On voting and civil disobedience

[Phione]

To me, the problem is that both leading Candidates are idiots and essentially opposite sides of a coin.

Trump's a morally bankrupt businessman, his main basis is that he wants to fix the economy, and that's what 44% of voters want right now.(taken from a news site) His social policies are garbage, and he has no real clue as to how to navigate the Political River. That's why people love him, is the fact that he's not an established politician. He's an arsehole that gets attention for being exactly that.

Sanders has great social policies, but apparently has no idea how an established economy works. I'm sorry and don't intend to offend any democrats here, but a 15$ minimum wage is a terrible idea. At best, we'll have a recession while the economy adjusts, and at worst the entire economy will crash. Yes, I know he wants to steadily adjust it over a few years, but the problem is that artificially increasing the minimum wage causes either a large amount of layoffs for businesses that can't afford to start suddenly paying their minimum wage workers 10$ an hour or, inflation will set in to make up for the increased wages. Taxing the crap out of those who are successful in life is also a poor idea, seeing as how that results in said well-to-do moving somewhere where they DON'T have a massive tax levied on them, resulting in job losses for those who own businesses as well as hurting the upper-middle class, ie. the intelligent people who have made smart choices in investments and getting their education in a well paying field.



This is the problem right here. Both of the "popular" candidates are not the "smart" candidates. They both aren't really considering the results of their policies.

Uhhhh, Sanders is the leading candidate? Where are you getting your polls from?

 

[vonFiedler]

Uhhhh, Sanders is the leading candidate? Where are you getting your polls from?

Every poll from companies not literally financing Clinton's campaign?

 

[Phione]

Every poll from companies not literally financing Clinton's campaign?

._.
By that logic you're going to end up with like two polls.

 

[vonFiedler]

._.
By that logic you're going to end up with like two polls.

Okay, those two and most owned by her. Only polls that called about a hundred prepared voters went in her favor. Mind you, I don't think for a minute polls are the same thing as votes. People will be honest in polls but then vote for whoever they think has the best chance of winning without also being Hitler due to first past the post. And before you say "well, x method is more scientific", no polls are ever scientific. But if Bernie's poll victories are just his fans spamming them, then why aren't people doing the same for Hillary? Why aren't they organizing and doing this to win any poll? Or at least to come closer than 10-80

 

[Martin]

Donald Trump is hopefully gonna have the same thing that happened to Nigel Farage/UKIP happen, where pre-election the polls suggest an advantage to him and then the actual results dont go his way.

 

[Phione]

Okay, those two and most owned by her. Only polls that called about a hundred prepared voters went in her favor. Mind you, I don't think for a minute polls are the same thing as votes. People will be honest in polls but then vote for whoever they think has the best chance of winning without also being Hitler due to first past the post. And before you say "well, x method is more scientific", no polls are ever scientific. But if Bernie's poll victories are just his fans spamming them, then why aren't people doing the same for Hillary? Why aren't they organizing and doing this to win any poll? Or at least to come closer than 10-80

First of all, Hilary is generally winning in the polls I see, and I'm genuinely curious where you're getting the polls you talk about. I get most of mine from RealClearPolitics, so look at that to see where I get my info.

Secondly, Bernie's fans are a lot more passionate than those of Hilary. Bernie has a very impassioned minority who strongly believe that he is the only person who can help this country, whereas Hilary has a solid majority who aren't riled up or anything but believe she'd make a good President and that Bernie's goals are just unrealistic. That's how I see it, anyway, and it's majorities who win elections, not levels of passion.

 

[flargananddingle]

What's really worrisome isn't that Trump is even still being considered serious, it's that people who know he's an idiot still support him because lolirony. Of course, I don't think this translates to the polls, except in the fact that it makes the Republican party look like a complete joke. "Trump supporters" pouring out of the woodwork really dilutes any positive message that the Republican party may be trying to convey.

People see all of this and automatically assume republicans are racist idiots because, how could anyone support such a moron?

I think people who actually support trump are very few and far between

 

[DM]

I think people who actually support trump are very few and far between

I think you underestimate the amount of racism and low-key white supremacy existing in this country.

 

[PumpedAaron]

I'm a total noob when it comes to politics, but I am really wanting to cast my first vote during this election, and I gotta admit, My dad has been getting pretty animated in political discussions when it comes to Trump. He feels really convinced that the media has set itself up to be an enemy to Trump and give him bad press.

