That's because Trump doesn't HAVE coherent policies. He has stuck to building a wall and keeping Muslims out, as well as a few other things like trade (somewhat), but whenever it suits him, he simply jumps from position to position and denies ever having held another position. Take abortion, for example. Trump had said he was pro-choice for years, but when he realized he was running a campaign in the Republican Party, he flipped and said that women who get an abortion should be "punished". No one can really analyze any of his policies except the wall, because they don't exist. (By the way, the wall has been analyzed, here's a decent piece on it by the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/04/trump-wall-mexico-foreign-policy/475581/)
-
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
Which again, is why we should vote for anyone but them, and spread the message to as many people as we can. I'm sure that at least half of the U.S. population has had it up to here with establishment politics, and Trump is no better. In fact, he might be worse.
Third parties have to earn the vote, though. A protest vote without a purpose isn't a successful protest. Are there any Libertarian or Green Party members in either the House or the Senate? There needs to be cross-party and/or third party appeal in the other branches of government. It is quite clear the Libertarians are trying to gain a base among traditional republicans by running a ticket with 2 former GOP governors. It is apparent that this will not translate into taking the Executive branch. Perhaps they can use this crossroads to put up candidates in other elections to gain a footing in the Washington structure. I really do think the effort they've amassed deserves the country's attention enough to garnish them the support they need to make it to the debate stage.
If we vote together, it will be more than a protest vote. I'm sure there are millions of fellow Americans who feel the same way, but are afraid to vote against either Hillary or Trump because they see either of them as far to much a threat to allow into office, and that by voting for Stein or Johnson, it will indeed only be a protest vote. I'm already a part of three groups on Facebook. I'll admit that my attempts to recruit others to join me has been very slow, but I'll be surprised if most Bernie voters won't be interested when Hillary is confirmed the nominee in July. If things don't take off by August, then yes, I'll agree it's hopeless.
I can't believe I'm counting on millions of people I don't know to join us, so I don't have to vote for Hillary! :p
https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016...ats-hillary-clinton-among-independents-again/
https://libertarianvindicator.com/2...ohnson-polling-at-13-in-battle-ground-states/
You aren't alone, JES. I'm hoping Jill Stein's numbers go up after the Democratic Convention.
- Johnson is beating Hillary among independent voters.
- Johnson is polling in battle ground states at 13%
https://libertarianvindicator.com/2...ohnson-polling-at-13-in-battle-ground-states/
You aren't alone, JES. I'm hoping Jill Stein's numbers go up after the Democratic Convention.
- Johnson is beating Hillary among independent voters.
- Johnson is polling in battle ground states at 13%
Obama is more or less an 'establishment' president (even though he ran on a platform of change in '08) yet he has pretty good approval ratings right now. President Obama, along with other popular Democrats such as Biden and Warren, have endorsed Clinton. And yet 'half of the U.S. population has had it up to here'? What? What do you think the establishment is?
I absolutely do not buy in to the narrative of voting for the lesser of two evils when voting for Clinton. What we would see with Clinton is more or less a continuation of the Obama presidency and I fail to see this as something devastating. I will absolutely not vote for someone who is so anti-science (Stein) or a libertarian (Johnson). I don't see how the Green Party can expect to appeal to young liberals when they are anti-nuclear energy, anti-GMO (not the practices or corporations, like just straight up against all of it), and up until a few months ago supported homeopathy in their platform. Am I supposed to vote for Jill Stein just to not vote for Clinton? Perhaps if the Green Party fielded a candidate who wouldn't be an absolute disaster as president then I would consider otherwise. I do not think Jill Stein has any place on the ballot.
I legitimately don't understand a lot of the hate Clinton gets among young liberal voters. She's very close to Bernie in policy and honestly is much more nuanced in debating and discussing issues. I guess that's just a product of a two-decade republican hate campaign.
I absolutely do not buy in to the narrative of voting for the lesser of two evils when voting for Clinton. What we would see with Clinton is more or less a continuation of the Obama presidency and I fail to see this as something devastating. I will absolutely not vote for someone who is so anti-science (Stein) or a libertarian (Johnson). I don't see how the Green Party can expect to appeal to young liberals when they are anti-nuclear energy, anti-GMO (not the practices or corporations, like just straight up against all of it), and up until a few months ago supported homeopathy in their platform. Am I supposed to vote for Jill Stein just to not vote for Clinton? Perhaps if the Green Party fielded a candidate who wouldn't be an absolute disaster as president then I would consider otherwise. I do not think Jill Stein has any place on the ballot.
