-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)
- Thread starter Bughouse
- Start date
- Status
And it is because of these people that I'm left with a decision that I have to make that leaves me sick to my stomach.
That's actually a good question, but the last straw that caused me to vote against Trump was his proposal to throw out the Paris agreement (which was hard fought as it was).
From what I've read on his campaign site, he doesn't seem interested in trying to address climate change:
"Is the climate changing? Probably so. Is man contributing to that change? Probably so. The important question, however, is whether the government’s efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the marketplace in order to impact that change are cost-effective — or effective at all. Given the realities of global energy and resource use, there is little evidence that the burden being placed on Americans is making a difference that justifies the cost."
This is where we disagree, and as someone who lives in Florida, where I could not only swear that it is getting hotter year by year, I also fear that the melting ice caps could cause Florida to be flooded by the once frozen ice caps. Even if Central Florida is safe, (and I don't know), and rather not take any chances, and Miami and the beaches most certainly aren't. I have a lot personally riding on the sea levels NOT raising too much!
I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who is not with me on this issue, and Bernie put it right when he said that it is a threat to national security. If he changes his position on the issue (or this wasn't his final say), and we can get enough Bernie and Trump supporters (like millions. It will need to be a political revolution), then that will be enough to make me more than happy to vote for him.
I also need to make a risk-benefit analysis. Is he worth the risk of Trump getting into office? Will there even be enough people voting for him (which will need to be at least half the voters, which=hundreds of millions of people)
All that said, I cannot state how much I appreciate the sentiment, and I admire how you've chosen a candidate you like, and plan to stick with him. I'll still read over his campaign site's position on issues, like the other independent and third party candidates, but I doubt that Gary Johnson is the right candidate for me.
Last edited:
Bernie needs to drop out. He just quite simply lost and him still being in and attacking Clinton is not good for trying to defeat Trump.
This politco article was quite interesting too. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041
This politco article was quite interesting too. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-campaign-last-days-224041
I agree, and I'm a supporter who does not look forward to voting against Trump.
But it's over. It was rigged against people like him, he did well (far better than expected), but he lost, and the system and the people who rigged it won this round. He can't possibly win, even if all 500 super delegates went to his side!
Resistance is futile! He'd be better off trying to use his position as Senator to campaign against money in politics, and hopefully pave the way for others like him 4 years from now. I'm sure he could find something more productive to do at this point, because short of Hillary falling seriously ill or dropping dead (or quitting), he's never going to become President!
One must be wise enough to know when to pull out, and realize when they've lost. And he's lost! He doesn't have to like it, and neither do my fellow supporters, but we do have to accept it!
How was it rigged against him though? You could say that democrats wanted Hillary to win (which was true via endorsements) and the whole debates being on weekends and stuff, but otherwise everything was fair? Contrary to popular belief, he got plenty media attention starting this year and people heard his message.... doesn't mean people were going to agree with it (He is a democratic socialist after all and that doesn't resonate with all democrat voters given the diverse coalition of dem supporters). People could argue that "oh we need open primaries cause it's disenfranchising voters" but everyone knew the rules ahead of time. Many people were just too lazy to switch in time or didn't read the rules as most states kept the deadlines open for switching affliation quite late except for a few states like New York. In fact, Bernie did best in the method that surpresses the most vote caucus's!. If you wanna look at the difference between a caucus and a primary, just look at ND and SD :P
While it's clear to me that Democratic elected officials wanted Hillary to win, I don't actively believe they were trying to "rig" it against him because at the end of the day, people voted and and the results were counted and more people just simply wanted Hillary (which is shocking to young people in particular because they don't "know" any Hillary supporters). In the areas with the most controversial "voter fraud" moments, it can actually be summed up by Republican attempts to lower the amount of voting locations (Arizona) a mistake in a high minority area that actually probably hurt Clinton more (Brooklyn), strict voter I.D laws in Wisc and other states with similar laws that effect minorities more which again hurts Clinton. It's actually interesting that when you look at the true voter disenfranchisement, it actually hurts Clinton just as much if not MORE then Sanders.
Sorry for ranting, but I just hate the notion that Bernie only lost because the system was rigged against him. It's just a fact that more democrats wanted Hillary and so she won the nomination for the democratic party. Sanders hasn't even been a democrat for 1 full year yet lol and he's wondering why LONG TIME democratic voters aren't recepetive to him.... hm!
