By in Politics

This Election Year Has Me Completely Confused

This election year is absolute craziness.

I really stand here in disbelief that it will likely come to a race between Donald Trump for the Republican candidate and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic candidate. I can hardly believe that the American people have bought into the circus antics, or the lies that have been perpetuated.

Some might argue that this is not new in the world of politics. Yet, in the more than 50 years that I have been paying attention to politics and debate, this cycle is unlike any other I have ever seen.

It leaves me scratching my head and wondering, "What the hell are they thinking?"

Image Credit »

You will need an account to comment - feel free to register or login.


MegL wrote on March 14, 2016, 8:09 AM

Yes, it does seem very different. Maybe it's just that everything is now more open than in years gone past?

lookatdesktop wrote on March 14, 2016, 9:44 AM

I personally was pulling for Marco Rubio.

Gossamer wrote on March 14, 2016, 9:49 AM

Or is it that most peeps have now totally succumbed to a "reality" tv mentality and they can only relate to bizarre, larger-than-life candidates? I'm surprised that Palin's chapeau wasn't thrown back into the ring for this round. It would have made it even more, shall we say "interesting", for the rest of the world to watch it play out. In the meantime, we're all gritting our teeth, hoping Trump drops out of the contest before it gets down to the real duel. We (the rest of the world) know that it would mean total disaster for the world if that buffoon gets elected.

Feisty56 wrote on March 14, 2016, 8:30 PM

This political season is like a nightmare. I keep thinking it's a social experiment gone awry or a joke for which the punchline has been too long in coming. Tomorrow are the primaries here in Ohio. I plan to take part and hope that many other people are spurred into action too.

jiangliu1949 wrote on March 15, 2016, 6:55 AM

What is important is if they work for the interests of vast majority of people, No matter who assumes power .

maxeen wrote on March 15, 2016, 8:38 AM

Just like to say cheers! to the ones who have sense and see through the circus of Clinton and Trump. Long live the politics of Bernie Sanders which will grow and grow .

VinceSummers wrote on March 15, 2016, 1:09 PM

Believe it. World governments are run by idiots. Or, rather, by dupes. I won't say who for.

Sailorchronos wrote on March 15, 2016, 2:48 PM

That's just it, they're not thinking. Too many people are simply buying into the fear and hatred that's being stirred up and they won't stop to understand what's really at stake.

morilla wrote on March 15, 2016, 9:52 PM

The interesting thing is that Trump has been fairly up front about the idea that he's in it to 'win it;' not necessarily to 'run it' or 'fix it.' In fact, what the news media is finely grabbing hold of is that he continues to lack specifics and should , at this point in the campaign, be 'better' informed and more particular in his agenda than he seems to be. In short, he's marketing or selling a 'brand' and people are buying into what they think he will do as opposed to what he's actually said (which isn't much or is unconstitutional or requires the Congress - i.e., things the President or Executive Branch can't do).

On the Democrat side, it's not all that surprising (at least in this day and age) to see the choice come down to someone who is documented as one of the more disingenuous individuals in politics and could be indicted for mishandling Government secrets (though I have my doubts, guilty or not) - OR - an avowed Socialist/Communist. Given the way Obama has 'played the game' and Hillary's history (not to mention how the deck has been stacked vis a vis superdelegates, etc.), it shouldn't be all that shocking to anyone. The thing that astounds me is...

If the idea behind all these supposed 'populist' or 'grassroots' movements is that "We the People" are upset and fed up with politicians, the rich getting richer, et al., then why would voters think that a billionaire , one of the most divisive and (arguably) 'meanest,' 'carpet-bagging' political personalities, or an individual who has been involved in politics in terms of running for various offices since 1971-72 would provide answers to the issues of politicians and the rich ?!?! If you want something different , how are those personalities 'different' beyond leaving people incredulous about the choices they're being left with, even if the media is driving the coverage and the 'names?'

BarbRad wrote on March 16, 2016, 1:15 AM

We started out with some very good candidates on the GOP side. Then Trump came in and stole the show with his antics. He's not my preferred candidate, but i can't in good conscience vote for a socialist, and I think Hillary is also a socialist. I will vote for someone, but since I'm in California, my primary vote probably won't mean anything, since someone will probably have won by June. What this shows is that people prefer celebrities and slogan to people who get specific about policies. I wonder how many people actually leave the TV screens and check candidate websites. I think people are angry about the establishment always picking their candidates, but so far it appears the primary voters aren't doing a very good job of it either. Once again I will probably have to vote for the lesser of two evils in the general election. The GOP voters feel those they sent to Washington have not kept their promises and somehow they think Trump will keep us safe and bring back jobs. God only knows what will happen.

