Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[veiva]

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.

The crime bill was giant. It covered a lot more than it should have. You can view the text of the bill, if you want. The table of contents alone is massive...

Voting on a bill is more nuanced than the a binary "yes" or "no" may indicate. It would be better to hear Clinton's views and Sander's views on the bill at the time. There can be portions of a bill you support, and portions you don't, but compromise and all that. (I'm aware she was First Lady, and since she wasn't in Congress couldn't vote on the bill. That's not the point.)

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.......

Obama was an establishment candidate. The criticism (accepting corporate donations) is just as valid against him as Clinton. However, Obama is not running for president at the moment.

 

[Ajwf]

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.......

How does Clinton win Florida when Trump is basically a resident there? And this isn't really a standard election: this is an election where both nominees are relatively disliked for many different reasons, and Clinton particularly disliked for scandals as SoS and arming nations that used Clinton foundation weapons for murder. Also, she's been an Armenian genocide denier for far too long.

I don't think Trump is insane, nor do I think he can outright win without support. But I absolutely will do everything in my power to see Hillary lose. To me, both Trump and Clinton are going to show off a lot more moderate statements in the coming months and I actually predict Trump to be more progressive than her in some social issues. I think Hillary is just better at hiding her bigoted ideas than Trump because she checks everything with careful research to how it will affect her public image. We don't need a president like her, who only says and does (The private email servers) what benefits her. HRC has shown no more capacity than Trump to make important decisions.

 

[citro]

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!

Neither of these first two candidates are going to win the election.

Seems like a wasted vote for someone who doesn't want Hillary to win.

 

[JES]

Neither of these first two candidates are going to win the election.

Seems like a wasted vote for someone who doesn't want Hillary to win.

My father has brought up the point so many times that if I voted for either of those candidates in protest/because I trust them better than Hillary, then I'm voting for Trump.

I don't agree with his sentiment, though for those who care, it's gonna be a close election. For those who don't care for/hate both of them: you might as well vote for anyone but them. If you vote for Trump (which I honestly don't know why anyone would, unless they are uninformed), and he gets elected, you'll get what you deserve. Just remember: everyone else will get the same thing.

 

[Oddish is the best]

The crime bill was giant. It covered a lot more than it should have. You can view the text of the bill, if you want. The table of contents alone is massive...

Voting on a bill is more nuanced than the a binary "yes" or "no" may indicate. It would be better to hear Clinton's views and Sander's views on the bill at the time. There can be portions of a bill you support, and portions you don't, but compromise and all that. (I'm aware she was First Lady, and since she wasn't in Congress couldn't vote on the bill. That's not the point.)



Obama was an establishment candidate. The criticism (accepting corporate donations) is just as valid against him as Clinton. However, Obama is not running for president at the moment.

So is the entire dem establishment that's fighting for thing like increased gay and womens rights, minorities, increasing the mininum wage, and attempting to put further regulation on wall street bad now? You realize they can't accomplish these things unless they have a majority in the senate AND the house which they haven't had during the Obama presidency due to a lack of supportin midterm elections >..>



I'm not really sure what you have against the democratic "establishment" but I'd like to hear your problems against them and what you would encourage them to do more since for me (as an LGBT member) they've done a lot for me and I greatly appreciated the so called "establishment" (and I'm including Bernie in that because he has been in congress for 30 years as a liberal vote).

 

[veiva]

Firstly, I have many criticisms of Obama (healthcare, foreign affairs, mass survellience, trade deal, etc). He is minimally different from the last decades of presidents. Bush, Jr. is only an outlier because of the Iraqi War. Secondly, there are several key issues I differ with regarding Sanders, as well, but they're minor in comparison to any establishment candidate or Trump.

So, yes, I do think the Democratic Party is terrible. I think the same for the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party is vaguely liberal. They're more like the Republican Party some decades back (e.g., around the time of Reagan, perhaps a bit further). I believe this has been discussed in this thread, or maybe recent others, prior. Essentially they benefit certain interests (the wealthy and powerful) and garner popular support by partially liberal policies, such as marginally improving LGBT rights or meager efforts in legalization of drugs. The Republican Party benefits the same interests, but garners support through more overt religious appeal and fiscal responsibility and such.

At the end of the day, both parties are only good for a very small segment of the population. You're kidding yourself if you think one is much better than the other. For example, is Dianne Feinstein (D) better than Richard Burr (R)? I feel attempts at promoting one party, or demonizing the other, are no more useful as saying one mob family is better than another. Pointless.