While it's clear to me that Democratic elected officials wanted Hillary to win, I don't actively believe they were trying to "rig" it against him because at the end of the day, people voted and and the results were counted and more people just simply wanted Hillary (which is shocking to young people in particular because they don't "know" any Hillary supporters). In the areas with the most controversial "voter fraud" moments, it can actually be summed up by Republican attempts to lower the amount of voting locations (Arizona) a mistake in a high minority area that actually probably hurt Clinton more (Brooklyn), strict voter I.D laws in Wisc and other states with similar laws that effect minorities more which again hurts Clinton. It's actually interesting that when you look at the true voter disenfranchisement, it actually hurts Clinton just as much if not MORE then Sanders.
Sorry for ranting, but I just hate the notion that Bernie only lost because the system was rigged against him. It's just a fact that more democrats wanted Hillary and so she won the nomination for the democratic party. Sanders hasn't even been a democrat for 1 full year yet lol and he's wondering why LONG TIME democratic voters aren't recepetive to him.... hm!
It was the little things and big things that ensured that Bernie wasn't going to win. Going up against a brand name like Clinton, it appears that the news media is surprised he did as well as he did.
I've heard the point that there are people with voter's regret who would have voted for him if they had heard about him and his message, especially in the earlier state primaries. And Sanders didn't do well enough to reach out to minorities. Makes me wonder what could have been.
And yes, I do see closed primaries as undemocratic, especially when us independents are supposed to vote on the same candidates that was had no input in choosing. I see voting as a form of free speech, a way of saying "I want this candidate to go forward to the next process", and when billionaires can spend as much money as they please on their candidates of choice as a form of free speech, it seems even insulting that I wasn't allowed to vote for Sanders. If I had known that I had to register as a Democrat, I would have, but I didn't, and not everyone knows that registering as an Independent means you can get turned away or loose your right to vote for a presidential hopeful. Every vote can make a difference, and when you have problems like New York and Arizona, it skews the results, and leaves the legitimacy of the results in question, something I don't think anyone has.
To be fair, he does have issues. Free college would probably be unrealistic. He might be able to lower tuition and address the debt, but that is probably about it. One must not overextend oneself, and not be able to deliver. Better to lowball be somewhat conservative in your promises, and then surprise everyone with better than you promised, IMO. And the right people in congress would need to be voted in and out, because many in congress would not want anything to do with any policies that could cause annoyance for those holding their checks (campaign finance reform, if not limited to merely the Presidential level, which it shouldn't, taxing Wall Street, raising the minimum wage; Wall Street, the big banks, and Corporate America would be fighting tooth and nail to prevent such policies from ever seeing action).
Quite frankly, if so many of the Republican candidates weren't so terrible, Trump might not be where he is. The fact that his opponents dropped out so much earlier than before the final voting is a testament to how disliked establishment Republican have become. Then again, Hillary and Trump are some of the most disliked major candidates in history, so that's saying something.
Oh, and love your sig BTW! And no worries about the rant. I do that too you know.
I've heard the point that there are people with voter's regret who would have voted for him if they had heard about him and his message, especially in the earlier state primaries. And Sanders didn't do well enough to reach out to minorities. Makes me wonder what could have been.
And yes, I do see closed primaries as undemocratic, especially when us independents are supposed to vote on the same candidates that was had no input in choosing. I see voting as a form of free speech, a way of saying "I want this candidate to go forward to the next process", and when billionaires can spend as much money as they please on their candidates of choice as a form of free speech, it seems even insulting that I wasn't allowed to vote for Sanders. If I had known that I had to register as a Democrat, I would have, but I didn't, and not everyone knows that registering as an Independent means you can get turned away or loose your right to vote for a presidential hopeful. Every vote can make a difference, and when you have problems like New York and Arizona, it skews the results, and leaves the legitimacy of the results in question, something I don't think anyone has.
To be fair, he does have issues. Free college would probably be unrealistic. He might be able to lower tuition and address the debt, but that is probably about it. One must not overextend oneself, and not be able to deliver. Better to lowball be somewhat conservative in your promises, and then surprise everyone with better than you promised, IMO. And the right people in congress would need to be voted in and out, because many in congress would not want anything to do with any policies that could cause annoyance for those holding their checks (campaign finance reform, if not limited to merely the Presidential level, which it shouldn't, taxing Wall Street, raising the minimum wage; Wall Street, the big banks, and Corporate America would be fighting tooth and nail to prevent such policies from ever seeing action).
