The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Deep Discussion (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins] (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=362353)

Kanzler July 28th, 2016 7:47 AM

Something that hasn't been mentioned/highlighted so far - Trump is perceived as much more willing and able to go after special interests than Clinton. It doesn't help that she's courting Bush's campaign financiers.

Kanzler July 28th, 2016 8:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9341625)

Right, but that's a bit of a bourgeois concern next to what middle and working class Americans are more concerned with - the elite corrupting and capturing our political system.

Esper July 28th, 2016 8:43 AM

Did anyone else read about the idea that in order for Clinton to get the nomination this election she purposefully planted her own people in the DNC, specifically Debbie Wasserman Schultz (her old campaign chair from '08) as the chair of the DNC? The person who was the chair before DWS (not counting the short interim) was none other than Tim Kaine. One has to wonder if Clinton asked him to step down from the chair and as a reward offered him the VP spot.

Now, that might all be conspiracy nonsense, but the fact that it's so easy for it to be believable in the first place is a problem in itself, i.e., the smell of oligarchy and nepotism at the top of the party. In a democratic system is seems wrong to see the same elites shuffling around the positions of power.

That aside, something I heard briefly on the radio the other day made me think that there's something that Clinton can do, probably something she might even want to do, to get more people behind her. If Clinton could back a push for getting the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) passed I think that 1) a lot of progressives would get behind that and 2) it would feel like a genuine thing for her.

Ivysaur July 28th, 2016 10:35 AM

I want to add that having an entire convention dedicated entirely at explaining why Trump is horrible right on the hells of the Republican week of "Lock her up" would be far more likely to make people despair and say "both are exactly equally as bad zero difference between both sides I don't care if Trump wins" than if you actually spend some time explaining why Clinton is good. It's good to have someone like Biden ripping at him, but it's also important that you have someone lifting Clinton up, so you not only can say "Trump is worse" but "Clinton is better".

An old adage is "the most optimistic campaign wins the election". Focusing only on attacking the contrary isn't going to help.

Oh and yes, don't bother looking at 538's "now-cast" prediction. it's only a measure of "momentum" and, with a convention bounce going on, it's essentially meaningless. Polls-Plus actually ticked up for Clinton today, she's on 61% now. NYT's The Upshot has her on 69% and Princeton has her on 80%.

Netto Azure July 28th, 2016 1:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9341023)
Hey Netto, out of curiosity, what do you think of Tim Kaine? I feared that he might come off as boring as some of his critics have said, but I think he was really animated and kept the crowd pretty engaged.

I think I gave an inkling of what I thought last week about choosing a purple state Dem from Virginia of all places. Still I guess Clinton has an eye on making sure to lock in swing state appeal and she believes that Trump is odious enough to force her left flank in line.

Shamol July 29th, 2016 6:00 AM

Before I begin the point-by-point discussion, I think it would be important to point out that at least to some extent, we seem to be talking past each other. When I said there needs to be more offense in the DNC, I didn't mean the entire engine should run only on aggressive Trump-bashing. There needs to be a balance between that and extolling the virtues of Hillary as a candidate- at least equal coverage, if not with more emphasis on the former. I think I made this clear in the second post when I said

Quote:

In a perfect world where traditional political and rhetorical conventions don't exist, the convention in its entirety should have run on the "lesser evil" argument. That's the single strongest argument in their arsenal. But in the real world where that's not fashionable, and some appeals must be made to how supposedly amazing the democratic candidate is, both arguments should be made with at least equal force.

I think a good representation of this was Joe Biden's speech on day 3. I would've liked him to press further on some of the points, but overall this was a respectable presentation for voting democrat this year. I wanted more speeches like this from day one is what I'm saying.
So what I have close to a model is Biden's speech, which, with all its offensive prowess, still had a healthy amount of pro-Hillary positivity sprinkled in. With that said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9341609)
You seem to be forgetting the fact that a lot of these progressives are first time voters and are not familiar with Hillary's accomplishments. Think about it for a moment Shamol: Why do you think the older population favored Hillary a lot more than Bernie, leaving aside the whole "SOCIALIST!!!" cuss word? The older voters are more familiar with the Clinton administration and as such have an easier time settling into the idea of a Clinton presidency. The younger voters, who tend to be more progressive (I hate this word, I'm going to just use left or something from now on), see Hillary as more of a centrist, which somehow offends them, so the DNC is basicallly touting her progressive ideals and accomplishments in the hopes of pulling those people back in.