As for me, myself. I only just started looking up political information on the candidates during this Thanksgiving, and only on the Republican side, at the moment. There seem to be a whooole lot more people running for office than I could possibly imagine!! I don't know if I'll be able to get all the info I need to make an informed choice come election time... politics looks like a difficult endeavor, for voters and campaign runners alike.

Hmm. I'm sorry I couldn't say something more deeply relevant to this topic. I seem to be speaking in very broad terms at the moment, but what else can I do, with my lack of knowledge?

 

[toshimelonhead]

I find it incredibly funny that the big name corporate donors of the Republican Party are libertarian, while most of the top Republican presidential candidates at the moment are on the edge of fascism.

 

[R-B-Y]

-he wants to build a giant wall separating Mexico and America
-he wants to ban all Muslims
-he has his own brand of vodka
-he wants to ban the Internet
Just to name a few. Seriously, why is this guy even taken seriously? He'll probably ruin the economy and start a war in the process

 

[Layell]

He'll probably ruin the economy and start a war in the process

To be fair republicans are rather good at both of these.

He feels really convinced that the media has set itself up to be an enemy to Trump and give him bad press.

Hmm. I'm sorry I couldn't say something more deeply relevant to this topic. I seem to be speaking in very broad terms at the moment, but what else can I do, with my lack of knowledge?

Look up direct quotes of what Trump has said, research some of Trumps many bankruptcies, and what even prominent Conservatives have said against him. Read about all the candidates to inform yourself and make the best vote you feel you can.

 

[toshimelonhead]

I wonder how much of Trump's popularity comes from the same people who write in Mickey Mouse every presidential election.

 

[verbatim]

As for me, myself. I only just started looking up political information on the candidates during this Thanksgiving, and only on the Republican side, at the moment. There seem to be a whooole lot more people running for office than I could possibly imagine!! I don't know if I'll be able to get all the info I need to make an informed choice come election time... politics looks like a difficult endeavor, for voters and campaign runners alike.

DW about it, there's a stupid amount of republican candidates this year.

http://www.ontheissues.org is pretty good for giving unbiased info on all candidates, in that it just says what their positions are on issues.

Okay, those two and most owned by her. Only polls that called about a hundred prepared voters went in her favor. Mind you, I don't think for a minute polls are the same thing as votes. People will be honest in polls but then vote for whoever they think has the best chance of winning without also being Hitler due to first past the post. And before you say "well, x method is more scientific", no polls are ever scientific. But if Bernie's poll victories are just his fans spamming them, then why aren't people doing the same for Hillary? Why aren't they organizing and doing this to win any poll? Or at least to come closer than 10-80

Predictwise is an algorithmic tracker that takes a lot of it's data from betwise, a UK corporation where people bet on the outcome of political elections, might be more up your alley.

 

[Martin]

I've just clocked that a buttload of his policies have actually happened as a result of corrupt or flawed leading bodies in the past right across the globe. Gonna use RedBlueYellow12's list for comparisons:

- wants to build a giant wall between America and Mexico (just like the Berlin wall, which came about as a result of the GDR (the Soviet-occupied sector of Berlin) claiming that NATO and West Germany were fascists)

-wants to ban all muslims (literally what hitler did to the jews and what happened in Jerusalem during the crusades due to the corruption of the church and European kings)

-wants to ban the internet (just like North Korea's ban on the viewing of anything unapproved by and the large disconnect from the rest of the world in the Japanese Bakunatsu era)

These are just taking the policies that RBY12 mentioned, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if other policies can also be compared to past events.

 

[Stallion]

Us Australians thought Tony Abbott was our worst prime minister in our history (Google him, he's a pretty shit human being), yet he's not even a tenth as bad as Trump is. Thanks again America for making me appreciate that my country doesn't allow nutjobs to run for office.

 

[PumpedAaron]

So I've been reading up on verbatim 's link about all the political candidates. Its really a great resource, and I want to recommend it but... it seems to cause my Internet to heavily lag. I'm wondering if that could be a problem...

I was able to read some of it and get some helpful info this time, in any case. As long as it doesn't like, infect my computer with a virus or whatever, I'm fine. Say, I hope I'm not the only voting noob trying to take a chance, here. Anybody else feeling what I feel? I think I'd like to be redirected to a broader thread on the 2016 elections...