Quite frankly, if so many of the Republican candidates weren't so terrible, Trump might not be where he is. The fact that his opponents dropped out so much earlier than before the final voting is a testament to how disliked establishment Republican have become. Then again, Hillary and Trump are some of the most disliked major candidates in history, so that's saying something.
Oh, and love your sig BTW! And no worries about the rant. I do that too you know.
It's not a coincidence that the day before the last big push of primaries, dozens of media outlets pre-declared Hillary the presumptive winner on the merit of super-delegates and the margin of a single vote. That's been their tactic this entire campaign. Get people to vote for Hillary by telling them that she's winning anyway. Very easy to do when Sanders didn't hit his stride early due to lack of knowledge about him, and 500 superdelegates padding her numbers. Could you guess how many people I personally know who thought that extra 500 was popular vote assigned delegates?
Mid-campaign, the time that Sanders actually had the majority of people supporting him damn near everywhere he went, his wins were constantly undermined by unyielding superdelegates and proportional delegates (that part isn't rigged, but it allowed the dems to keep claiming that Hillary was decisively winning after Bernie had won 9 states in a row). And that brings us to closed primaries, which definitely are enemies to contender candidates and to voter education in general. The fact is that the registration for the New York primary closed before Sanders caught fire with state after state win. That's why you saw crowds that dwarfed Hillary's and still saw a loss. And in keeping with their strategy, New York was a decisive victory for Clinton if there ever was one.
What could Bernie do? In spite of raising far more small money than her (and let's be absolutely real here, I may have voted for a socialist, but nothing shows that Bernie had more popular support in America than that he was a product more people were literally buying), that doesn't amount to so much when major networks were so biased in Hillary's favor. It seemed like Bernie got a big push when Trump became presumptive nominee, after all, it's hard to deny that he had a better, if not the only chance of beating Trump. And that's when Bernie finally got some news publication support, but nothing network level. Plenty were urging people and the DNC to consider that we need the best chance of beating Trump we could get. It's ironic that early conspiracy theories saw Trump as a plant to make Hillary president, as now that's the opposite of what is happening.
Bernie does need to stop fighting Hillary though. Not for her sake, or the DNC, fuck them. But so that when she loses, she will have no excuse and no one will want her back in four years. Actually having Bernie as president never would have amounted to much. The important part of his campaign was the idea that what the American people want is changing, and it needs to keep changing over four years. Let's just hope Trump doesn't keep his word on just about anything he has said.
Last edited:
He shouldn't drop until the DNC so his hard-earned delegated get to make policy adjustments moving forward. Really, I would prefer him to run HRC into the ground in the general election to send a message to the DNC: If you screw a candidate like you screwed Bernie, you will not win the election. Forcing independent voters to either be democrats or not have their votes count, constantly changing registration status of voters to keep turnout as low as possible, fraud where Bill was blocking polling stations, fraud where we can't get hard numbers in caucuses even though they should exist, and honestly disappearing votes all are reasons I'd like to see Bernie take the DNC down this year.
If he lets this stand, the next outside candidate like him will lose to the same methods. The Dem Party needs to be taught a lesson and I'm willing to vote Trump solely to help teach them that.
And sorry to Gary Johnson, but I really dislike libertarian economic policy. I might've voted for Ron Paul had he made it but I certainly won't vote for someone who has any less integrity and comes from that fringe-wing economic policy.
If he lets this stand, the next outside candidate like him will lose to the same methods. The Dem Party needs to be taught a lesson and I'm willing to vote Trump solely to help teach them that.
And sorry to Gary Johnson, but I really dislike libertarian economic policy. I might've voted for Ron Paul had he made it but I certainly won't vote for someone who has any less integrity and comes from that fringe-wing economic policy.
I mean Hillary won because she amassed a large delegate lead in Southern States while she had a massive name recognition advantage, and Bernie's momentum caught on too late. Which is another way of saying 'the people don't want Bernie' I guess, though I think there's more to it then that.
Either way it's silly to drop out until the convention due to the fact that it looks more and more likely Hillary will get indicted with each passing day.
Either way it's silly to drop out until the convention due to the fact that it looks more and more likely Hillary will get indicted with each passing day.
I'm pretty sure media reports that clinton has "already won" have the reverse effect, motivating Bernie voters to prove them wrong and embarrass clinton and the media, while simultaneously making it appear less necessary to clinton supporters to show up and vote...
Conspiracy theories about Clinton control of the media or voter fraud just make me seethe. They are so stupid. I saw an article today where a Sanders supporter alleged massive widespread electronic voter fraud saying, "They have algorithms." I mean really.
