Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[Cresselia~~]

Unfortunately, front-runner hilary is pretty much a republican, and the only reason she is so popular is because of the "woman for president!!!" push. Bitch was even against gay marriage before homophobia became uncool. Not to mention the fact that she is loaded, full of scandals, can't hold on to a belief for more than a few months, pro most of the things that the democratic party is against (like Iraq war).

Yet at the same time, she wants to legalize abortion.
Now you know, both religious people and non religious people are going to hate her.
Feminists are probably the only ones who are voting for her.

 

[macle]

Personally I can't imagine voting for Walker even if Hilary is the Democratic nominee; I think Hilary would be a terrible president but I'd have to see Walker propose a really strong, clear economic platform for him to have any chance of convincing me that his batshit crazy social policies are worth stomaching. There's no chance I'd vote for him over Sanders or any of the other Democratic nominees..

can't you just look up his economic policies for wisconsin? (hint, its bad)

Yet at the same time, she wants to legalize abortion.
Now you know, both religious people and non religious people are going to hate her.
Feminists are probably the only ones who are voting for her.

abortion is legal already??

 

[MikeDawg]

It doesnt really matter how inconsistent she is. Her position as a household name combined with this new-age wave of feminism and her money means that those things get covered up very easily. Only she can get away with the things she gets away with.

If Bernie doesn't get the nom, I assume there will be some kind of public backlash (occupy wall street 2.0) because of how hardcore passionate people are about his success.

 

[LonelyNess]

Until a Republican candidate stops saying they will end abortions, make a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and denying racism / sexism exist, they will never win the white house again. The American cultural landscape has changed enough to not tolerate people with this kind of backwards thinking anymore. Looking at the current slate of candidates, it's unlikely the political party will change its views in this election cycle. They are this generation's civil war era democrats and will need a similar overhaul in values to regain relevance.

So start getting ready for Hillary / Bernie, people.

 

[TheValkyries]

Really good post there Lonelyness!

What is everyone's thoughts on the protesters at the Bernie Sanders speech in Seattle?

 

[Ununhexium]

Not to mention the fact that she is loaded,

Why is having money a negative quality I don't get it

 

[UncleSam]

Because it's trendy to hate people more successful than yourself

 

[Chou Toshio]

Remember 2012's "horses and bayonets?"

What!? But the Brittish could be coming!????

*roll eyes* And they still haven't learned a thing.


Also I wanted to flip a table when someone promised they would get rid of Dodd-Frank. (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻ ━┻

 

[MikeDawg]

Why is having money a negative quality I don't get it

Because her resultant social status is super contradictory to her "I'm just like you" campaign. Even if she embraced being rich, there still exists the issue of being disconnected with the people. She is a libertarian at best.

Jennamarbles put it best:

"I've had to make many hard choices in my poltcal career, but the real hard choice is Kobe beef or lobster for dinner. Am I right, middle class? ;)"

 

[Bughouse]

Yeah every rich president ever (which is a lot of them) can't possibly be in touch with what people want.

That's why Kennedy (worth several hundred million) was so out of touch and LBJ (98 mil) and FDR (60) too. All more than Bill Clinton was in his presidency. Washington himself was the wealthiest or second wealthiest (along with Kennedy) and we all know he was a 1% tyrant.

There is literally no correlation. And on the other side, some of the poorest presidents (Grant, Arthur, Coolidge, McKinley, etc) were most pro business free market.

 

[Alfalfa]

Until a Republican candidate stops saying they will end abortions, make a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and denying racism / sexism exist, they will never win the white house again. The American cultural landscape has changed enough to not tolerate people with this kind of backwards thinking anymore. Looking at the current slate of candidates, it's unlikely the political party will change its views in this election cycle. They are this generation's civil war era democrats and will need a similar overhaul in values to regain relevance.

So start getting ready for Hillary / Bernie, people.