 

[RoadsterUFO]

^Sums up my feelings on both Hillary and Trump. So is anyone else voting 3rd Party this year? Because Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are the only two anti-establishment candidates left in the race. If you're a Bernie person your views would fall symmetrically in line with Jill's, unfortunately though she seems to only have ballot access to 20 states this year. Gary Johnson aligns with Bernie Sanders on the social issues but takes a 180 turn on the economic end, which could be a good or bad thing depending if you happened to be a Bernie supporter who supported him but didn't like his solutions (that imo wouldn't have passed anyway). With that stated, Gary Johnson's currently on 32 state ballots and is just about a lock to get on all 50 by November and at the moment even has a real shot at getting into the debates with Hillary and Trump.

Green Party's pitch to Bernie Sanders supporters - http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegro...ernie_sanders_want_a_real_revolution_20160608

Libertarian Party's pitch to Bernie Sanders supporters - http://www.lp.org/news/press-releas...tent=20160608+GenPR-Sanders+supporters+choice

 

[UncleSam]

I can't vote for an anti-vaxxer, sorry Jill Stein.

I may vote for Gary Johnson but I don't know enough about him to come to a conclusion I do hope that he gets into the national debates though (he's currently polling at ~10% in many national polls and needs to poll at 15%, but he also only has 30% name recognition, which means that if he does get over the hump and get into the debates I suspect he might make the first serious third-party run at the presidency since Ross Perot).

Anyway I think people are overestimating Hillary's weaknesses. It's true that she's a terrible politician, was a terrible Secretary of State, and will probably be a terrible President. But she's running against Donald Trump, and while he was starting to sound a bit more reasonable for like two days after becoming the presumptive nominee, he's rapidly losing support from moderate Republicans and may even face a third-party challenge from the establishment to boot. Hillary will probably win in November and if she does win it'll most likely be comfortably, and then we get to have the first president since Nixon get indicted by the FBI and resign office. I'll be looking hard at who she picks as Vice President because odds are that'll matter a lot more than it would in most years.

 

[Ajwf]

The green party is anti-vaccine, but I don't think Jill Stein is. She was asked about it and said something to the effect of 'the green party is pretty far behind' with their ideas there.

The thing about Trump and Hillary in their statements is both of them will become increasingly moderate here. With the election in November, expect purple Florida to be red and the south to stay perfectly red. The thing is, I don't think Hillary can contest Virginia due to her stance on guns and she's going to again have to spend a LOT of money defending blue New York from Trump. If Trump focuses on Ohio in the general, I could see it being a pretty easy sweep for him.

I also believe both candidates are actually going to start saying what they believe, since Hillary isn't progressive at all and Trump isn't traditionally conservative. The last part is still my hope with Trump.

 

[Phione]

The green party is anti-vaccine, but I don't think Jill Stein is. She was asked about it and said something to the effect of 'the green party is pretty far behind' with their ideas there.

The thing about Trump and Hillary in their statements is both of them will become increasingly moderate here. With the election in November, expect purple Florida to be red and the south to stay perfectly red. The thing is, I don't think Hillary can contest Virginia due to her stance on guns and she's going to again have to spend a LOT of money defending blue New York from Trump. If Trump focuses on Ohio in the general, I could see it being a pretty easy sweep for him.

I also believe both candidates are actually going to start saying what they believe, since Hillary isn't progressive at all and Trump isn't traditionally conservative. The last part is still my hope with Trump.

Trump definitely isn't a traditional conservative, but I find it hard to believe that he is some sort of closet progressive or anything. In fact, I find it hard to believe he has any concrete, core beliefs about anything at all, except maybe race, on which subject he is simply appalling. I also find it hard to believe that Trump will pull off an "easy sweep" considering he has the absolute approval ratings with women of any presidential nominee, ever, not to mention his track record with minorities. While I don't think it will be an easy coast to victory for Hillary like some people think, the sheer polling weight against Trump among minorities means he's going to have an extremely tough time flipping swing states, and there's no way in hell he's winning New York. This is the state that Obama won with 62% of the vote. Yes, Trump is from New York, but it's also Hillary's adopted state, and Trump has so far been far more hatable than Romney ever was. Hillary may have some serious issues as a person and as a candidate, but the presidential election and presidency are not about enhancing your moral values. They are about running a country. And so, for the love of <insert your deity here>, if you can't bring yourself to vote for Hillary, at least don't vote for Trump. Because I find it ridiculous that some people think Donald J. Trump would do an excellent job at running the third biggest country in the world after all he's said and done.