 

[Kittenpuncher]

I'm starting to wonder whether that guy is even in the race for the sake of getting into office any more, or if he's just trying to see how much of a literal nazi he can be while still having a significant percentage of the population supporting him. At this point, Trump could quote pretty much any tyrant from history and be met with wild cheers from his supporter base. It's beginning to look like a social experiment to expose the flaws of popular democracy and the media circus it has become.

On the other hand, it's a sign of something systemically wrong that he has become this popular in the first place. The other candidates don't draw the same appeal despite (or because?), well, they're not being that crazy. If politics has become all about who can provide the biggest show, something is seriously flawed somewhere.

Trump is likely some sort of sleeper agent for the Democrats. He runs his big fat mouth constantly, so he's all over the media. He's blocking out all of the other candidates by constantly being a massive edgelord. My preferred candidate, Ron Paul, had the best policies and track record of any candidate, but he had to drop out because the media stopped running stories about him so they could focus on trump. If he does get the nomination, (which might not happen if the actual platform committee finally drops him from consideration like they want to) he would suddenly turn his campaign into a total trainwreck, causing Bernie Sanders to win the election. When that happens, lots of facets of the economic and health care systems will be heavily socialized. With how extreme he is, he might even manage to ammend the Constitution, so the changes too our system would be very difficult to change.

Keep in mind, Trump built himself as a liberal until around 2003. His loyalty to the Republican party and conservative values are more than questionable.

Just a message from your friendly neighborhood Kittenpuncher.

 

[jumpluff]

Trump is likely some sort of sleeper agent for the Democrats. He runs his big fat mouth constantly, so he's all over the media. He's blocking out all of the other candidates by constantly being a massive edgelord. My preferred candidate, Ron Paul, had the best policies and track record of any candidate, but he had to drop out because the media stopped running stories about him so they could focus on trump. If he does get the nomination, (which might not happen if the actual platform committee finally drops him from consideration like they want to) he would suddenly turn his campaign into a total trainwreck, causing Bernie Sanders to win the election. When that happens, lots of facets of the economic and health care systems will be heavily socialized. With how extreme he is, he might even manage to ammend the Constitution, so the changes too our system would be very difficult to change.

Keep in mind, Trump built himself as a liberal until around 2003. His loyalty to the Republican party and conservative values are more than questionable.

Just a message from your friendly neighborhood Kittenpuncher.

haha okay I've been avoiding posting about the US election because US electoral politics are painfully myopic in scope but this one is beautiful. establishment democrat candidate hillary clinton is titrating her (already rather conservative and very reaction-based) campaign to match trump's aggressively right one, and pretty much bragging about her human rights violations now to try to match up. I think it's far likelier trump is actually just the rich racist fascist he doesn't hide being, but with the incoherent politics you would expect* (who on earth agrees with all of the values of a single US party platform anyway), and blocking out all other candidates through money, media influence, and because the republicans trotted out a bunch of unusually, even for them, uncharismatic and unimpressive candidates that are pretty much just props for trump's spectacle. also remember that trump is willing to run as an independent; he's no loyal republican, but they're a better platform brand-wise for him to run from than the democrats by far precisely because of his beliefs and policies. just bc trump running as an independent would win the election for (probably clinton) doesn't mean he's doing it to help the democrats, it's basically a threat on his part to the anti-trump republicans because it would help the dems (also claiming he would run as an independent is a very effective stunt). so no he's not a good republican, but he's not a democrat either. his non-loyalist behaviour is entirely for his own interests and is part of the appeal to the disenchanted racists who feel their shit isn't appropriately represnted in US parliament or by the GOP.

you're also assuming sanders gets the nomination, which is extremely up in the air. sanders's (relatively extreme for the US, conservative for any socdem party) platform would be blocked for any extremity, it's not like his sheer force of radicalism gives him the power to spontaneously force enough states to ratify constitutional amendments (let alone ignore parliamentary procedure to push through shit, given the balance of power in congress is likely to remain 'balanced' and thus an impediment). if anything, a spontaneous show of radicalism would prompt resistance, because you realise sanders is at heart a guy who thinks significant change can be accomplished incrementally through the parliament and not going to install a dictatorship. massive regime changes need to be aided by the force of some powerful group (just ask the US military, they're very good at doing it to other countries to protect western interests) and the US parliament is designed to be sluggish and protect the status quo while there is not remotely enough support of the people probably to even get the guy elected.

you might as well say clinton is a sleeper republican designed to destroy sanders honestly, her values align just as well when they're staying still, but she's obviously not.