I legitimately don't understand a lot of the hate Clinton gets among young liberal voters. She's very close to Bernie in policy and honestly is much more nuanced in debating and discussing issues. I guess that's just a product of a two-decade republican hate campaign.
Well the primary difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is that one is under investigation by the FBI for criminal negligence and the other isn't (and you need simply read the inspector general's report to know that if anyone other than Hillary Clinton had done what she did they'd already be in a prison cell). I'd certainly not recommend voting for Jill Stein to anyone. I guess if people don't like Libertarian policies as a blanket then that's just a difference of ideology.
I'm pretty much going to be voting for Gary Johnson unless he does something really stupid, and I encourage others to look more into his policies. His main problems are name recognition and the fact that the establishment on both sides can't stand him.
I'm pretty much going to be voting for Gary Johnson unless he does something really stupid, and I encourage others to look more into his policies. His main problems are name recognition and the fact that the establishment on both sides can't stand him.
Gen. Petraeus resigned as CIA director immediately for covering up an affair.
Hillary willfully ignored security protocols for the purpose of circumventing the law and appears to have tried to cover up multiple email hacks. She ran the server and deleted emails to deliberately avoid FOIA requests, and then lied about the contents of the deleted emails.
This is on top of what appear to be questionable appointments as secretary of state. Questionable positions on trade (TPP), Election finance (Super PACs, DNC funding scheme), ties to Wall Street, Pharmaceutical companies.
Obama campaigned on considerable change and we got pretty typical establishment politics. Hillary is campaigning on pretty typical establishment politics (If she's campaigning on anything at all). That's the best we can hope for from her. She is not close to Bernie on policy until you consider the alternative is burn everything up.
Sam:
How can you point to a 2-decade republican hate campaign as the reason young liberals are critical of Hillary? How many youth do you think cared about some pundit's opinion of the presidents wife when they were in pre-school? Even high school? If you want to blame anything, blame Bernie and blame the drawn out primary process. It's hard to paint Hillary as a palatable progressive when there's an actual progressive in the race.
Hillary willfully ignored security protocols for the purpose of circumventing the law and appears to have tried to cover up multiple email hacks. She ran the server and deleted emails to deliberately avoid FOIA requests, and then lied about the contents of the deleted emails.
This is on top of what appear to be questionable appointments as secretary of state. Questionable positions on trade (TPP), Election finance (Super PACs, DNC funding scheme), ties to Wall Street, Pharmaceutical companies.
Obama campaigned on considerable change and we got pretty typical establishment politics. Hillary is campaigning on pretty typical establishment politics (If she's campaigning on anything at all). That's the best we can hope for from her. She is not close to Bernie on policy until you consider the alternative is burn everything up.
Sam:
How can you point to a 2-decade republican hate campaign as the reason young liberals are critical of Hillary? How many youth do you think cared about some pundit's opinion of the presidents wife when they were in pre-school? Even high school? If you want to blame anything, blame Bernie and blame the drawn out primary process. It's hard to paint Hillary as a palatable progressive when there's an actual progressive in the race.
ok...but let's be realistic about this: this investigation has, again, been on going for over a year no with no leads whatsoever or any evidence towards any criminal wrongdoing. the FBI has interviewed her aides several times over, in which they say the same things anyway, which means either the FBI is going in circles or Clinton did absolutely nothing wrong. At this point, it's leaning towards the latter, becuase they have nothing really to work with.
they're at the stage now where they're planning an interview with clinton herself, which is really code for "we're just going to talk to clinton for the sake of wrapping things up and being extra sure", and clinton is going to say the same thing she's said 300 times over since the beginning, the FBI, will, again, with have nothing to work with, and just close the case for good.
how do you expect this to turn out differently?
they're at the stage now where they're planning an interview with clinton herself, which is really code for "we're just going to talk to clinton for the sake of wrapping things up and being extra sure", and clinton is going to say the same thing she's said 300 times over since the beginning, the FBI, will, again, with have nothing to work with, and just close the case for good.
how do you expect this to turn out differently?
Last edited:
billymills
What I meant is Clinton has been in the spotlight for 20 years and pretty much anything that can be dug out about her has been out in the open for some time. If Bernie was the nominee you can bet there would be a lot of digging and we would be talking about the time he said breadlines were a good thing, or that sexually repressing your daughter causes breast cancer.