Again, I see what they're trying to do, and I think they've achieved their master plan in the first two days, but I think the said master plan is stupid. I made a small case as to why praising Hillary would not be very effective in wooing the more progressive-minded disgruntled voters in the first post, but let's go back to that discussion again.

Here's the progressive phenomenology. To the progressives, Hillary had low prior acceptability from the get go. She's a part of the establishment (when populism seems to be in vogue in the current climate), she accepted money from Wall Street (which was the model for political activism until Sanders came along and showed them another way), she voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and was for exclusively traditional marriage until 2012. So going into the campaign, she had low acceptability among the progressive bloc, especially given the Sanders alternative. Throughout the course of this campaign, she exacerbated all of these concerns by repeatedly refusing to release her GS speech transcripts, pulling stunts like this (link), laughing off concerns of climate activists (link, and other link), cozying up to Henry freaking Kissinger, and the list goes on. All of this is compounded by the role the democratic establishment and media has played in all this, now exposed by the email leak, as well as complaints of election fraud and voter suppression in a number of states. To top it all off, the MSNBC Town Hall answer that I alluded to earlier (apparently you didn't understand the reference, link) pretty handily demonstrates her concerns for the progressive bloc.

Given this entire picture in the background, as I said in the earlier post, there's only so much extolling Hillary's virtues can do to woo the disgruntled progressives. Which is why I repeatedly keep saying- the strongest arguments for Hillary are not the ones for Hillary. Which brings us to the next topic.

Quote:

I think I worded my point pretty poorly. Allow me to explain myself in this way: the reason why, if I'm interpreting your point correctly, a full out offense on Trump wouldn't work so early on the DNC is that it wouldn't have really made much of a convincing argument for the independents or the undecideds or the far left, for that matter. Want to know why?

The answer is simple. They know Trump is godawful.
No they don't. I don't want to pin a particular political position on you, but the centrist-minded democrats repeatedly keep making this (to my mind mistaken and dangerous) assumption. This is something of an intangible, so there's only so much we can do to convince each other. Off the top of my head, let me link to two (more or less popular) Bernie or Bust debates that happened recently on so-called independent media:

Debate among the members of The Young Turks Network after the NY primary

Debate between Secular Talk's Kyle Kulinski and an Illinois Wolf Pac activist

If you pay attention to the arguments made for Bernie or Bust, it's evident that they don't understand the threat of Trump. They either believe he's not that bad, or think even if he is elected, there's only so much damage he can cause. The problem, as I said, is simply an issue of not taking the enormity of the problem seriously. When these folks think of Trump, I am pretty sure the first they're thinking of is not that this is the person who said the Geneva convention is a problem, who promised to kill civilians, and advocated torture even if it doesn't work. They think of an out there guy who thinks building a wall would solve all the problem with racist tendencies. They're a disconnect between their perceptions of Trump and what Trump actually is.

Secondly, as Kanzler pointed out, Trump uses populist, anti-establishment rhetoric. He has consistently attacked things like money in politics and TPP. Now do I believe he will come anywhere close to solving these problems? Heck no. But do I believe he has his rhetoric on these issues on point? To an extent, yes. One cannot underestimate the growing distrust of the establishment and support for economic populism among the masses. Trump has something of a crossover appeal especially among independents.

There are other arguments for the disgruntlement among progressives or independents about Hillary as well (consider the "moral red lines" argument Kulinski made, something I believe many first time voters would relate with- link), and many of them have to do with not understanding the seriousness of Trump as a threat. The only remedy, or at least most effective remedy of all this is to push a very consequentialist ethic-based argument.

