Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

Status
Not open for further replies.

NixHex

Fear is the mind-killer
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Why would Debbie resign if she didn't get caught rigging the primary? If trump and Huff Po agree on something I'm pretty sure every reasonable human would believe it, because those two are as far apart as it gets
I'm really bad at talking politics so I'm not going to say much, but I wanted to mention something here. HuffPo is a glorified content aggregator, and Trump has proven, debate after debate, that he is at worst delusional, and at best contradictory. The two of them agreeing just because one is "liberal" and the other "conservative" doesn't make something true.
 
We don't know who the hell rigged the election, all we know is that it was, at least according to this guy:
And Greg Palest isn't a nobody. He is a "New York Times-bestselling author[2] and a freelance journalist for the BBC[3] as well as the British newspaper The Guardian.[4] His work frequently focuses on corporatemalfeasance but has also been known to work with labor unions and consumer advocacy groups. Notably, he uncovered evidence that Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Florida Secretary of StateKatherine Harris, and Florida Elections Unit Chief Clay Roberts, along with the ChoicePoint corporation, rigged the ballots during the US Presidential Election of 2000 and again in 2004 when, he argued, the problems and machinations from 2000 continued, and that challenger John Kerry actually would have won if not for disproportional "spoilage" of Democratic votes."-from his Wikipedia page.

So like I've said, we will never know how much Hillary won or lost by. It's ironic that I'm voting for her, even though her legitimacy as nominee is questionable at best.

Doubt the DNC actually rigged the machines themselves, though, since if caught doing so, it might have led to a bloody mess. Maybe elites within the party were responsible, but I think at the most, they only ordered/permitted it. Then again, this is getting into speculation.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
Hillary won by 3.7 million more votes then Bernie. The DNC does not control voting or elections, they are run by the states.
Here we go again. Didn't respond to my evidence at all. Rigging doesn't just mean changing votes. It means changing hours, reducing polling locations, etc. And just because she won by a lot doesn't mean she didn't cheat.
 
I've also heard that the machines can be hacked easier than your cell phone. There are all sorts of methods for rigging an election.

And what annoys me is that when Trump talks about it being rigged, he isn't even referring to how they are rigged. Claiming that the democrats have millions of dead voters ready to vote for their candidate is an insult to those who have been closely following this election. Election fraud is so minor, and if a candidate in the future brings up legitimate reasons he or she might be endless attacked for doing so, with the same claims that is it an attack on the trust for our democracy.

Of course, I doubt they are going to rig it against Trump, because he is so unpopular, and progressives and even conservatives are (albeit reluctantly) uniting to vote against him. The only reason to do so is to hope that evidence is found that they were rigged, because things are so ready to boil over, that a rigged election might actually cause an armed insurrection from Trump voters (and maybe those who would react violently to an undemocratic election, well, more than what has already happened), and thus destabilize the country.
 

Hogg

grubbing in the ashes
is a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris an Administratoris a Tournament Director Alumnus
Tiering Admin
And the emails proving Hillary hatred Catholics? Ignore those!
Just to be clear:

Donald Trump literally tweets a picture of Hillary Clinton over a field of money with a Star of David overlaid calling her corrupt: no way to prove he's anti-Semitic.

In an unverified email hack, a Clinton staffer in 2011 talks about how some Republicans choose to be Catholic because it's more socially acceptable than being evangelical, and says that their behavior is a bastardization of the faith: unquestionable proof that Hillary Clinton hates Catholics.

Sounds reasonable to me.
 
Here we go again. Didn't respond to my evidence at all. Rigging doesn't just mean changing votes. It means changing hours, reducing polling locations, etc. And just because she won by a lot doesn't mean she didn't cheat.
All of these are controlled by the STATES not the DNC, most of the issues were in Republican led states atm who purposefully reduce hours and early voting in an attempt to supress the minority/young vote.
 

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Live Chat Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
Here we go again. Didn't respond to my evidence at all. Rigging doesn't just mean changing votes. It means changing hours, reducing polling locations, etc. And just because she won by a lot doesn't mean she didn't cheat.
The accredited Brennan Center for Justice put together a massive report on voter fraud going over all verified and alleged cases of voter fraud and concluded that there is no systematic manipulation of what people's votes are counted for by either party, that most cases of fraud are human error (like forgetting to take a dead person's name off of a list for example), and that they don't have any meaningful outcome.


Anyways, I've noticed something that I think is particularly important in terms of the future of American politics


After they lost in 2012 the RNC put together a massive autopsy report of why they thought that they lost and what they believed that they should do to win in the future. Considering that the percentage of white Americans is getting lower as time goes on, they advocating taking steps to appeal to more citizens rather than just banking on the white vote. They made the following recommendations:

  • Stop targeting the Hispanic community and start working with them.
  • Start working with the black community, i.e., NAACP (also other minorities).
  • Stop being so homophobic, not because they think it is a big voting block, but because general hatred makes most people distrusting of the Republican platform.
  • Try to dispel the image that the Republican party is tied to wealth (while also relaxing campaign laws???)
  • Learn more from their successful Governor's re working to win over minorities.
And lastly, addressing something they called Epistemic Closure

"The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself," its authors write. "We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue. Instead of driving around in circles on an ideological cul-de-sac, we need a Party whose brand of conservatism invites and inspires new people to visit us."

