Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry for double post-- came across this piece through fb:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016...-stop-insisting-that-everything-is-going-well

While I'd never vote Trump, this is a great article about why Hillary is so bad at this year's campaign.
I read that as well. Brilliant article, and if Trump wins, this will probably be one of those major factors of why.

honestly i'm just loving how much of a shitstorm the DNC is in right now.


it helps counteract the shit pulled at the GOP convention (especially by El Rato) and makes me hope for a trump presidency.
I agree with how amusing that the DNC is becoming (shitstorm pretty much describes this farce of an election). I don't agree with hoping for a Trump presidency. I'm more hoping that Tom Schwartz is wrong, or we might all be very unhappy (and by unhappy, I mean dead or dying of radiation poisoning)!

Oh, and no, you don't get to vote for Trump if you have a nuclear bunker unless we all get to stay in it if the shit hits the fan!
 
Last edited:
This presidential election is all about suffering your party's nomination for the next 4-8 years to secure 30-50 years of 1-3 supreme court seats as well looking towards the future of the parties.
The Democratic Party is not my party. It will never be my party.

I will abstain from casting a vote for the president and only cast a vote for the various local offices. Maybe Pat McCrory and Richard Burr, among others, will have to find other careers, maybe not.
 
Bernie did something incredible during this roll call:

He moved to suspend the rules and have the nomination go to Clinton via acclimation and the crowd went nuts.
 

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
The Democratic Party is not my party. It will never be my party.
that is a nice statement of fact.

not sure anyone said it was.

I will abstain from casting a vote for the president and only cast a vote for the various local offices. Maybe Pat McCrory and Richard Burr, among others, will have to find other careers, maybe not.
This is a nice thought to have in space-land, but it's completely short-sighted for anything productive.

1-3 supreme court seats are in play here. That affects 30-50 years at least. EVEN if the democratic party isn't your party...or the republican party isn't your party...not voting for the party that you support more means you are effectively abandoning 30-50 years of influence.

You can take some sort of moral high ground all you want...the objective, indisputable fact remains that 1-3 supreme court seats hang in the balance, and abstaining just because you don't like the main candidates is incredibly short-sighted.

But hey, that is your right too :)

Just hoping the majority of people don't see it that way (and thankfully, I don't think they do)
 

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus

Just laughing at the ridiculousness of this speech
lol that speech is getting props from literally both sides of the american political spectrum if you are really seriously "laughing at the ridiculousness of this speech" you are straight up in lala land

I try my absolute best to play devil's advocate and listen to every side of a story but jesus bro, how strongly are you drinking the right-wing propaganda kool-aid if you need to disparage Michelle Obama's speech last night?

edit: even TRUMP, who responds to literally anything, has completely avoided disparaging her speech, and if that doesn't say something I'm not sure what will
 

Ununhexium

I closed my eyes and I slipped away...
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributoris a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Can we just stop for a second and think about how ridiculous a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is that is powerful as fuck

Like senators and congressmen don't have term limits but at least they have to be reelected over again
 
that is a nice statement of fact.

not sure anyone said it was.
Wasn't your post about those who supported Bernie should vote for Clinton? Or did I read it wrong?

This presidential election is all about suffering your party's nomination for the next 4-8 years to secure 30-50 years of 1-3 supreme court seats as well looking towards the future of the parties.
Regarding the Supreme Court: it appears every president appoints from '1-3' justices. Why is this time any different?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand how you could be a Bernie supporter and not left wing. The guy is literally a socialist and the most left wing candidate to ever run for President o_0
 

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Wasn't your post about those who supported Bernie should vote for Clinton? Or did I read it wrong?
No, it was don't waste your right to vote because there are more important things than just the presidency to worry about.

Regarding the Supreme Court: it appears every president appoints from '1-3' justices. Why is this time any different?
It's more about getting the point across that the presidential nomination / race is more than just about which party you align yourself with and affects far more than just the presidency.
 