I just don't get why Clinton campaigning on establishment politics is such an issue when we've had an establishment president for the past 8 years that is generally liked. People get the idea she isn't trustworthy when a study showed she was the most honest of all the candidates (in March). I can understand not calling her as progressive as Sanders because she is not, but not an actual progressive? Are you serious? What is your benchmark for progressive?
What I meant is Clinton has been in the spotlight for 20 years and pretty much anything that can be dug out about her has been out in the open for some time. If Bernie was the nominee you can bet there would be a lot of digging and we would be talking about the time he said breadlines were a good thing, or that sexually repressing your daughter causes breast cancer.
I just don't get why Clinton campaigning on establishment politics is such an issue when we've had an establishment president for the past 8 years that is generally liked. People get the idea she isn't trustworthy when a study showed she was the most honest of all the candidates (in March). I can understand not calling her as progressive as Sanders because she is not, but not an actual progressive? Are you serious? What is your benchmark for progressive?
Maybe you missed the Inspector General's report where they point out that there is in fact copious evidence and numerous leads (with more appearing every day now that Russian and Chinese hackers are dumping all the things they took from her server onto the web) towards what is the textbook definition of criminal negligence. What Petraeus did is similar but not even close to as bad as what Clinton did because Clinton was told time and again not to do it but did it anyway. Which isn't even to mention that willfully ignoring security protocols, while perhaps less lurid than having a mistress, is way more harmful to national security simply because any reasonably talented hacker in the world could and did hack into it.
Even Clinton herself says she admits 'making a mistake' so I have no idea how you could think she 'did absolutely nothing wrong'.
Seriously go read the Inspector General's report. The only reason Hillary doesn't get indicted for this is if the White House and specifically President Obama (who is technically James Comey's boss) send down the word that Hillary is untouchable by the rule of law. If literally anyone else had done what Hillary did they would be in prison based on what we already know and she has already admitted to.
The two-decade partisan witchunt Republicans have been conducted towards Hillary is perhaps going to be her saving grace, because so many people refuse to look into this scandal because they assume it's just 'boy who cried wolf' territory. This is not Benghazi.
I don't understand how anyone can reasonably assert Clinton and Sanders are similar. Clinton has more in common with the last decades of presidents and Trump and the former Republican candidates than she does with Sanders.
The policies that enable the wealthiest to perpetually increase their fortune at the cost of everyone else will continue under the Clinton administration. Moneyed interests will still provide the bulk of funding to political candidates. There will be little to no push for improvements to necessary social services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. America will continue protecting its financial interests as necessary abroad, interfering--often disastrously--in the domestic processes of foreign countries. Existing rights will continue being eroded as the local and federal government pursue more draconian methods of control.
Obama has continued these policies. George Bush continued these policies. Bill Clinton continued these policies. George Bush Sr continued these policies. Etc.
Sanders is clearly against the neoliberal policies that benefit the wealthiest at the cost of everyone else. He is clearly against money in politics--his entire campaign fund was free of the same corporate donations that funded everyone else (including Clinton), which is an incredible, remarkable difference! Sanders is clearly for improving on the social services, including a clear push for a single-payer healthcare system. Sanders is against foreign intervention (see Iraq war vote distinction if you've forgotten). Sanders is against the draconion anti-citizen measures, such as the the mass surveillance perpetuated by NSA.
Unless you're using a shallow and overly broad description of their policies, or going by that 'same votes 93% of the time' quibble, Clinton and Sanders are very different.
The policies that enable the wealthiest to perpetually increase their fortune at the cost of everyone else will continue under the Clinton administration. Moneyed interests will still provide the bulk of funding to political candidates. There will be little to no push for improvements to necessary social services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. America will continue protecting its financial interests as necessary abroad, interfering--often disastrously--in the domestic processes of foreign countries. Existing rights will continue being eroded as the local and federal government pursue more draconian methods of control.
Obama has continued these policies. George Bush continued these policies. Bill Clinton continued these policies. George Bush Sr continued these policies. Etc.
Sanders is clearly against the neoliberal policies that benefit the wealthiest at the cost of everyone else. He is clearly against money in politics--his entire campaign fund was free of the same corporate donations that funded everyone else (including Clinton), which is an incredible, remarkable difference! Sanders is clearly for improving on the social services, including a clear push for a single-payer healthcare system. Sanders is against foreign intervention (see Iraq war vote distinction if you've forgotten). Sanders is against the draconion anti-citizen measures, such as the the mass surveillance perpetuated by NSA.
Unless you're using a shallow and overly broad description of their policies, or going by that 'same votes 93% of the time' quibble, Clinton and Sanders are very different.