The reason the RNC was upset at Trump from the outset was that his campaign plan eschewed all of these points, running almost entirely on increasing turnout in poor white voting groups, at the cost of every other group. He hasn't made any big policy statements towards homosexuality this election (I think), and he has tried to make inroads with the black and hindi communities (to little avail). He went out of his way to attack Latin Americans, anyone that "looks" Muslim, and all of the big name Republican governors that had/have comparably good relations with the Hispanic community.

His strategy largely worked out in the Republicans primaries, where most of the groups that he either ignored or attacked don't vote in large numbers, but in the larger election, where not everyone is white and male, it hasn't worked out very well. When Trump and/or his followers say that "if we don't win it will be too late" or "it will be the end", I believe that they're speaking to the realization that white men (while still very powerful) cannot completely control the United States anymore.


On the other hand, Hilary has campaigned in pretty much every demographic, and is fond of saying that a president needs to represent "every American", and regardless of what you think of her as a person, she's right. You can't win a first to 50% out of 100% election if your campaign plan focuses entirely on getting as much of your 30-40% party members to vote as possible.


If you had to ask me, look for the RNC to implement a stronger superdelgate system in their primaries for future elections so they can screen out candidates like Trump and push moderates through.
 
And also prepare to see lash back from vocal citizens from implementing a super-delegate system like the ones the Democrats use. There is still a lot of anger over giving Hillary 500 super delegates right off the bat. Bernie might not have won (assuming that the election wasn't rigged), but it would have been closer, and might have had a psychological impact on supporters for more of them to spend their free time at the polls. It also wouldn't have made for an unfair and undemocratic uphill battle. The political parties might be private organizations, but since they control the government, we have a right of ownership to them, not the people who pay them, and if they don't like it, then they can find something else to do. Playing these sorts of games is very dangerous for the country, given how much resentment there is, and considering that Trump has fanned those flames.

There have got to be more democratic ways of rejecting fascistic jerk-offs like Trump. The RNC should not have supported him, because they knew the danger that he posed, and knew he was a sick person with a sick and outdated ideologue, but many chose to support him anyways, instead of saying "we respect the voters choice, but because he doesn't represent our values, he will get the nomination and funding that he is entitled to, and that is it, and if you folks don't like that, well, that's to fucking bad, because that is our judgement, and we have a right to endorse or not endorse who we want"!!!

On another subject, we have yet another idiot calling for armed insurrection when Trump loses.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...s-you-knew-he-was-like-this-it-wasnt-a-secret
It'd be hilarious if not for the serious implications.
 
Last edited:

ZoroDark

esse quam videri
is a Tiering Contributor
Hogg's kid could make more useful posts than that and I'm not sure he's even old enough to be potty-trained yet.

This shitshow of an election gets more grotesque by the day. "The most qualified presidential candidate in history" somehow can't seem to put away a racist, sexist, narcissistic, pathological liar who can't understand why there even is an election. These FBI headlines will undeniably be a hit to Clinton's already middling popularity, even if she manages to get the message across that she didn't withhold anything in this case. Hopefully it doesn't result in a lot Democrats staying at home on November 8th, because that might actually open up an electoral path to 270 votes for Trump.
 
Yo soul fly the post right above you (and the three above that are not by thesecondbest) undid the email stuff and you still gotta hop in this thread to post a false equiv. If your political praxis isn't true-Marxist-communism level ( if you thought voting for sanders would do anything, ur not a communist ) then u gotta understand that the dems noming Clinton was the right thing to do (@ me to find out why) and stop tryna cry that your poor sensibilities are violated by both candidates and that oh you MUST vote Jill stein because voting is meant to symbolize your personal tastes, is supposed to work as a metonym just like your chipotle order and television preferences. Doing this ignores real lives of real people and as such is a privledged thing to do
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
Yo soul fly the post right above you (and the three above that are not by thesecondbest) undid the email stuff and you still gotta hop in this thread to post a false equiv. If your political praxis isn't true-Marxist-communism level ( if you thought voting for sanders would do anything, ur not a communist ) then u gotta understand that the dems noming Clinton was the right thing to do (@ me to find out why) and stop tryna cry that your poor sensibilities are violated by both candidates and that oh you MUST vote Jill stein because voting is meant to symbolize your personal tastes, is supposed to work as a metonym just like your chipotle order and television preferences. Doing this ignores real lives of real people and as such is a privledged thing to do
Of course I can read you idiot. my post wasn't even an equivalence, more like "while you guys are obsessed with Clinton, look yet another abhorrent scandal about Trump has emerged", nor did I impart any moral commentary equating the two

I haven't even expressed opinion on third party candidates or the legitimacy of the nomination, idk where your righteous butthurt comes from. You should unrustle those jimmies. Still loling at praxis line. Won't lie, made me smile.