 

[UncleSam]

The green party is anti-vaccine, but I don't think Jill Stein is. She was asked about it and said something to the effect of 'the green party is pretty far behind' with their ideas there.

The thing about Trump and Hillary in their statements is both of them will become increasingly moderate here. With the election in November, expect purple Florida to be red and the south to stay perfectly red. The thing is, I don't think Hillary can contest Virginia due to her stance on guns and she's going to again have to spend a LOT of money defending blue New York from Trump. If Trump focuses on Ohio in the general, I could see it being a pretty easy sweep for him.

I also believe both candidates are actually going to start saying what they believe, since Hillary isn't progressive at all and Trump isn't traditionally conservative. The last part is still my hope with Trump.

Well Ohio is sort of like North Carolina - if Trump loses either, it means that the map in general is tilted against him to an extent that he's going to lose no matter what.

Florida, however, seems like a state Trump will do much worse in than most. It's got a large Hispanic population and a relatively low blue-collar population; there's just not that many Democrats who will vote for Trump in Florida. Trump will probably have a better chance of winning Michigan or Pennsylvania than of winning Florida, and in any of those states he's going to face an uphill battle (and will probably lose if he loses in any of them). Clinton has a huge map advantage that effectively makes her the next President unless the country tilts so heavily in Trump's favor that he wins by like 2% in the general vote.

While it would be a sort of poetic justice for the Republicans to win a general vote and lose the presidency after the 2000 election, I think it's unlikely Trump will take more votes than Clinton in any event. New York will not require any defense by Clinton, the number of people who voted her in the primary was almost twice as many as voted for Trump, and she faced a much more stiff primary challenge to boot. Trump might talk a big game about competing in New York or California, but it's really just nonsense. Those states are such blue strongholds that a Ronald Reagan-level support (58%) in the general election still would most likely not win them for the Republicans; the same is true for Republicans in the South. The country is becoming more polarized by the year, and the result is that states which perhaps could've been competitive have become less and less so as time has gone on. Clinton would have to get indicted at a minimum and probably literally arrested and prosecuted to lose New York to Donald Trump.

 

[Ajwf]

Remember that the hispanic population in Florida is Cuban and actually have a strongly negative opinion of illegal immigrants. Florida is really locked against the Dems.

 

[Oddish is the best]

Florida is a swing state and voted Dem in 08 and 2012. It's on the table and is no way "locked" against the dems. Early polling (not accurate but at least something) shows it being very close, indicitive of a swing state :P



The electoral map in general just helps Dems because Republicans have to win more swing states then Dems do because the electoral votes of the "safe" D states outnumber those of the "safe" R states by quite a lot.

 

[JES]

^Sums up my feelings on both Hillary and Trump. So is anyone else voting 3rd Party this year? Because Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are the only two anti-establishment candidates left in the race. If you're a Bernie person your views would fall symmetrically in line with Jill's, unfortunately though she seems to only have ballot access to 20 states this year. Gary Johnson aligns with Bernie Sanders on the social issues but takes a 180 turn on the economic end, which could be a good or bad thing depending if you happened to be a Bernie supporter who supported him but didn't like his solutions (that imo wouldn't have passed anyway). With that stated, Gary Johnson's currently on 32 state ballots and is just about a lock to get on all 50 by November and at the moment even has a real shot at getting into the debates with Hillary and Trump.

Green Party's pitch to Bernie Sanders supporters - http://www.truthdig.com/eartothegro...ernie_sanders_want_a_real_revolution_20160608

Libertarian Party's pitch to Bernie Sanders supporters - http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/bernie-sanders-supporters-have-a-choice-libertarian-johnson-advocates-civil?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Libertarian Party&utm_content=20160608 GenPR-Sanders supporters choice

I feel that way too. Sums up my feelings exactly, which is why I wanted Sanders to win, so I wouldn't have a hard choice to make. But the fact of the matter is that no matter what anybody says, this is going to be a close race, and it would be a disaster if the uninformed of this country got their way, and Trump gets into the oval office. But Clinton is certainly no saint, and I'm not even getting into the NWO conspiracy theories. She lies, flip flops, and does what she wants, and calls it a mistake when it suits here. My President should be someone who I trust and admire. She is neither of those, and I'm sure millions feel the same way.