Last edited:

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Veiva is absolutely right in that a lot of us Bernie supporters don't consider ourselves democrats or even as liberals or left-leaning.

I'm certainly not going to be voting for a party or for a candidate that I've always despised. I'm gonna be voting against a fascist.
That's fine but even if "a lot of you" aren't liberals or left-wing, bernie supporters, if they are truly bernie supporters (note that high percentage at which bernie and hillary actually voted the same) they align more with hillary than with trump.

the presidency is about so much than the presidency...the time to make a stand and try to change the system for third party candidates / different candidates is during the 4 years between elections, not after your candidate lost in the system that was in place.

i am really hoping that the "a lot of us bernie" supporters you're referring to aren't a significant portion and the others will, even begrudgingly, vote for hillary come november.
 
You didn't address my concern about the justices. You have to go back to the 1800s to find a president that didn't appoint more than one justice, unless I overlooked one...

No, it was don't waste your right to vote because there are more important things than just the presidency to worry about.
Thoreau words it better than me:

What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot to-day? They hesitate, and regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. [...] At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and God-speed, to the right, as it goes by them
My vote will not be wasted. I will vote against the current governor. I will vote against my senator. However, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she's less worse than Donald Trump.

And I won't just vote. There's much I am doing and much more that I can do, even if it does and would only have a more local effect.

That's fine but even if "a lot of you" aren't liberals or left-wing, bernie supporters, if they are truly bernie supporters (note that high percentage at which bernie and hillary actually voted the same) they align more with hillary than with trump.

the presidency is about so much than the presidency...the time to make a stand and try to change the system for third party candidates / different candidates is during the 4 years between elections, not after your candidate lost in the system that was in place.

i am really hoping that the "a lot of us bernie" supporters you're referring to aren't a significant portion and the others will, even begrudgingly, vote for hillary come november.
How similar congressmen voted can be terrible metric. You might as well say that we share 99% of our DNA, so we must be very similar. A lot of bills are everyday fluff, or are voted on for completely different reasons because how many topics they actually cover. I wouldn't be surprised if you could randomly select two congressman and they would have a 50%+ similar voting record on average.

Not to mention, the points in which Clinton and Sanders diverge should an incredible difference in policy. I suppose this is an okay summary.

Regarding your next reply: I wasn't going to bother.
 
Last edited:
What shitstorm is the DNC in lol?I'm really curious if the right-wingers in this topic are truly so deluded to believe that the majority of bernie or bust supporters aren't aware enough of the importance of the supreme court seats to eventually vote for hillary in November lol...regardless of how much they yell now and threaten to vote for Jill Stein.
funny that you say this but then you have to fend off and jab at bernie fans saying they won't vote for hillary
 
Can we just stop for a second and think about how ridiculous a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is that is powerful as fuck

Like senators and congressmen don't have term limits but at least they have to be reelected over again
But that's exactly WHY Supreme Court appointments are for life. The entire point of a judge is to be impartial and interpret the law outside of the views and opinions of the public. If justices are forced to reelect themselves their impartiality becomes obscured because they have to appeal to the general public, lobbyists, and others who have an interest in public affairs. In the current way the US government is set up, the public doesn't like a law that is brig interpreted, they can change the law via the lawmaking process. When the impartiality of judges ceases to exist, the integrity of the law also ceases to exist, and in the supreme courts case this means that the constitution could just be changed on a whim without any reason.

This is also why I'm against elected judges in general at a state/local level.

**That probably just sounded like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo so just ask any questions if you need clarification**
 

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
You didn't address my concern about the justices. You have to go back to the 1800s to find a president that didn't appoint more than one justice, unless I overlooked one...
Do I have to address it? I don't really get it.

you said it in response to this right? "This presidential election is all about suffering your party's nomination for the next 4-8 years to secure 30-50 years of 1-3 supreme court seats as well looking towards the future of the parties."

You specifically said "Regarding the Supreme Court: it appears every president appoints from '1-3' justices. Why is this time any different?"