Conspiracy theories about Clinton control of the media or voter fraud just make me seethe. They are so stupid. I saw an article today where a Sanders supporter alleged massive widespread electronic voter fraud saying, "They have algorithms." I mean really.
Conspiracies are secret. Major media donations to her campaign are not.
"I mean really"
At no time in my life have the news networks been accused of being unbiased. Now it's silly to say otherwise?
edit: It'd be more accurate to say that the media has a stake in controlling her, not the other way around. Same effect on the campaign.
I'm fairly certain if saying Clinton had already won would've had the reverse effect on primaries, they wouldn't have said that. It isn't a conspiracy that large news organizations prefer candidates who work in the interest of large organizations. But I don't have an issue with that, I have an issue with all the delegate proceedings in the states. Too many rule adjustments the year of to benefit Clinton through it. Yeah it's a private party, but these parties unfortunately hold a stranglehold on the government. Due to that alone, I'd rather see them regulated heavily (as in subject to internal voting audits and expected to be held to the same standards as general elections). Certain happenings (specifically Bill Clinton's blocking of a polling locations) that are illegal in a general election shouldn't have a blind eye turned on them just because it's a private party.
From what little I've researched, I think that only Time Warner, who owns NBC (I think, I honestly don't remember) has made campaign contributions, though I haven't been all that thorough to be honest. I guess that if/when she gets into office, she could do...something for them? Or veto legislation they don't like?
And I also can't figure out why the whole media would want to perpetuate a conspiracy/be biased, unless they are each owned by wealthy individuals, or friends of Corporate America, and somehow benefit (tax cuts for them, I guess?).
I mean, I doubt the wealthy corporate rats (I refuse to call them the wealthy elite, because they don't deserve to be called elite in any fashion) stick out for each other just to stick out for each other. They are greedy and only think about themselves after all.
And I also can't figure out why the whole media would want to perpetuate a conspiracy/be biased, unless they are each owned by wealthy individuals, or friends of Corporate America, and somehow benefit (tax cuts for them, I guess?).
I mean, I doubt the wealthy corporate rats (I refuse to call them the wealthy elite, because they don't deserve to be called elite in any fashion) stick out for each other just to stick out for each other. They are greedy and only think about themselves after all.
Momentum doesn't exist and Bernie/Hillary never had any. Sure some people might've voted for Hillary based of off "name recoginition"..... or the fact that people just liked her policies more and don't want socialism? There's that too along with the fact the Clintons have been doing public service and doing stuff for miniorties for 30 years and Bernie hasn't made those connections. That's also part of the reason people would prefer Hillary, they've seen both her and her husband doing stuff for minorities and other people and they know change can happen. With Bernie being in congress for 30 years (!) they haven't seen any of that and in actuality he hasn't done anything. Minorities in Vermont go to Senator Leahy instead because Bernie doesn't listen to them :/
Oddish that statement is so full of holes.
Bernie was working for minorities, but he never had the name recognition Clinton did while he was doing it. To deny that Bernie has been doing public service during and before his congressional terms is unfortunately showing a great lack of knowledge. After voter suppression for Bush in Florida, there was a meeting held by the black congressmen and women at the time on what should be the next step forward. Only one white man/woman showed, that being Bernie Sanders. He, along with the other minority leaders, worked to try and resolve the issue properly. This is one example of his public service, which dates back to the sit-ins during his time in Chicago. Sure he lives in a rather white state, but he has made attempts constantly to stand up for minorities even though income inequality is what he really wants to focus on.
Clinton also hasn't done anything that doesn't benefit her, for example crossing a picket line Bill Clinton organized to go visit a museum. This is something she talked about in one of her biographies. http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18841/hillary_rodham_bill_clinton_and_the_1971_yale_strike Add to it her stance of minorities in the early 90s (Superpredators, calling for increased time for possession of drugs which disproportionately attacked minority neighborhoods) and I really question what work she did for them. Bill rode JFK's wave of new age democrats to pick up the black vote and Bill honestly did nothing for them. Minorities of sexuality? Don't ask, don't tell and 'protect the sanctity of marriage'. How about gender? From the story where Clinton told a 12 year old girl that she was making her rape up due to some deviant sexual fantasies or how Clinton attacked all of the women Clinton raped/had sex with, she's shoddy there to say the least.
Buuuut sure Bernie hasn't done anything, I guess. It sounds really easy to say.
