Snowth Poogle wrote: That's what it was for me. I made it perfectly clear I had no desire or intention to vote in this year's election, because I did not like either of the two candidates, and I did not feel confident in the future of our country in either of their hands.



Unfortunately, I was forced to vote against my will, and the vote went to Hillary because it was a vote against Drumph. But, as it turns out, what Gordon said on MADtv is true: that one vote really doesn't make a difference.

Snowth Poogle wrote: Yeah, but here's the thing: at least Democrats try. I mean, they make efforts to try to reach across the aisle and get Republicans to work together on the country, but the Republicans never do that. They're always, "Get out of our country you fuckin' libtards!" And essentially go about being the Fourth Reich - which they undoubtly will be now that Drumph is our first dictator.

Snowth Poogle wrote: How do you figure that? Bill was essentially the last president who was able to manage our country's budget and keep it in check. G.W. just came in and blew all of it.

Snowth Poogle wrote: Well, unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Republicans have never cared about the working class, and anytime a Republican is president (again, G.W. as an example), the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer.

Snowth Poogle wrote: You know what worries me the most, though? Social Security. You've mentioned the benefits of Social Security quite often, Moms, particularly when we discuss the future of the disabled characters of the Arthur-verse, like Marina, and you know for yourself that for some people out there, like the disabled, who are unable to work for whatever reason, Social Security is their only source of income.

Snowth Poogle wrote: Well, sorry, but Drumph and his wormy VP Pence ("Trump/Pence," what a stupid-sounding ticket . . . sounds like a tongue-twister) aren't even in Office yet, and they have already announced that they're rolling back on LGBT rights, because it's "what God would want." Yeah, I don't recall God ever saying to persecute, degrade, and oppress certain groups of people because they don't happen to be wealthy, white, heterosexual males.

That's understandable. As I've told people I know who voted one way or the other, it's not so much a matter of who you vote for but the reasons why. I think that a lot of people share the frustration with how bad things are on a lot of levels in this country right now. On the upside, I look at how much more traction third party candidates or true progressives (Sanders, for instance) have gained this election cycle. Ten years ago, a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist wouldn't have garnered 1% of the vote. I also hope that change will be more likely as some of the older generations shuffle off, since younger and middle-aged voters are more inclined to vote for such candidates.I think there are a few exceptions in Congress. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders (again), Dennis Kucinich, etc. who legitimately do fight for the common person and who aren't bought out by special interests. As far as Republicans go, McCain has shown some decent colors from time to time, trying to get major post-Depression era banking laws re-established and such. Unfortunately, he had a flip on some issues and appear as a Bush clone in 2008 to snag the GOP nomination, dwindling his moderate appeal. A majority of the others, though? Not so much. It's worth noting that I did vote for the Democratic options for local and Congressional offices this time around, because there was no write-in option. A lot of it boils down to the candidate. I would have voted for any of the aforementioned candidates if they'd ran (and made it to) the general election against Trump. Just...not Clinton.Mainly due to the fact that Clinton (with Hillary as advisor) repealed the aforementioned Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that had prevented investment banks from intermingling with commercial banks. This resulted in Wall Street behemoths that took commercial assets (mortages, or instance) and gambled with them as if they were high-stakes hedge funds. In conjunction with a few earlier repeals that happened during the Reagan Era, this also allowed for the emergence of the nefarious derivatives market, which played a key role in the collapse of 2008. Had these laws not been repealed, the economy would have remained much more stable and safe, with or without massive Federal debt.To address the debt created by George W. Bush, it's indeed been established that having large debt can have a negative impact on a country's economy. I wouldn't be surprised if it's hindered the recovery (or what little of a recovery there's been). However, it's more of a "slow burn" factor that can create problems if foreign creditors, for instance, start demanding higher interest rates due to prolonged non-payment or the belief that they'll never get repaid at all. The Great Recession wasn't so much about that, as it was about the reckless actions of a "Wild West" Wall Street...again, made possible by Clinton and the GOP-run Congress at the time.Likewise, when the student loan bubble bursts, and it's already causing serious problems, it's going to go right back to the laws Clinton signed in as well.In a way, I wouldn't be surprised. If anything, it'll be fun to watch his angry blue collar voter base turn on him if he doesn't deliver, and just increase the likelihood that he'll only be in office for one term.I'm with you 100% on this one. My parents are close to retirement age, and a good portion of their income will stem from Social Security. Since there STILL hasn't been meaningful reform in the banking industry, privatizing things would prove disastrous. If not immediately, then eventually. It's just bound to happen when you let private investors handle money like that. Free market economies follow a sinusoidal wave (up and down, up and down), and the whole idea of socializing certain services is to insulate against that effect. I think retirement is one that definitely warrants that sort of protection, because once you get to that point in life, it's not like you can start over again.Sigh...I'm really not surprised, considering that Pence authored and signed into law Indiana's gay marriage ban as its governor. Ascribing it all to Christianity is just asinine, and gives good Christians a bad name. Many don't interpret the Bible to be discriminatory at all, and take Old Testament passages about homosexuality being "abomination" about as seriously as passages about killing witches, dashing children's heads against rocks, prohibiting flat-nosed men from serving in the clergy, etc.