Abortion is still a touchy subject for many people. Republicans have attempted to tap into the scientific debate over abortion, but they are mostly facing pressure from the judicial system, which is still standing firm in the belief that abortion is a woman's choice to decide over. It is not impossible that a scientific argument can affect the judicial system, but none of them have been particularly convincing enough to convince the judicial system that abortion should be prohibited.

 

[Warped Worlds]

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I'm moving to Canada. She's actually awful.

 

[ck49]

I honestly believe that if you are a Hilary Clinton supporter, the best thing you can possibly do is register republican and vote for Trump in the primaries.

Trump wont win the election. He probably wont win the republican nomination. If he does well enough, however, I'm confident he will run as an independent. He has no support outside of a small part of the republican party, but taking that vote away from the republican nominee is probably enough to push the election towards the democrats. That doesn't happen unless he does reasonably well and stays in the public eye. Even better if he winds the republican nomination but gets shut down by the republican party (which can happen, theoretically). Overall, your vote in the primaries holds more meaning if you vote for a republican candidate rather than a democratic one.

On the flip side, Hillary is pretty likely to win the democratic nomination. I'm still debating between Hillary and Bernie myself, but I'd rather see Bernie get elected. While his economic policies are more socialist that I like, he doesn't have complete control, so given the house and senate not being quite as socialist, it should even out so it gets to a reasonable place (a huge over-simplification, granted). That being said, the odds of him winning a general election is less than the odds of Hillary winning, because he mainly appeals to the left side of the democratic party, not to independents.

 

[doublenikesocks]

I honestly believe that if you are a Hilary Clinton supporter, the best thing you can possibly do is register republican and vote for Trump in the primaries.

Trump wont win the election. He probably wont win the republican nomination. If he does well enough, however, I'm confident he will run as an independent. He has no support outside of a small part of the republican party, but taking that vote away from the republican nominee is probably enough to push the election towards the democrats. That doesn't happen unless he does reasonably well and stays in the public eye. Even better if he winds the republican nomination but gets shut down by the republican party (which can happen, theoretically). Overall, your vote in the primaries holds more meaning if you vote for a republican candidate rather than a democratic one.

On the flip side, Hillary is pretty likely to win the democratic nomination. I'm still debating between Hillary and Bernie myself, but I'd rather see Bernie get elected. While his economic policies are more socialist that I like, he doesn't have complete control, so given the house and senate not being quite as socialist, it should even out so it gets to a reasonable place (a huge over-simplification, granted). That being said, the odds of him winning a general election is less than the odds of Hillary winning, because he mainly appeals to the left side of the democratic party, not to independents.

Exactly my logic in voting for Sanders in the primary. Being a conservative, I have no place in voting in Democratic primaries except to cause a more brutal primary race. That being said, I'd also prefer Sanders over Hillary. Sanders seems much more honest about his intentions (use socialism to help the lower class) rather than Hillary's "I want power and you're electing me." It's clear that Hillary has no intergrity and will lie her way into the presidency. She'd just be a repeat of Obama's failed policies with even more lying and deceit. Hell, I'd take Biden over Hillary. Biden's that guy that is just there because he is.

 

[UncleSam]

Who would've thought that Mark Cuban would say the most insightful thing I've yet read about this race (specifically the Republican party):

Leaders don't conform to the consensus. They create consensus to their vision and goals.

Leaders don't change their positions mid debate. They welcome scorn from the masses because it creates the opportunity for dialogue.

Leaders don't look backwards to condemn what has already been done, they look forward to create a better future.

Leaders are not dogmatic. They are principled and know that change is never easy, but when it's necessary, they must lead.

The Republican Party does everything possible to discourage leadership.

They want dogma.

They want conformity.

They want to conserve their romanticized past.

That's a shame. I wish they wanted to conserve the best of what America is today and find a leader that can take us to new places that make our future better.

I realize that's not the way politics work in this day and age. And that just proves the point.

Oh ya and Bernie Sanders is now leading the race for the Democratic nomination in New Hampshire.