Bernie was working for minorities, but he never had the name recognition Clinton did while he was doing it. To deny that Bernie has been doing public service during and before his congressional terms is unfortunately showing a great lack of knowledge. After voter suppression for Bush in Florida, there was a meeting held by the black congressmen and women at the time on what should be the next step forward. Only one white man/woman showed, that being Bernie Sanders. He, along with the other minority leaders, worked to try and resolve the issue properly. This is one example of his public service, which dates back to the sit-ins during his time in Chicago. Sure he lives in a rather white state, but he has made attempts constantly to stand up for minorities even though income inequality is what he really wants to focus on.
Clinton also hasn't done anything that doesn't benefit her, for example crossing a picket line Bill Clinton organized to go visit a museum. This is something she talked about in one of her biographies. http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18841/hillary_rodham_bill_clinton_and_the_1971_yale_strike Add to it her stance of minorities in the early 90s (Superpredators, calling for increased time for possession of drugs which disproportionately attacked minority neighborhoods) and I really question what work she did for them. Bill rode JFK's wave of new age democrats to pick up the black vote and Bill honestly did nothing for them. Minorities of sexuality? Don't ask, don't tell and 'protect the sanctity of marriage'. How about gender? From the story where Clinton told a 12 year old girl that she was making her rape up due to some deviant sexual fantasies or how Clinton attacked all of the women Clinton raped/had sex with, she's shoddy there to say the least.
Buuuut sure Bernie hasn't done anything, I guess. It sounds really easy to say.
Clinton's policies/views on crime are disproportionately antagonistic towards the well-being of minorities. You can see for yourself. These policies are not beneficial if her goal was to help minorities; band-aid policies elsewhere are not the solution, either.
I also find it hilarious how Clinton is lauded for her work with civil rights and Sanders is criticized for it. How can such a straight-forward history be so twisted?
TIL that crowd size is indicative of how many votes someone gets! Bernie supporters are just more openly PASSIONATE about him which is fine, but that doesn't mean that he's gonna get more votes than Hillary. The fact is, many Hillay supporters just don't go to rallies and she knows this herself and instead focus's on meeting local leaders and other people. I do agree that people WANT change (Hence the rise of both Trump and Sanders) but for differing reasons.
All of these rules are at state level (regarding voter deadlines and stuff) have ALWAYS been the rules and people should've taken the time to bother knowing about them. I do believe that New York's voter registration deadline was harsh, but my point is that the rules have always been there and that's the price you pay for not knowing the rules and choosing a party. Regarding the whole "New York voter registration was closed after Sanders was winning state after state", everyone KNEW Sanders would win those states months ago (hint, white people). It's just down to demographics, Bernie wins states with white people while Clinton wins more diverse states with larger minority populations. The "momentum" had nothing to do with it it's just demographics.
People want change yes, but the problem is our governement is set up on a way where compromise is needed to achieve law and sadly that's not happening as the GOP has gotten more and more stubborn and blocking everything Obama does. It's sad that people are overlooking everything achieved under Obama because of the overlying negatavity caused by congress (republicans) and are now blaming democrats for it. It's also sad to see people hating on "establishment" Democrats despite them fighting for change over the past 20+ years. It's the Democrats fighting for min wage, minority rights, gay rights, womens health, wall street reforms, etc and yet now they are being demoninzed by a man who hasn't even been a Democrat for over a year. It's just sad to see so many "liberal" people turned against Democrats for silly reasons despite the platforms being so similar (and no really Bernie and Hillary's platform shares a lot of similarities).
Hopefully everything will cool over by november but it's still sad to see so many people upset @ democrats for imo, silly reasons.
*Snaps finger*
Yes, that's it! We know that CNN has Hillary in their pocket.
I'm just saying the reason that Hillary has such minority support is that Bill and Hillary have been active in the minority community for decades and many African Americans enjoyed considerable success during the 90's. Yes the crime bill (that Bernie voted for) effected minorities, but the neighbrohoods also became a lot safer and many African American and Hispanic leaders actually enjoyed the benefits of that even if it meant an increased prison population! The crime rates went down and the neighbrohoods became safer. Hillary worked as a Lawyer fighting school segerergation in the 70's and has been working since the start of her career also for minorities. I'm not trying to say Bernie DIDN'T help minorities, just that Hillary has been more vocal during this campaign as well as her career then Bernie has and has made it more of an issue for her. Minorities also feel like they can listen to people like the Clintons more and have seen visible improvement under them. There's a reason they trust them.