There is also Hillary's role in the 2008 Honduras coup. This paints her to me as someone who cares little for democracy or the rights of individuals. I mean, she could have helped to have reinstated the left-wing populist Manuel Zelaya. And she could have stood up for the people who were trying to flee the resulting crime and violence. "I'm sorry that things are not going well in your home because of my mistake as SoS. You're free to stay here until things settle in Honduras". But no, she and the Obama Administration were more like "Life ain't fair, now back to that crime-ridden hell hole with you. Back, BACK!!!". And for as many as 83 people, she might as well sent them to the firing squad herself.
If this is how she thinks of foreign countries, what does she think of you and me?
If this is how she thinks of foreign countries, what does she think of you and me?
No push for improvements in education, infrastructure? Yes she more or less wants to keep the ACA but I view that as pragmatism more than anything after her experiences in the 90s trying to pass health care reform. But she has clearly stated she wants to improve infrastructure and reform public education. Do you think she is lying? What other social services does Sanders support? That's one thing that turned me off from Sanders early on: he's very myopic in his campaign. It's easy to say you're 'against foreign intervention' when you deflect every question about foreign policy. His answer to whether or not fracking should be allowed? Literally just "no". He doesn't have a plan for breaking up the big banks. At least when Obama ran on a platform of change in '08 he didn't make such broad promises and actually had general plans for it. I honestly believe more progressive policies would get done under Clinton because she has legitimate plans and is by far the more pragmatic of the two.
Funny that you bring up campaign finance since Sanders has 639 pages of FEC violations. Was he intentionally violating campaign finance laws or was he simply not aware of them? I didn't want to turn this in to a Bernie bash but the fact that you called her more similar to Trump than Bernie is simply appalling to me. Even if he backed up everything he said, she would still be more similar to Sanders. Trump wants to deregulate Wall St. You can read her positions on her website. Who is more similar?
I found a more balanced article regarding Bernie's FEC violations if anyone is interested in the topic. It seems pretty clear that he wasn't violating campaign finance laws given that he has yet to actually be fined and has complied with all of FEC's letters regarding violations so far. The nature of fundraising for Bernie is much different from Clinton's because of the fact that Sanders is relying on a large multitude of smaller donations from people so it's not surprising to me that Sanders has been hit with these "violations". I just don't think that these violations prove anything important.
I'm obviously feeling the Johnson.
Last edited:
I hope you realize how unfortunate these words are when taken out of context.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
They're bad in context too.
Honestly I think third parties should start on a local level more and build up their credentials. Some states like NH have MANY local rep seats and many states have areas where districts don't have many people. That'd be a perfect place for parties like the green party or the libertarians to start and present a viable alternative to the Dems and Republicans. Many people just don't feel like it's worth it to vote for them in the presidential election out of fear of "wasting" their vote. If they somehow built up local politics and elected leaders in other positions, I feel like they could present a greater challenge in national elections.
When someone tells you that you're wasting your vote by voting for a 3rd Party candidate, recognize that they don't care about you. It's a selfish statement. They are literally trying to tell you that your beliefs aren't worth being represented and that you should silence your voice so that theirs is louder. Stand up for yourself and vote for your beliefs, not for your fears or against your fears by voting for a "lesser" evil.
Imagine if everyone had that 3rd party voting is a waste mentality. The most famous 3rd Party candidate Abraham Lincoln would have never had any support or ever have gotten elected as President.
I'm pretty sure Oddish was suggesting a way for third parties to become more competitive, not saying that people are right not to vote for them.
I'd say "wasting" a vote is a reasonable thing to worry about. If I were American, I would probably vote for Clinton without hesitating, and without even looking at any third-party candidates, if only to keep Trump from winning. When we had our election in Canada, I ruled out our Green Party because, at least in my riding, they offered no realistic improvement to our chances of getting the Conservatives out of power. It sucks, but I hope you can see where people are coming from.
I'd say "wasting" a vote is a reasonable thing to worry about. If I were American, I would probably vote for Clinton without hesitating, and without even looking at any third-party candidates, if only to keep Trump from winning. When we had our election in Canada, I ruled out our Green Party because, at least in my riding, they offered no realistic improvement to our chances of getting the Conservatives out of power. It sucks, but I hope you can see where people are coming from.
I like your sentiment, but context is important here. Gotta rewind quite a ways to get there, though.
