinking.

 

First off, the difference between your way of looking at it and mine is this: you think the job defines the person's worth. It's a common belief, but that really shouldn't be the case in our society. People don't deserve a living wage based on the skill level of their jobs. They deserve a living wage because they are human beings who are working 40+ hours per week. People who work in fast food don't always get everything right on your orders, but can you blame them? They get paid shit to work like animals. I don't expect anyone to understand this if they never worked in a restaurant before. Because they're not just filling your orders. They are also cleaning toilets, mopping floors, changing the grease in the fryers, re-stocking the supplies, helping to put away supply trucks that come in, cooking the food, dealing with rude, condescending people constantly, and other things.

 

And there's another issue I have with your line of thinking. Do you realize that only a small % of jobs are considered "skilled" jobs? "Unskilled" labor makes up the vast, vast, vast majority of labor anywhere, and the US is no different. We are finding this out right now. Most college graduates can't get "skilled" jobs anyway, so why should we punish them even further by continuing to pay them shit? All while having to pay back thousands of dollars of student loans based on promises made to them that were unrealistic and never kept.

 

And of course there are also people who never went to college. I can't blame them for that. Do you mean they don't deserve a livable wage? Even if they get an education, the chances of them finding a "skilled" job are slim. So does that mean they should be homeless on the street? Does that mean they need to take out credit cards and other loans to get them even further into debt just so they can buy food this month?

Edited August 12, 2015 by Sarge

[oochymp 2,393]

$10/hour works out to about $20k per year ($20k= 2000 hours at $10/hour, 2000 over 52 weeks works out to almost 38.5 hours per week, since supervisors avoid letting hourly workers get overtime like the plague, meaning hourly workers rarely actually get to 40 hours in a week, I think that's a decent estimate)

 

From a quick googling the Department of Health and Human Services sets the poverty guideline for a three person family at $20,090 (Source) so I absolutely think a small family can get by on a $10/hour full time job, they're not going to be doing great, but they'll get by.

 

I also think it's fair to assume that people should be able to work their way out of minimum wage (even if only by virtue of staying in the same job and getting periodic raises) by the time they have multiple children. This also doesn't get into the potential for two workers in the house, even if one parent is just working part time that would increase earning potential.

 

I also don't think people should be able to live comfortably on minimum wage (there might be a better way to phrase that, but to clarify I simply mean that there shouldn't be an expectation that people making minimum wage should be able to afford a lot of luxury items, I definitely think anyone working full time should be able to afford to put a roof over their heads and feed themselves and their families) because I think there should be incentive to get out of the minimum wage job.