There's also the fact that minorities think very highly of President Obama. It's no secret that a Hillary presidency would be similar to Obama's presidency (to the left of it actually on domestic policy and slightly to the right on foreign policy) and minorities want that. They know that fighting against racism and other issues is a LONG HAUL issue and not something just fixed in a revolution. They want more pragmatic and continued slow change which could also be part of the reason they don't trust Sanders or want him. I'm not trying to be hostile but I'm simply giving reasons as to why Hillary does well in diverse states and with minorities and it's not just "name recoginition" and that they don't know Sanders. They know both platforms and the majority simply prefer Hillary to Bernie.
Yes, both CNN and MSNBC's parent companies donated money to her campaign. Granted, Fox does this (Murdoch does this, correction) to a lot of Republican candidates. However, you know these aren't real 'donations'. They DEMAND something in return.
What does Obama have to do with Clinton? Clinton left his cabinet years ago and frankly her SoS policies shouldn't really be used as a guide for other SoS. You talk about people demonizing democrats in office, but I don't see it anywhere. In my opinion, they haven't fought hard enough. None of them work to introduce bills and most of them were fine to see Glass Steagall go (including Clinton). Many of them are DINO and that's the kind of shit we don't need. Please, if there's Dems that need out (Harry Reid), get them the hell out.
Hopefully none of this cools off. "Oh it's silly to get upset over possible voting suppression and an election primary about as clear as the deep ocean".
I'd like to see you give me some real examples of these general terms you state.
Also, I think Clinton loses the general regardless. Her strongest states in the primaries were in the South, states the dems will never win. Trump was strong everywhere and I expect him to flip a few states that are traditionally blue (I think Michigan might even flip).
I think you underestimate how much the electoral college favors democrats. The "safe" blue states that have voted dem every year since 1992 repersent enough electoral votes that the dems only have to win FLORIDA to win the general election. Republicans have to play a lot more "catch up" and win almost EVERY single swing state in order to win. Additionally, dems can't pass any of that stuff because AGAIN Republican controlled house and now senate. There's no way any of that stuff happens when they're in the minority because people don't vote in midterms. REAL Voter Supression (not just part affliation change deadlines) actually happens in many Red States with stricter voter I.D laws and other ways to discourage/preventing people to vote, dissporportionaly effecting minorities. This so called "voter suppression" is just party rules that have ALWAYS existed and not anything new to destroy Sanders. Additionally, the reduction in polling places in Arizona was because of REPUBLICANS cutting the polling stations, mainly in high minority areas to keep the lines long and prevent people of color from voting so they can mantain their grip on the state. The Democrats didn't have ANYTHING to do about that and that was the most serious case of actual voter suppression during the primary. It's quite amazing how some people appear to be associationg some of these things with the dems when in actuality, they are republican laws in these states passed when Democrats just choose not to come out and vote and gave republicans big majorities in these states.
Additionally regarding coorprate donations, does this mean Obama is corrupt too? He recieved money from the same exact people yet the argument is only used against Clinton like gee I wonder why.......
I get how you're pissed. I get it. That's why I liked your comment (and mentioned instances of voter fraud I wasn't aware of). They're telling those of us who know: nah-nah-na-na, you're going to either vote for this candidate, or you can vote for someone you hate!
But voting for Trump is insanity. Have you seen what he did in Scotland? Or the ongoing Trump University case, where he basically ripped off thousands of people out of tens of thousands of dollars (each). One plaintiff even rescinded her case, due to receiving constant threats to her, her family, and from lawyers, and basically being unable to keep up the fight financially against his legion of lawyers. His stupid fucking University scam, and the resulting lawsuit ruined her life. He is a disgusting pig, just like the other wealthy pigs who are taking our country and democracy apart, and turning it into their own oligarchy where they can do what they please.
And his policies would be disastrous. If he were to instate the policy of a 40% tariff on product from China and Mexico, he'd also need to tax the hell out of American companies that have shipped their jobs there to strong-arm them to come back, or items like clothes and toys that are primarily made there would expensive as hell. Making other countries have their own nukes, or face annihilation, could lead to an arms race to WW-III, or otherwise make him the last President. He doesn't care about you. He doesn't care about me. He doesn't care about anyone but himself!
If you have to protest vote against Hillary, vote for Jill Stein, or write in Andrew Basiago, but for Arceus's sakes, don't vote for Trump!
- Status