 

[MikeDawg]

I honestly believe that if you are a Hilary Clinton supporter, the best thing you can possibly do is register republican and vote for Trump in the primaries.

Trump wont win the election. He probably wont win the republican nomination. If he does well enough, however, I'm confident he will run as an independent. He has no support outside of a small part of the republican party, but taking that vote away from the republican nominee is probably enough to push the election towards the democrats. That doesn't happen unless he does reasonably well and stays in the public eye. Even better if he winds the republican nomination but gets shut down by the republican party (which can happen, theoretically). Overall, your vote in the primaries holds more meaning if you vote for a republican candidate rather than a democratic one.

On the flip side, Hillary is pretty likely to win the democratic nomination. I'm still debating between Hillary and Bernie myself, but I'd rather see Bernie get elected. While his economic policies are more socialist that I like, he doesn't have complete control, so given the house and senate not being quite as socialist, it should even out so it gets to a reasonable place (a huge over-simplification, granted). That being said, the odds of him winning a general election is less than the odds of Hillary winning, because he mainly appeals to the left side of the democratic party, not to independents.

Extreme policy isn't his detriment; lack of publicity is. Hilary has been a household name forever. Between that and her absurdly expensive and wide-reaching campaign (which is for the most part bs), she practically has an incumbent advantage. Bernie started a couple months ago, so she also has a huge headstart.

Speaking of Bernie, he got 95000 (?) people to come see him speak this last weekend. Those are record-breaking numbers of his record-breaking numbers. He has also surpassed Hilary in the states that he has so far appealed too (New Hampshire). It would be lovely if he got the nom :(

 

[Pancham]

Down with Hilary, imo. Tbh tho, it is quite clear that the Republican nom wont go to Jeb Bush, Don Teump, or Carly Fiorina (even tho I love her tbh). The only other people I would vote for as Republican would be Marc Rubio and Kassich. Though, I do agree that the GoP needs to stop with their assinine views against civil rights (being women's and LGBTQ+'s). It would be a very sad day if Hilary Clinton replaces an already horrible president, seeing as we all know she won't be much better.

Bernie Sanders hype tho.

 

[tehy]

agree with aboves absolutely

the republicans are hamstrung LGBTQ+ wise anyhow (the ones who deny gay marriage, if there are even any any more, are unelectable), so it's not a big deal to me-even the worst-case doomsday scenarios I can conjure up are pretty mild. Kasich seems like a very cool dude

hillary of course is trash incarnate. Apparently the FBI actually took her server and a thumb drive and are criminally probing her-what a treat if she missed this election because her ass was in jail :D.

 

[Bughouse]

Kasich even supports a woman's rights to abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother (which are sadly not even close to guaranteed by other GOP candidates), and he also acknowledges the importance of climate change and believes humans have some amount of impact (but still could easily be called a science denier lmao...)

 

[citro]

It's a little bit weird seeing so many people pushing this idea that Sanders is going to "use socialism to help the lower class", or even that Sanders is a socialist at all. Socialism is an economic system wherein the working class owns the means of production. Sanders, running as he is in a bourgeois election process, complicit fully in the neoliberal system, is not a socialist. He is a social democrat and is advocating welfare capitalism, the system that is in place in e.g. Sweden and Norway. There isn't some kind of spectrum between socialism and capitalism, and thus no happy medium, because the two are so fundamentally different. It's very silly to think there is and it hints that you don't really know what you're talking about =\

What is everyone's thoughts on the protesters at the Bernie Sanders speech in Seattle?

I support it, because BLM needs a voice and they would never have been able to hijack someone with as much security as Clinton, in fact it seems like Sanders responded positively to it, which is good.

 

[PinoyTater]

As of right now I'm leaning towards Sanders. Bernie>Hillary for most of the reasons already stated. I'm not 100% agreeing with everything he is proposing but for the most part I connect with his ideas and at the very least he seems more genuine than Hillary. Haven't looked at a lot of the GOP candidates since I lean left on most issues (economy is the only big one that I'm in the middle about), but I'll check out Kasich.