* deceptively incoherent populism is a huge part of fascism anyway

also yes trump is drawing an unusual proportion of media attention, but ron paul is the epitome of 'been there, done that', i'm sorry. i doubt the media would find him interesting as a mainstream candidate anyway even if he weren't a retired has-been. a lot of US electoral politics is pure spectacle and a serially failed candidate is not worth intense focus. he also times his moves terribly to get attention and retired from the republican party in 2015, a terrible move for anyone seeking the republican nomination (or mainstream attention in a 2 party system) after repeatedly not securing it.

if you meant rand, the dude actually running in 2016, he quit after iowa, where ted cruz won anyway, which makes it moot really. rand wants his senate spot back and can't run for both very easily, even with a special rule change just for him

lazy edit: i'm plenty familiar with both pauls, but i'm not sure what it has to do with the easily verifiable fact that ron paul wasn't running in 2016 and expressed his intentions not to in 2015. if you mean rand paul then he was simultaneously running for reelection in the senate and the presidental nomination, and the senate race was a more reliable thing that was being detracted from by his presidential campaign (which was doing worse than cruz/rubio/kasich/possibly even carson, so he can't blame trump). also ron paul is a member of the libertarian party again as of 2015 lol he was not running for the repub nom or even for the lib party.

 

[Kittenpuncher]

What do you know about his policies? Just wondering. He was actually running for the 2016 race, in case you didn't know. Honestly if you think he is just some generic filler option you probably payed no attention to him.

But yeah, trump is going to split the Republican vote, big time. A lot of people might give up on the party entirely if he wins the nomination. If you think the average Ted Cruz voter is comfortable having Trump running the country...

Lots of conservatives would like to sort our current problems out with civil war. I myself feel like I'm watching a trainwreck, and the train is going to auschwitz.

I kinda doubt most of the people who are voting for trump have voted since, like, 1980-1990, because this sudden surge in people who are unbothered by some pretty dangerous stuff is pretty unexpected, considering the last two or three election cycles

 

[Heavyweapons Mann]

I like my idea of if he wins the election, I go to Canada. Next thing you know, Trump will allow a man to beat his wife more often than on a Sunday on a courthouse step in West Virginia, and he's as bad as Kim Jong Un, maybe even worse.

 

[Kittenpuncher]

Is that what worldstarhiphop shows these days?
I don't see Donald Trump being bowed to, honestly (but I bet it's a stretch goal)

Thanks for reminding me that Donald Trump might wind up in charge of our nuclear stockpile. Anyone know a bank that will finance a nuclear bunker in the woods?

 

[faint]

What do you know about his policies? Just wondering. He was actually running for the 2016 race, in case you didn't know. Honestly if you think he is just some generic filler option you probably payed no attention to him.

But yeah, trump is going to split the Republican vote, big time. A lot of people might give up on the party entirely if he wins the nomination. If you think the average Ted Cruz voter is comfortable having Trump running the country...

Lots of conservatives would like to sort our current problems out with civil war. I myself feel like I'm watching a trainwreck, and the train is going to auschwitz.

I kinda doubt most of the people who are voting for trump have voted since, like, 1980-1990, because this sudden surge in people who are unbothered by some pretty dangerous stuff is pretty unexpected, considering the last two or three election cycles

Is your first para about rand paul? If so you're pretty wrong about him not being a filler candidate. He had 0 chance of winning this election and probably only ran since Kentucky is a caucus state which allowed for him to run for pres and senate reelection.

Also, Trump is not going to split the republican vote. He's the definition of an anti-establishment candidate so naturally his party hates him, but he's everything our racist people want to hear and that's why he's doing so well. MAYBE when rubio drops out after losing florida and endorses cruz things will shake up a bit, but even then who the fuck cares when they're both idiots.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

I personally cant wait until this man wins the general election, unironically speaking

 

[TheRationalDove]

Politics are tough. If there is anything I have been trying to go in this election is encourage people to vote in the primaries and in the general election. Voting is really important, and I really don't like it when people don't vote because they either don't think their vote matters or they don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils. Honestly, by not voting, you are not contributing your voice. And so what if you are voting for the lesser of two evils. It's still not as bad. Do you want the worst candidate to have a chance at winning? Voting is a collective activity that requires everyone's oarticipation. No one's vote is supposed to individually matter anyway.