Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
NMMR: Evan McMullin for POTUS
Posting this here b/c P&CE is slow...
I've said all along that I won't vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. This still holds true. So, you who hold similar views and are dismayed by the choices and have not yet received your Absentee Ballots or who vote at the polls may be interested to learn that there are actually nine, yes 9, presidential candidates.
I think I have found my choice with the Evan McMullin/Nathan Johnson ticket.
Evan is a former CIA operations officer and the former chief policy director for the House Republican Conference in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is backed by the Better for America campaign, which is pushing to get other candidates on the ballot other than those of the two major political parties.
As a fiscal and social conservative, Evan seems like someone I can support!
FYI: Since he is late to the race, his name is not on all the ballots and would be a "write-in" in some states.
www.evanmcmullin.com/issues
Re: NMMR: Evan McMullin for POTUS
There was an interesting discussion on the TK Chit Chat board about how write-ins work. Apparently they are basically thrown out, unless someone writes in a candidate who has already gone through the steps to be considered a candidate. So, the candidate you are referring to would be a "valid" write-in. But Judge Judy Shiendlin, my favorite tv court judge, would not be.
I'm paraphrasing and may not be explaining that exactly right, but that was the gist.
Yes, I know the two party system is seriously flawed and that there are other candidates to vote for. But, in the near future (although this election will have probably the highest third party turnout), there will not be enough support to vote for someone other than the two main party candidates.
Do I like either candidate? Not particularly. But, I will vote for the one I believe will be the best in office among the two choices. And that, in part, is to ensure that one of the candidates in particular does not get into office.
But I applaud you for finding a candidate that you feel you can fully support.
I think Evan is "approved" as a write-in candidate in 39 states thus far. A few states, like MN where I live, have him printed on it actually.
I have heard this argument before. Hillary isn't an option for me at all. So that leaves Trump and I cannot in good conscience vote for that man. He's unprofessional, rude, insulting and IMO, disgusting. I think he may be the least presidential candidate for POTUS this nation has or will ever see.
Today, the publication Christianity Today published an article on Evan McMullin. It's here.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2016/september/evangelical-views-of-2016-election-in-support-of-third-part.html
One point the author made, which I find exceptionally valid is this, "My objection is to the idea that I must vote for one of two candidates when I believe either will be profoundly harmful to my neighbor. When an election has come to this point, the answer is not to “hold my nose and vote,” as I have been admonished to do. It requires a drastic action that calls attention to the political and societal rot that brought us here and advocates for a new way forward. And I believe the best action in this situation is to vote and advocate for Evan McMullin."
Also this, "A vote for Trump also communicates to our neighbors that we believe he would be an acceptable leader for our country. Sure, you can qualify your Trump support by saying you have reservations but you believe he’s better than Clinton; however, by casting a ballot for him you are fundamentally claiming that it would be good for Trump to govern you and your neighbor."
Trump isn't much better, he says horrible things about large groups of people, but to my knowledge he hasn't committed any felonies so I will be voting for him. I don't think he is a conservative, but he is more to the right than Hillary.
Did Hillary make a poor choice about her email situation? Absolutely. Does she slander just about every non-white, non-christian group in this country? No. Does she get on stage and act like a complete buffoon and would she put our country at risk of p***ing off every other country in the world based on behavior and rhetoric? No.
That's my political piece for the day.
Sorry, I do not usually get involved in politics. But when someone literally promotes hatred, misogyny and intolerance for the very kind of people who represent myself, my family and my community, I take it pretty personally.
ETA: Edited. Not entirely familiar with the tax situation of Trump and legality of it. But I still stand by the fact that his practices around not paying business for received services is shady as h***.
True tax evasion is doing things like diverting income to the island of Nevis or other tax havens so that US authorities can't track it (just using an example I've personally seen). It's really unlikely his tax planners help him do this kind of thing because they could be at risk themselves for preparer penalties, and I guarantee most of his companies are audited by independent accounting firms every year. Anything is possible of course, but the accountants and lawyers that help people evade US tax typically live in other countries.
That being said, he terrifies me, and he is incredibly offensive so I won't be voting for him. I think he would be a sh*tshow in foreign policy, and I just can't support that.
But I live in Alabama, so my vote won't count, lol
I can give you a 99% guarantee that he's been personally audited by the IRS multiple times. Wealthy people who are in the media are great audit bate, and the pay day can be huge if the IRS finds something wrong. Also, the IRS gets free publicity when they handcuff somebody famous. The idea is it increases compliance across the board when people read about a famous person getting caught. That's why Richard Hatch got caught and went to jail. He didn't report his winnings from Survivor, which was really stupid - the IRS knew he had won the money, and by sending him to jail they got a ton of free publicity!