I want to vote or either Jill Stein or Andrew Basiago, and I haven't quite decided which one, but it's kind of mute point to vote for either one of them, when it can be a vote against Hillary, and a vote for Trump, which is way worse. And the fact that she only has access to 20 states (not even half) means that it is rigged against her. And my vote matters even more, since I live in Florida the Hot, Hellish, Humid Swing State (the frogs love it though)!

My point is, if we vote for a candidate other than Hillary, we'd better be sure we have a good shot at it not backfiring, and delivering our sorry asses into Trump's hands! This is why I've proposed many times that we work together to start a movement online through social media, and seek out like minded individuals. I'm sure that there are many potential Sanders and Trump voters who don't want to vote for either one of them, but feel they are stuck in the rut of voting for the lesser of two evils.

The thing is, how many people would be willing to help me in this monumental task of helping to advertise/nominate/whatever a certain candidate? Who would we all agree on? And we need to convince at least about half of the American population (or whatever percentage votes), which is around 400 million. So we need around either 200 million, or whatever portion of that which votes, or risk accidentally pushing Trump into office. And sorry Trump supporters, but yes, he is this bad. I mean, he kicked people out of their homes in Scotland, and bulldozed their property, just to build an Arceus-damned golf resort for the well-to-do, and showed no remorse for them! He even abandoned the project when opposition mounted against him! This is the sort of person we're talking about here!

So if we want to be activists, and want to do something, we're gonna have a lot of work cut out for us.

 

[RoadsterUFO]

I feel that way too. Sums up my feelings exactly, which is why I wanted Sanders to win, so I wouldn't have a hard choice to make. But the fact of the matter is that no matter what anybody says, this is going to be a close race, and it would be a disaster if the uninformed of this country got their way, and Trump gets into the oval office. But Clinton is certainly no saint, and I'm not even getting into the NWO conspiracy theories. She lies, flip flops, and does what she wants, and calls it a mistake when it suits here. My President should be someone who I trust and admire. She is neither of those, and I'm sure millions feel the same way.

I want to vote or either Jill Stein or Andrew Basiago, and I haven't quite decided which one, but it's kind of mute point to vote for either one of them, when it can be a vote against Hillary, and a vote for Trump, which is way worse. And the fact that she only has access to 20 states (not even half) means that it is rigged against her. And my vote matters even more, since I live in Florida the Hot, Hellish, Humid Swing State (the frogs love it though)!

My point is, if we vote for a candidate other than Hillary, we'd better be sure we have a good shot at it not backfiring, and delivering our sorry asses into Trump's hands! This is why I've proposed many times that we work together to start a movement online through social media, and seek out like minded individuals. I'm sure that there are many potential Sanders and Trump voters who don't want to vote for either one of them, but feel they are stuck in the rut of voting for the lesser of two evils.

The thing is, how many people would be willing to help me in this monumental task of helping to advertise/nominate/whatever a certain candidate? Who would we all agree on? And we need to convince at least about half of the American population (or whatever percentage votes), which is around 400 million. So we need around either 200 million, or whatever portion of that which votes, or risk accidentally pushing Trump into office. And sorry Trump supporters, but yes, he is this bad. I mean, he kicked people out of their homes in Scotland, and bulldozed their property, just to build an Arceus-damned golf resort for the well-to-do, and showed no remorse for them! He even abandoned the project when opposition mounted against him! This is the sort of person we're talking about here!

So if we want to be activists, and want to do something, we're gonna have a lot of work cut out for us.

PM me, I am on board.

 

[Bughouse]

I'm sorry but if you think Trump has a remote chance in New York, you're just tragically misinformed. Any money he spends there will be 100% wasted.

I do agree Florida is in play, despite Latino hatred of Trump. Cubans are definitely a separate voting bloc from most other Latinos in the US. But aside from Florida and Ohio (and North Carolina, which Romney won), I don't see any other traditional swing states that Obama previously won as being in play.

I would be very surprised if Hillary loses any of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, or New Hampshire. All of those states voted for Obama both times and I think all of them in the second election voted for Obama over Romney by a margin of more than 4 points. And with both improving demographics for Dems and hatred of Trump, it's just a massive uphill climb.

The map to get to 270 for Trump is just nigh impossible without some sort of radical shift in demographics and turnout between 2008 and 2012 vs 2016.