Quote:

If you just say "You should hire me because I'm better than the other guy", that's not really making a convincing argument, even if that's objectively true based on your resume. You want to tout your accomplishments, you want to tout the many good things that you've done for people and positions that you've had in public service and the many people that you've made a good impression on. That's something you want to do and SHOULD do.
As I said in the disclaimer to this post, these two don't need to be mutually exclusive. My main gripe was that the DNC didn't push the offense hard enough on the first two days, like they did in the Biden speech or the John Hutson speech. Regardless, I think to some extent you're underestimating the strength of an anti-Trump offense-based argument here. Your argument would go through smoothly in most other elections, where there is something of a competition between the two parties and there needs to be a careful weighing of the evidences. Just not this one. We have a candidate on one side who is making suggestions that are, seriously, not even debatable. Torture even if it doesn't work isn't something one needs to deliberate on. It has no room whatsoever on the discussion table. So with a candidate like that, what we have isn't a fight between two parties, but a fight between a party and an existential threat. One could be forgiven if we talk a little more about the existential threat than we would in the case of any other election.

And to be sure, I believe we had effective, offense-oriented campaign strategies just of this sort in the past. The one example that comes to my mind is the Johnson-Goldwater election. I don't want to boil down an entire campaign strategy just to one point, but a significant appeal of a potential LBJ presidency was- at least there would be no nuclear war. This was encapsulated in the famous "Daisy Girl" attack ad for LBJ (link).

Quote:

The RNC has a lot of Anti-Hillary slamming but provided little to no reasons why anyone should vote Trump other than to have a vote against Hillary. I don't think that's going to make a convincing arguments towards independents. Don't take this argument from me though; take a look at the data yourself. A sizeable 42% of independents have a less favourable view of Trump, while he failed to convince another 47%.

The hyper-aggressive tactic doesn't really work, going by this.
First, I'm not for a complete adaptation of the RNC model, see the opening disclaimer. Second, as pointed out above, there's a disanalogy between this strategy being targeted at Trump vs. someone else. Trump is a unique phenomenon both in terms of how horrific he is, and also how many people underestimate the severity of his threat. That's the entire argument I've been making in this and the last post.

Quote:

Except it didn't work, as evident by there being a failed contested convention. And it didn't work for a number of reasons, most notably because even though Cruz was probably the figurehead of the #NeverTrump movement, he himself isn't really better than Trump. Cruz could criticize Trump up and down all day, but at the end of the day, during the primaries, voters knew that by voting Cruz in, they'd basically be getting another version of Trump anyway so might as well vote Trump. Again, this goes back into making criticisms when you're actually in a position to make them. Why do you think Obama's speech last night was so effective at drawing so much attention, and so was Michelle Obama's, and Joe Biden's, and Tim Kaine's, and Bill Clinton for that matter? They're politicians (or in the case of Michelle, private citizens) who aren't in the circle of controversy, and as such they have a more trusting image in the eyes of the public, so their words hurt a lot more.
You misunderstood. I was talking only in the context of the debate where there were serious attacks against Trump. After being repeatedly attacked by Cruz and especially Rubio on healthcare, you could see a decline in his alpha-male vibe and the overall performance. The problem is they didn't keep this up, probably because their donors told them to. There could be something said for the #NeverTrump movement if there were more consistent attacks against in in the debates, but it was a one-off. So of course it didn't work.

Quote:

Are you using the Now-cast by any chance? You shouldn't; the Now-cast doesn't really take into account post-convention bumps. Nate Silver has already explained that the Now-cast is basically a hyper-aggressive predictor of who would win if the polls were to be held at that particular point in time, basically. You do want to take the Now-cast with a grain of salt when it comes to months where polls are literally swinging back and forth, most notably during convention time. Especially since the DNC isn't even over, looking at the Now-cast is a horrible indicator. The polls plus model is the more probable indicator, if anything, giving Clinton a roughly 60% chance.
I don't take 538 very seriously, especially given the trail of missteps Nate Silver took this season- but that's why my allusion to it was parenthetical, and I mentioned how the data is skewed due to the post-RNC bump. To my mind, due to the myriad intangibles associated with this election season- crossover appeal, campaign strategies, other factors- there's only so much predictive power that can be ascribed to polls in general. If you read my comment in context, you'll note my broader concern is with the fact that a self-proclaimed terrorist has a shot at all at becoming the leader of the free world. While the controversies on the other side may contribute to his success, they're not sufficient to explain this phenomenon. The only adequate explanation in view, as far as I can see, is that the media simply hasn't done their job in fleshing out who Trump is.