But yeah, I agree with you that his attitude sucks. He offends me enough that I won't be voting for him.
Yes, exactly! I agree with you and @hoffse. There is nothing wrong with his tax returns "working it" so he ends up paying no taxes. However, the fact that one of the RICHEST men in the world...pays no taxes. Should be a WAKE-UP call to how messed up our tax system is.
And you can bet dollars to doughnuts, especially with him gloating about it, that there would certainly be no revamping of the tax laws/codes (in regards to this) under his watch.
I normally have a "my vote doesn't count" attitude when it comes to the Presidential election. Because Louisiana is as red as a fire engine. If I'm remembering correctly, their electoral votes have gone to the Democratic nominee only three times in the last 50 years.
But Trump is just so awful, I could see maybe...maybe...it could happen again. I always vote in the pres. elections, because usually there are local elections also where my vote would matter. But, this time around, even my presidential one might not be a complete waste.
The Clinton Foundation solicits donations from countries all over the world and there have been accusations of "pay to play" where a donation comes in and all of a sudden a foreign policy changes to that country's favor.
Don't get me wrong, we have two very horrible, no good, rotten choices for president this year. I'm not happy with either of them, but the media focus on Trump and his taxes/poor business dealings/etc. is annoying when the main stream media is all but ignoring all the many scandals in Hillary's closet.
Wouldn't there almost always be the potential for a conflict of interest in business matters with most Presidents/candidates? That they need to take steps to soften/overcome. To be fair, I don't know much of how that is done. But, let's face it, in general politicians are movers and shakers in the world. Who own businesses. Who run charities.
Look at the Bushes. They were big time oil people. Daddy Bush had a net worth (adjusted for inflation) substantially higher than most other Presidents in history (with the exception of Kennedy).
You can't tell me when you've made your fortune in one industry...it isn't going to affect decisions made that will influence that industry, whether a person still has business holdings or not. But I'm painting all of them with that brush.
Maybe that is Trump's master plan!!! Legalize gambling across the country so he can build more hotel casinos everywhere! I'm kidding. Though that would be a funny conspiracy theory.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/08/politics/mike-pence-on-donald-trump-vladimir-putin/
Trump and Pence both think that Vladmir Putin, a dictator, is a stronger leader than Obama has been in our country. Oh, that will all change once Trump becomes president. Seriously? Does he plan to be a dictator like Putin?!?!
You know because a dictatorship is so patriotic, democratic and American. So we should all aspire to be that way.
Can someone please explain to me how these two individuals are viable candidates for an American presidency?
Putin is a strong leader (but a despicable one). Leaders who are able to get their agenda items put into effect and get "their way" on a world stage are strong, but not always good.
Obama is a weak leader in the eyes of many. He apologizes for things that don't need apologies, he stirs up trouble where there really isn't any, his policies are unpopular and he had damaged relationships with our allies.
It's also ridiculous to even compare Obama and Putin because their leadership frameworks and governments are entirely different. Dictatorships are based on establishing and maintaining power and are difficult over through. So it's moot point at best.
Honestly, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say that he apologizes for things he doesn't needs to, stirs up trouble or has damaged relationships. Can you please elaborate?
Obama does address national incidences of tragedy and disasters. That's appropriate. He has pushed through incredibly difficult, but effective legislation around gay rights, affordable health care, repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, education reform acts, improved fairness for salaried employees, etc.
Now, many middle and upper class, non-minority, conservatives Americans do not necessarily agree or like some of these policies. But many of these issues needed to be addressed to create a more fair and just society for all citizens. Being a good leader means you sometimes have to do "unpopular" things if they are what is right for the country. So unless you are saying that legislation was fundamentally wrong for America, popularity about it is irrelevant.
Lastly, everything you mentioned about why Obama "might" be a weak leader is exactly what Trump would be:
- Has not stated any clear policy reforms or initiatives
- Would effectively piss off many countries with his shrewd politics and unprofessional demeanor
- The majority of major political figures in the Republic party will not endorse him, how on earth will he work with both sides to get legislation passed?