Tiger_Armando_Jose wrote on March 29, 2016, 11:08 AM

Disaster. Most of republicans (except Paul, and he's a libertarian anyway) would go to war with anybody who doesn't submit to USA rule. Out of those who are still running only Kasich is somehow normal. On the other side I really hope Hillary doesn't win the democratic primaries. Of course 2 party system doesn't let anybody from outside even near (Green, Libertarian ..). Democracy sure

CoralLevang wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:32 AM

I think media has certainly changed how it shows things to the public.

CoralLevang wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:33 AM

I think Kasich would be the best bet for the Republican party.

CoralLevang wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:34 AM

He is certainly gaining some headway.

CoralLevang wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:35 AM

I think that you may be onto something here. I have certainly had this discussion with friends of mine.

CoralLevang wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:37 AM experiment gone awry...bad joke...

I hope things change soon.

Now with Trump saying what he has about punishing those who choose abortion....he's lost a lot of votes with that one, I think.

CoralLevang wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:37 AM

Except that the "vast majority of people" throw their hands up and don't vote. emoticon :sad:

CoralLevang wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:38 AM

And it is the group of idiots that vote for the dupes.

CoralLevang wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:39 AM

I find this on either side....

Who knows what's going to happen in this election.

CoralLevang wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:43 AM

People really don't want "different," but they want those who will tell them what they want to hear. Then it becomes "groupthink" all over again. Then people will bitch, moan and complain about things not being different. And the circular pattern continues. I wish people, in general, weren't such sheep. And don't get me started on "unbiased" media/journalism. *RME*

CoralLevang wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:45 AM

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of them. I don't think there IS a "lesser of the evils" thus far.

CoralLevang wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:48 AM

I agree that Kasich is the only one that shows any normalcy. In addition, I think that he is the only one that is willing to work with all sides and come to some common ground. Unfortunately, the GOP ...or a faction of them... wants all or nothing..... Just craziness, if you ask me.


lookatdesktop wrote on March 31, 2016, 12:54 AM

There are not a lot of choices a reasonable person would want to have to choose from. Many of us will simply chose not to vote this year. It would be better if there were a 3rd or 4th party to vote from. We are essentially at a point where the worst possible candidate, Trump might be elected simply because of media coverage due to his outrageous behavior and it has been truly over the top.

CoralLevang wrote on April 1, 2016, 11:09 AM

Or Clinton being elected simply because of who her husband was and the money they have and power and that people are afraid of them

morilla wrote on April 2, 2016, 7:39 PM

That was the key to Obama's victory. He used a lot of words to say... nothing. People read into what he said, favoring what they wanted personally, then elected him because "he said." When push came to shove, he had some legitimacy to claim that he didn't say "that." Add in some deconstructionism and post-modernism antics, along with flat out ignoring that video/audio recordings were invented some time ago, and people, even his supporters, have become disillusioned.

Add in media personalities who harp on an agenda, one which often has absolutely no basis in reality, and the anger grows from the frustration stemming from the disillusionment. Throw in the actions of the politicians and you have legitimate concern on the part of people regarding some of that 'agenda.' (Anti-gun movements are something I've talked about here already in that vein.) In short, it becomes a case of not so much being 'paranoid' as it is being aware that it's not paranoia if someone's actually out to get you and whether you are being 'paranoid' enough .

Now, Trump is doing exactly the same thing; but, without the "soaring rhetoric" or verbiage. (Just like Anderson Cooper telling him to his face that he argues like a 5-year old.) Hillary is all over the board, saying anything that she thinks will gin up support and cover a growing host of... some call it improprieties and others deem them crimes. Right on down the line, on both sides of the aisle. Yet, as you say, people read into each of them what they want; in large part because NONE of them offer what is needed.

morilla wrote on April 2, 2016, 7:53 PM

That's what I told a young acquaintance 2 or 3 weeks ago when she asked if I'd decided who I'd vote for. I told her, if I HAD to choose among who is left, it would likely be Kasich. I know he's done some things, behind the scenes, which were proper in terms of making himself better informed about certain issues. Yet, were you to vote for him, it would be 'wasted' at this point since he doesn't have a prayer. (Even if he gets the nomination in a contested convention, his chances aren't good as many would be too upset with the result to 'support' him in lieu of "their guy." Never mind that the Democrats have been even more overt about it from the beginning with the way the deck has been stacked for Hillary.)

Insofar as wanting "all or nothing," it's not quite as simple as that. Sure. The media portrays it that way, as do many (for lack of a better term) 'establishment' politicians. Yes. They have become a bit too recalcitrant in not exhibiting the patience the political "Left" has over the last 40 or 50 years. But... Well, an analogy used by pro-gun advocates expresses the problem reasonably well...

At some point, you have an entire chocolate cake... You can see the rest here...