 

[Agile Turtle]

I'm pretty sure Hillary literally just lies to gain public approval.

 

[DiscoDucky]

Republicans need to drop the anti-homosexuality rhetoric. They have to understand its a losing battle in American society and bringing up anti-gay rights automatically puts you at a disadvantage.

Donald Trump is a terrible candidate, I'm going to say up front, but there is one thing that Trump has that many candidates in this race do not have: a connection with the American people. When we scrape past his Megyn Kelly comments or anti-Hispanic rhetoric, we see that he knows how to conduct himself in public and appeal to the American people. Politics is often covered in big words and complex terms that the average American will not understand. Trump breaks this by providing an image that actually speaks with the American people.

Furthermore, Donald Trump represents only part of hopefully a new wave to change the American political landscape. Ralph Nader, well-known political activist and Independent Presidential candidate, has stated that "modestly enlightened rich people" can change the American gridlocked political system. Some examples include Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, and Tom Steyer. Nader continues by saying, "Presently, only very rich modestly enlightened people could have a chance to break this introverting cycle of political oligarchy, which unenlightened rich people generally approve of, that sets its own rules, makes its own laws, appoints its own judges and even brazenly forces taxpayers to finance its quadrennial political conventions." He says that these types of people can make changes in the political system because they have the independent monetary power to break away from special interest groups and lobbyists who fund these political campaigns.

Donald Trump is kind of the so-so option floating around. As he stated, "Part of the beauty of me is that I'm very rich." Although a very cocky and narcissistic statement, he's not necessarily wrong. Unlike other political candidates, who do receive special funding from third-party interests such as Koch Industries and whatnot, he has the funds to run his own campaign without being plagued by the deal-making and donations of the corporate class. However, Trump lacks any significant policy that is manageable by the U.S. Government, such as "building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico". Furthermore, he plagues himself with degrading commentary to many people where it really exposes his anti-intellectualism.

When we analyze some of the rising stars in each party, we clearly see what many Americans want to see. Bernie Sanders represents a liberal candidate who has a strong focus on helping the middle class and ultimately is a visionary. His stances on social injustice, wrongful incarceration, and the corporate political cycle is accelerating him past the Democratic front-runnner, Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump maintains a corporate independence where his campaign is not funded by special interests. Furthermore, his straight-forwardness in his speech appeals to Americans through familiarity. Ultimately, other candidates say that they feel what the people feel, but Donald Trump ultimately masters this aspect of appealing to the American voter. If you combine these two aspects of American society together, you potentially have a political force that traditional politicians will have a hard time keeping up with.

Also, I'm voting Kasich if anyone but Sanders win the Democratic nomination and Kasich gets the Republican nomination, and vice versa.

Ultimately, this is going to be an interesting election season because Donald Trump's presence shakes up both parties.

 

[TheValkyries]

"Yesterday 9:13 pm (27 hours 38 minutes ago)"

Yeah.

You know, now that we have had a day to digest this post, I'm really starting to warm up to Trump and his ideas and presence. God knows we need more caustically paternalistic egotists in office.

 

[Oglemi]

Speaking to no one in particular, if you're surprised by how much attention/support Trump is getting right now, you'll be even more surprised by how many people will/would actually cast a vote for him in the primaries/actual election/whatever. I'm continually astounded by the number of people I see/hear say they're excited that Trump is running, either actually enthusiastically or sarcastically. I think he has a very, very real chance of actually making it to the White House on publicity and namesake alone.

On the other side, while I think Hillary would be ineffective overall in office, I don't know that Bernie would be that much better. I think he's definitely the better candidate intellectually, and he might be able to push through a couple policies here and there, but for the most part I think anything he puts forward to Congress will be viewed as "too radical" and get watered down by the Republicans et al. to the point of ineffectiveness. IDK, however this election shakes out I just hope that whoever does end up in the White House gets something done with Social Security.