Slavery had grown into such a heated topic in the 1850s that the two major parties of the time (Democrats and Whigs) were both starting to fracture. In 1852, anti-slave Whigs blocked the renomination of Fillmore (incumbent pres + Whig) for president (instead going with a taller dude than Lincoln called Old Fuss and Feathers in an election they lost to Pierce), and the party itself fully split over the next 2 years. Former Whigs in the north became Republicans, while in the south, they went by Know Nothings (such a good party name).
Democrats had stayed united with Pierce, a northerner with southern sympathies, and were still managing alright. They tried it again with Buchanan, and while they won the 1856 election, he gaffed hard enough on a slavery issue (Dred Scott case) that he basically handed the northern congressional offices to the Republicans in 1858. He became pretty despised, and by 1860, just wanted out of office. Here's where we see the Democrats fall apart.
Pro-slavery radicals in the south (called Fire-Eaters, these guys had such great names) wanted to reopen the slave trade that had been closed for over 50 years. They were fearful of Republicans gaining more power and were beginning to seriously talk about seceding from the Union. The Democratic Convention of 1860 was fiercely contested, with Fire-Eaters eventually walking out and Democrats nominating two candidates, one for the north and one for the south.
So, by the time Lincoln was elected in 1860, Republicans weren't really a third party, at least not in the sense that we see third parties now. They were more like 1 of 4 major parties, as both major parties had split over the past decade. They were also doing well as a party in terms of congressional representation and had a large backing from the start. Plus, on a more negative note, half the country seceded from the Union because he was elected, culminating in the bloodiest war ever fought on our soil, so he's not really the best poster child for third parties :x
Yea I was just offering ways that third parties could build up a national profile more and have evidence of their work on a local level :X
I honestly do think that voting third party COULD be dangerous this election (If you're a liberal voter and would've voted democrat generally if you're a conservative probably not) just because Trump is that bad of a candidate with no coherent plans and horrible diplomacy skills on top of open racism and sexism.
A Hillary presidency just looks like a third term of Obama and honestly our economy and country have done pretty well under Obama so I'd be OK with that! Our unemployment rate is way down, social rights such as Gay rights and minority rights have increased, there are now renewed discussions on fighting racism and breaking down walls, etc etc (Along with the start of Weed being legalized if you're into that kind of thing, I predict it'll be legal nationwide in under 20 years but these things take time). I haven't even brought up the supreme court which is also a big difference between Clinton and Trump because Clinton WILL appoint Liberal justices and she has said she will make fighting citizens united a priority among her supreme court picks (since it's a SCOTUS issue and not something the president can just overturn lol whoops!) since citizen's united was actually a conservative non profit against Hillary that wanted to air a film that broke the Mccain-Feingold act
I mean, the issue of social rights has indeed gotten more attention under Obama, but the U.S. is at the state where these issues are being brought to light anyways - this would not change even if Trump became President.Yea I was just offering ways that third parties could build up a national profile more and have evidence of their work on a local level :X
I honestly do think that voting third party COULD be dangerous this election (If you're a liberal voter and would've voted democrat generally if you're a conservative probably not) just because Trump is that bad of a candidate with no coherent plans and horrible diplomacy skills on top of open racism and sexism.
A Hillary presidency just looks like a third term of Obama and honestly our economy and country have done pretty well under Obama so I'd be OK with that! Our unemployment rate is way down, social rights such as Gay rights and minority rights have increased, there are now renewed discussions on fighting racism and breaking down walls, etc etc (Along with the start of Weed being legalized if you're into that kind of thing, I predict it'll be legal nationwide in under 20 years but these things take time). I haven't even brought up the supreme court which is also a big difference between Clinton and Trump because Clinton WILL appoint Liberal justices and she has said she will make fighting citizens united a priority among her supreme court picks (since it's a SCOTUS issue and not something the president can just overturn lol whoops!) since citizen's united was actually a conservative non profit against Hillary that wanted to air a film that broke the Mccain-Feingold act
At most, Hillary will likely only appoint a maximum of two Supreme Court Justices at most unless the the remaining eight members of the Supreme Court all die during her Presidency (which is highly unlikely); most of the Court appointees that Hillary (or Trump) will make apply to lower courts. I am not convinced that more liberal judges = overturn Citizens United, because if you know anything about SCOTUS precedents, the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to completely change its opinion on an issue over the course of five to six years. That is primarily why the Courts continue making decisions on Abortion based on Roe vs. Wade, because there has not been anything that would convince the majority of America that life starts at conception. Most of the evidence that people use for legal decisions against abortion is exaggerated or is not strong enough to cause a change (do not get me wrong, I am strongly pro-life, but I recognize that legal decisions on abortion are mostly political and constituent-based).
- Status