Fake presidential candidates polling high in the US
 

Back in August in Texas for example, Harambe (everyone's dead favorite Gorilla) was tied with Jill Stein polling at 5%.

Isn't a bit concerning that THIS many people take our system for granted (5% of Texas's population is still roughly 1,348,000 people.) That's over a million people that have polled voting for a dead gorilla instead of an actual candidate.

They should really do their polling sober.

Considering that our to politicians in this election have made a mockery of the process, I think it's fair that the people do the same.

Sad thing is, I'm pretty sure it was.

Shouldn't that be more of a reason that people should actually vote for someone they give a **** about? Rather than just say "well, let's just take votes away from actual candidates because our main choices suck so hard"

*whoosh*

Anyway, people don't take the polls as seriously as they do elections. I bet not even 1% of those people are actually going to vote for Harambe.

Things go over my head constantly. I really do hope you're right though, with the mental state of the new generation of voters, I'm not really so sure though.

Is anything in this election process surprising anymore? Honestly, I'm just waiting for one of them to murder the other.

The title is "Fake presidential candidates polling high in the US."

Why? Who would they vote for?

Pardon?

I mean personally I think Gary Johnson's the only candidate worth a damn in this race who hasn't done anything particularly stupid bar a few screw ups with memory.

He has some ass backwards beliefs tbh. Still better than those two.

I may still support him but I agree with some of the criticism he gets. Though, the foreign leader comment was blown out of proportion and misinterpreted.

What was misinterpreted about it?

Better than those three** Jill Stein has conviction but she believes incredibly outlandish things that just simply aren't possible to implement in reality (and shouldn't be implemented anyways)

Not to mention he apologized for it, and people are running crazy with it trying to discredit him. What I found absolutely hilarious is that most of the people raging at him for the Aleppo incident, didn't even know what Aleppo was until after it was spoken.

The media insinuated that he didn't know the names of any foreign leaders, though the actuality was that he couldn't think of any that he respected. He tweeted a day later that he still couldn't think of any that he respected.

I prefer Stein because of Johnson's raging johnson for privatization of government operations, despite the fact that those things do not work well when run like a business.

Stein's policies would involve an increase in government involvement far bigger than even Bernie wanted, and could possibly bankrupt the country even more than it already is.

That doesn't scare me. I can overthrow the government, I can't tell off my boss.

The government basically has become everyone's boss though, especially with the crazy amount of undeserved benefits flying in every direction.

There's no reason to argue Stein vs Johnson as they both are far more worthy of being a president than either of the current candidates.

I'm not one for alarmism.

I'd still pick Trump over Stein, but I'm very easily voting for Gary.

I mean, spending over half a trillion thanks to stuff like Medicaid is pretty alarming.

People not getting the coverage that Medicaid offers is actually more scary.

Wait what?

The system needs to be drastically reworked to make that coverage available in a way that isn't a blatant squandering of our resources, tax dollars, etc.

I'm not pro-big government, I'm anti-big gov, which both Hillary and Jill are, and that's a major voting point for me, if not the biggest voting point. Hence why I'm voting for Johnson, and would pick Trump as a second choice if Johnson dropped out.

So, working the government like a business is better?

It's sad to me that people think that this works.

I believe so; obviously there are some aspects that can't be run like a business, and eventually everyone will come to realize that. But having the government be a regulations enforcer with a strict budget, rather than a dominating force with a whopping budget problem, run like a loop-hole free corporation would be much better.

Wouldn't a strict budget help avoid overspending?

That's rather silly. Not even going to get into the business arc of it involving Trump. Also, what's he going to do, hold Congress down and force them to agree with the way he runs things or else? Not going to work since the President doesn't actually have as much power as people think.

That's exactly what I said, I wanted a strict budget.

Obama proved over these last eight years (four in particular) that he can practically steamroll over Congress, so I'm not exactly sure what would be so different in regards to that.

Yes, because one out of the eight years he actually stood up to Congress counts as steamrolling.

Ah I misread it but now I have another question. Isn't regulations enforcement BIG GOVERNMENT?

He passed quite few executive orders if memory serves me correctly, correct me if I'm wrong though.

No, it's limited government. Big government is interference with business policy in terms of how they run their business within the scope of the established rules.

I wouldn't know factually. My mom follows politics more than I do and she said he really only started to stand up to Congress in his last year or so.

But how do you enforce regulations without creating established rules and interfering with business policy that breaks said regulations?

I did notice a sharp spike in the amount of activity Obama's been pushing through in this last year, so from what I've seen your mom is right. Although I wouldn't call it "standing up" considering a lot of things that have been passed due to these orders aren't exactly morally sound.

Oh no what I'm saying is; limited government is enforcing those established rules and regulations, big government is going beyond those rules and regulations to try and get involved much deeper into the way a business is run (aka who they can and can't serve to, etc)

Example?

Before those rules were established, they had to be created. I think big government just tricked you into supporting it.