- He is stirring up a lot of trouble and intentional hate rhetoric now, that's very concerning if he were to get put in office
I am honestly not trying to be argumentative, I am just pointing out that we may disagree on Obama's presidency, but I fail to see how Trump would be any more effective based on what you stated.We know what we're getting with Hillary - big government, higher taxes, more spending, and likely liberal SCOTUS judges. Side note: I do think it's to everybody's best interest (liberals and conservatives alike) to keep the Supreme Court very balanced. Too much thought in one direction is a bad idea for everybody and we do need to temper each other out.
Trump is a HUGE unknown.
Lol, always true. Let's not forget the Clintons were honored guests at one of Trump's weddings.
And Obama is certainly talking up Hillary now.
It amuses me during each election season. You'll most often see it with the opponents who lost in the primaries. Go from "insults, insults, insults" for Candidate A, to "praise, praise, praise" now that it is time for them to tow the party line.
1) Putin being a "strong leader". Let me preface this by saying that I do not agree with Putin's actions and I'm sure a good deal of them are illegal, but I'm not sure what Russia's laws are on the topics. I'm framing my response as a contrast to how I view Obama's presidency.
Putin does what he wants/what he thinks is best for Russia he doesn't bow down to foreign leaders and he doesn't agree to insanely bad deals with foreign governments. When he negotiates he gets something out of the deal as well.
Obama tends to "roll over" for any foreign leader/UN/NATO/whomever who disagrees with U.S. politics.
Example 1: The Iran deal did not stop their nuclear program (paused might be a better term), Iran will get relief from sanctions even if they don't comply, Iran's leadership says that this deal will not change their anti-U.S. policies which with a very small leap of logic you can follow the money from U.S-->Iran-->Terrorist Organizations, and Iran can indefinitely delay "surprise" inspections so by the time the inspectors are allowed into a facility they can say "look, no nuclear weapons here!" when they have had weeks to be moved somewhere else. All of this (and more) yet Obama is touting this deal as something to be proud of.
Example 2: Obama drew a "red line" with Assad in Syria that he would not stand for the use of chemical weapons by Assad on Syrian people. Surprise! Assad didn't listen and Obama didn't do anything. Now Syria and Russia are bombing Allepo and killing children by the dozens.
2) Obama apologies. I won't say anything as effective as this article summarizing things that happened in the past and apologizing for the US not upholding values of a different country/religion.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower
3) Obama has damaged relationships with his race baiting. He is quick to make a statement on a shooting before the facts are known yet will take days to address an incident of national security. Some police shootings have been un-justified but after reports come out that the suspect had a weapon or charged at officers or otherwise proved to be a threat he doesn't change his stance. He should wait to make comments so he doesn't look foolish. A lot of Americans listen to him and they stop listening when he says that the "cops need to be more careful".
4) Obama policies: I'll start with Obamacare. It is not affordable. Period. The only good thing to come out of it was that pre-existing conditions now have to be covered, but the unintended consequences are that everyone's premiums are going up, most of us have high deductible plans and the people who are affected the most are the low and middle income families who were already struggling. I have an employer plan and our premiums, deductibles and OOP maximums have increased every year since this became law. Obamacare forces ALL policies to cover maternity services, even for those who are no longer of childbearing age AND policies taken out by men.
I have no issues with Don't Ask Don't Tell, and I'm ambivalent about gay marriage. I do have issues with Christian companies being forced to bake cakes/take pictures/whatever for gay weddings if they don't want to. No one would force a Muslim baker to make a maple and bacon cupcake tower for a wedding.
Education reform is a joke in my opinion. Common Core in theory is great, but the high stakes tests are not improving education it is making a bunch of stressed out teachers and students who learn little but how to take a standardized test. The tests aren't well written and the testing companies are making tons of money off of everyone's misery.
I'm not going to defend Tump on much because most of what he says has no defense. He is arrogant, a blowhard and crude. Unfortunately for my belief system he is the lesser of two evils so I will be voting for him.
You can't pay for insuring people with pre-existing conditions without premiums going up. Obamacare needs to be fixed, but the old system was waaaay worse.
There are other options out there that could have lowered costs, the two that come to mind is allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines and tort reform. The first should lower premium costs since it would increase competition (but since all of these insurance companies seem to collude on pricing maybe not) and the second would lower the cost of the actual care received.
I wish that insurance was still being used as it was intended, as an "insurance policy" against major illnesses. Cancer, heart attacks, high risk pregnancies, premature births are all high dollar illnesses/medical issues that need specialized care.
Insurance was not supposed to pay for a doctor's appointment every time you (general you) gets the sniffles or a kid skins a knee. Since most people now use insurance as an excuse to go to the doctor over everything it limits access, drives up costs and ends up providing less care for everyone.