Why does it have to be different for my point to be relevant? If every president appoints 1-3 justices, then this election is about that as well. If other elections are about voting for who you want / support on whatever moral / conscience you stand on, great. This one isn't. This one this time is about securing the supreme court. Even if that is the case every other time, who cares?

The whole, major, underlying point is that the presidency is about far more than the presidency. I'm not really sure why you're so caught up on semantic argumentation (cause I can't really tell what else this is).

If you don't like either candidate and don't for either one, you are only looking at the short term, 4-8 year presidential seat perspective. You're ignoring the many more years (potentially) of influence on the supreme court.

How similar congressmen voted can be terrible metric. You might as well say that we share 99% of our DNA, so we must be very similar.
Honestly, you assume so much in your posts I don't really get how it is possible to have any sort of discourse with you. Did I ever say it was the only metric? Did I ever say it was a determining metric? I literally put it in as an offhand comment in parenthesis lol...

And I'm sorry, but the DNA to congress bill analogy is some Donald Trump level analogy shit I'm going to take the fifth on that one.

A lot of bills are everyday fluff, or are voted on for completely different reasons because how many topics they actually cover. I wouldn't be surprised if you could randomly select two congressman and they would have a 50%+ similar voting record on average.
Sure but, again...I never said it was the only metric or even a determining one...And iiirc, didn't someone show they voted similarly like 94+% of the time or something? I'm not sure on this so please feel free to fact check and post (as I'm sure you will).

Not to mention, the points in which Clinton and Sanders diverge should an incredible difference in policy. I suppose this is an okay summary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/u...vided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html
I'm sure they do! Again, the main, underlying point is that bernie supporters have more in common with hillary than trump...you're welcome to argue that if you wish.

Regarding your next reply: I wasn't even going to address that.
Thank you, oh great and glorious Buddha
 

Aldaron

geriatric
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
god DAMN now we're quoting Thoreau

veiva

[quote = big man thoreau]What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot to-day? They hesitate, and regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. [...] At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and God-speed, to the right, as it goes by them[/quote]

how is this supporting your side?

I'm being completely earnest here so please correct me if my reading comprehension here is incorrect but...isn't he just saying that people who just cast a vote without making earnest effort to do something effect are bad?

So like, he isn't saying anything against those who make earnest effort to do something effective AND cast a vote that won't be wasted?

Your vote will be wasted though lol. Even if you do all you can locally, your efforts will mean something within the context of that local effort. That effort has nothing to do with your federal vote for the presidency.

Again, correct me if I am reading him wrong.
 
Last edited:

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
veiva

It's important who nominates the supreme court justices coming up because this time it's not the mythical "1-3." It's most definitely at least 2. There's already one vacant slot the GOP refuses to hold hearings for and Ginsburg will be retiring within the next 4 years for sure. Even under Trump she would have to. Her health is her health. She could try to hold out, but when you're already 83, making it to 87 is hard. It is a demanding job. The oldest a sitting supreme court justice has ever been is 90, and that is quite rare.

Meanwhile, one of the trumpeting points of Bernie is reversing Citizens United... well that's not something that a President can do in any way OTHER than appointing supreme court justices who would do so. It was 5-4 last time. Since then all that has happened is Kagan (lib) replaced Stevens (lib) and now Scalia has died. A liberal replacement of Scalia and a liberal replacement of Ginsburg when she needs to retire is incredibly important for getting this done.

The only other way is a constitutional amendment, which requires such a large majority of support in both congress and in the various state legislatures, which are majority GOP controlled, that it is not happening. So yeah, I'd sure as heck say the Supreme Court should matter to Bernie supporters for Citizens United alone.

Much less many other import things the Court has final say on that Bernie cares about like upholding EPA regulations, rejecting invasive state "women's health" laws, rejecting unfair congressional districting, and, if you think Bernie's movement will cause a swell of progressivism in the future, upholding policy after policy for decades to come against right wing challenges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top