 

[Oddish is the best]

I actually think Trump has more of a chance in New Hampshire then VA, PA, and Colorado :O



I also think NC will be very competitive too and current polling shows Clinton with leads (but again it's early so who knows but looks to be competitive)

 

[JES]

I'm hoping that between what he did in Scotland, and his ongoing scam case with Trump University, support will sink faster than the Bismarck. Clinton has plenty of ammunition to use against him. It'd be unwise not to use that against him. Fly in the people who had to fight against Trump in Scotland, and this one lady who had to drop her case against her due to threats to her and her family, harassment from Trump's legion of blood-sucking lawyers (love that line from Jurassic Park), and dwindling finances, and only complete, desperate idiots would vote for that lying scumbag.

And if he were to lose the (well publicized) Trump University case during the election...WOAH NELLIE!!!

I really, really, don't want to vote for Hillary to vote against him. I'd rather vote for anyone but those two. It's like having two parents who are in the middle of a divorce, and you have two choices: you can go with him, who beats you and has a mean temper and thinks he's always right, or you can go with her, and is always drunk, and not always there for you, even though she says she will.

 

[Stratos]

trump has a very good statement about the ongoing trump university case here: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/politics/trump-university-statement.html

if this case sinks him and and hillary's criminal record doesn't sink her, i will be beside myself at corporate america's ability to influence "free" thought.

edit: before someone asks, donald trump has positioned himself against exploitation of poor countries and anti-competitive cronyism, which are cornerstones of corporate america's profit model. of course they're trying to stop him. look at google censoring autocomplete for an example.

 

[Oddish is the best]

Except Hillary hasn't ACTUALLY done any criminal activity. There's an investigation but she hasn't actually comitted any criminal acts (yet I mean she still could be indicted) but she has no criminal record lol. Both of done "shady" stuff though but neither actually have criminal records atm.

 

[RoadsterUFO]

Except Hillary hasn't ACTUALLY done any criminal activity. There's an investigation but she hasn't actually comitted any criminal acts (yet I mean she still could be indicted) but she has no criminal record lol. Both of done "shady" stuff though but neither actually have criminal records atm.

HILLARY CLINTON AND THE CLINTON FOUNDATION EXPOSED

From today, I'm just surprised ABC News covered this. Yeah, don't vote for Hillary at all, at all. Trump either. This is a good reason to vote 3rd Party. Or, just do whatever you want. :p

https://www.facebook.com/shaunking/videos/1066759706696280/

 

[veiva]

edit: before someone asks, donald trump has positioned himself against exploitation of poor countries and anti-competitive cronyism, which are cornerstones of corporate america's profit model. of course they're trying to stop him. look at google censoring autocomplete for an example.

Google search's suggestions don't include searches with negative terms. The video is just as bad as any conspiracy video on YouTube. Classic case of cherry picking, incredibly biased. Two major reasons:

1) There was no control for variables, such as uniquely identifying information (cookies, IP, browser, etc). Google's search results are tuned to profiles. The results of any search engine are also tuned by its users; that's why Bing tends to have more explicit/adult results and suggestions, etc.

2) The samples were purposely controversial and small. Performing the same tests on a larger selection (the current candidates and the most recent presidents of the last 30 years, for example) with the same terms ('cri', 'soc', 'rac', etc) would be better start.

It is clear the conclusion was formed long before any so-called 'tests'. Wikipedia articles on niche, pointless subjects with draconian editors have better standards than that.

 

[Stratos]

http://puu.sh/poa1A/c21af4b5ca.png

http://puu.sh/poa30/69035dd460.png

http://puu.sh/poa4W/350639a59d.png

http://puu.sh/poa75/c9f038945e.png

http://puu.sh/poa7D/efd4c5b8f7.png

http://puu.sh/poa9y/1f1f9e751c.png

is it entirely possible that crooked hillary gets less search traffic than crooked hill post office hours, and that "crooked hillary bernie" gets more search traffic than "crooked hillary"? Maybe, but considering that low energy bush has more search results than low energy bulbs and lying ted is the first result for "lyin" i really dont think thats the case.

edit: sick 7k

 

[veiva]

What are you trying to prove? That does not address 1 & 2. The data is uncontrolled and the tests/samples are completely arbitrary.

Any claims that Google's search suggestions is some Hillary/Google conspiracy are hilariously absurd, sorry.

 

[vonFiedler]

Just playing around with google yourself makes the truth of this pretty obvious.