You need to work on context and reading comprehension, instead of lashing out at assumed slights.
 
hey guys you know clinton might have endangered national security but cmon... trump hates jews women muslims etc.... how can you vote for orange hitler????? And the emails are all false haha,,, nothing was rigged,,, Hillary is literally perfect XD XD XD ,,,, third party votes are votes for trump so vote for hillary!!!!1!
so hogg u dont need to post either

So tired of this attitude that often comes from Republicans. "Racism is probably wrong but let's focus on the real issues!" Believe it or not, hating Jews, women, muslims, and mexicans DOES actually matter to minorities. I know, it's crazy!

This is also completely irrelevant to the fact that Hillary Clinton is an infinitely superior candidate to Trump. Just the ideal in general is fucking stupid :')
 

Adamant Zoroark

catchy catchphrase
is a Contributor to Smogon
The way I see it, nothing regarding the emails has really changed, speaking from a perspective on how it will affect votes. The Clinton email scandal probably would have substantially reduced Hillary Clinton's chances of winning had this been a normal election... But this isn't a normal election. Hillary Clinton is running against Donald Trump. Had she been running against Kasich, Graham, Paul, or, shit, even Fiorina, then the emails probably would have put her chances of winning the general election in jeopardy... But she's running against a racist, sexist, homophobic, orange demagogue instead. So... Emails vs. Demagogue. And I didn't even vote for Clinton; California has early voting and I've already cast my vote for Gary Johnson, but even with this news about the Clinton emails, she's still a far better candidate than orange Julius Caesar.

There's also the fact that the general election is only 11 days away, and I'm pretty sure people have largely already made up their minds, and I can't see the few undecideds remaining seeing Clinton's email scandal as being worse than literally anything Donald Trump has ever done.
 

thesecondbest

Just Kidding I'm First
Hogg's kid could make more useful posts than that and I'm not sure he's even old enough to be potty-trained yet.

This shitshow of an election gets more grotesque by the day. "The most qualified presidential candidate in history" somehow can't seem to put away a racist, sexist, narcissistic, pathological liar who can't understand why there even is an election. These FBI headlines will undeniably be a hit to Clinton's already middling popularity, even if she manages to get the message across that she didn't withhold anything in this case. Hopefully it doesn't result in a lot Democrats staying at home on November 8th, because that might actually open up an electoral path to 270 votes for Trump.
I'll ignore the first part. but it's not like my post was meant to be useful. this one is though so take notes

Most qualified presidential candidate in history? First of all, Bush Sr was the most qualified candidate of all time (served in WW2, went to Yale, was part of the house, ambassador to the UN, RNC chair, went to china, CIA director, 2 time VP, this guy was out there). I think that beats hillary - first lady is not an accomplishment, it's bill's accomplishment and she just tagged along.

But secondly, would you want someone who took 9 APs but got 2s and 3s to go to your college? Because while Clinton has experience, her job performance was subpar to say the least. Her SOS tenure was terrible - she ruined Libya, was nonsensical over the Arab Spring, fucked up syria and wants to go to war with russia over it (continuing the trend of voting for war that started with Iraq as Senator). She is the classic definition of a politician - and that's why people hate her. If you haven't seen "Hillary Clinton Lying for 13 Minutes Straight" you should. She has flip flopped on issues from gay marriage to the Iraq War, immigration and the TPP. She takes money from Wall Street (who she says she'll go after lmao), Saudia Arabia (who she approved weapons deals to as SOS, now they are using that to bomb Yemen. Funny I don't hear that being brought up by the media whatsoever), Qatar, TWC aka HBO and CNN, Alphabet aka Google (youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg) then has the gall to claim her supreme court justice will end Citizens United.

The American people are sick and tired of bullshit politicians, and some would even choose Trump over that. Trump's ethics reform plan is fucking amazing, and even if that's the only good he does as president i would consider that a success. But i'd still vote gary if i could vote

And on the FBI - Hillary doesn't need to win to make history. She already has - first candidate under fbi investigation to run for president!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

verbatim

[PLACEHOLDER]
is a Live Chat Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderatoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnus
There have got to be more democratic ways of rejecting fascistic jerk-offs like Trump. The RNC should not have supported him, because they knew the danger that he posed, and knew he was a sick person with a sick and outdated ideologue, but many chose to support him anyways, instead of saying "we respect the voters choice, but because he doesn't represent our values, he will get the nomination and funding that he is entitled to, and that is it, and if you folks don't like that, well, that's to fucking bad, because that is our judgement, and we have a right to endorse or not endorse who we want"!!!
The Republic National Council has always been anti-trump, more people voted for him than the other candidates though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top