Quote:

At any rate, having this grandiose expectation that Hillary has to align with the progressive wing on every stance is kind of far-fetched, and Obama even said as such in his speech, "And if you’re serious about our democracy, you can’t afford to stay home just because she might not align with you on every issue. You’ve got to get in the arena with her, because democracy isn’t a spectator sport."
This is a very interesting question: at this point, what should the specific expectations of the progressive base be from the DNC at large and Hillary in specific. While the question deserves threadbare discussion in its own right, I don't think it's very relevant to the discussion we've been having. Our discussion has been framed around phenomenology, i.e. how progressives perceive the Hillary candidacy. It's not been about how they should perceive it or ought to perceive it. While I do have my opinions and biases on that point, I have only focused on trying to flesh out perceptions of the progressive movement. To go from phenomenology to the facts of the matter would involve opening up several other cans of worms.

You made a point that talking solely about Trump may not convince the voters to flock to Hillary, but to align with third party candidates. So in other words, your point is- attacking Trump is necessary, but not sufficient, as arguments for Hillary. I think that's a fair point. Regardless, due to the reasons I laid out in this post and the earlier one, anti-Trump offense must form an important part of the campaign strategy.

Ivysaur July 29th, 2016 9:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamol (Post 9342686)
I don't take 538 very seriously, especially given the trail of missteps Nate Silver took this season-

Okay, I have to defend Silver's model here. I know lots of people are dismissing him out of hand after he kept saying that Trump couldn't win, or that he had really tiny chances. Of course, Silver said that in his capacity as a pundit- he was 100% sure that Trump couldn't possibly get enough support from the party, and he'd mess up, and he'd be shoot down, and everybody would pick a champion and support them by South Carolina onwards.

But, while Silver kept talking as a pundit... his polling model kept saying that Trump, indeed, was going to win. He called 52 of 57 races (90%) adding both parties (considering how volatile polling is in those, it's not bad), and in some cases (see: Iowa), he overestimated Trump's result by 3-4 points. He might have been saying "Trump can't possibly win- something will alter the state of the polls at some point, surely!", but his statistical model, the one working with polls and actual data, not pundit's guesses, called the race just right. By Indiana -when he effectively won the race-, Trump had 98% of the delegates Silver's model expected him to have won by then- and the actual percentage is probably 100%, since it doesn't include the PA "uncommited" delegates that had pledged to vote for him. So yes, with a few wobbles, Silver's polling models called the race just exactly right while he embarrassed himself by saying that it couldn't be possibly happening.

So it's okay if you don't want to listen to his words (because he did fuck up), but you should actually respect his polling model which has a pretty fantastic track record. Better than his author, in fact.

Shamol July 29th, 2016 9:51 AM

Thanks, that makes sense.

Esper July 29th, 2016 10:19 AM

The DNC and the progressives are playing chicken. Clinton and the DNC are saying that the progressives will have to come around eventually, but the progressives are threatening not to support Clinton if she doesn't change. It's just a matter of who will blink first. If no one does though, that will be bad because then Clinton is out of a lot of votes and Trump will have a much bigger chance of taking purple states. There was something I read on Michael Moore's site which said that when people don't like the candidates and their options they might just feel like fucking with people and voting for, for instance, Trump just because they can.

I saw Clinton's speech last night and I was surprised by the number of Sanders-esque elements in it. From what I've read, he and Clinton had a discussion about what it would take for him to but his support behind her (like getting money out of politics) and you heard some of that in her speech. I just wonder if it will be something that the rest of the party and the surrogates will continue with. Will Kaine go out in speeches and say that Wall Street has too much influence in politics? If he does, will people believe him or take his words seriously? Will Clinton follow through on these goals when the official party platform doesn't really include them?

Shamol July 30th, 2016 5:48 AM

I think we agree, Colours, on the broad point of the need of there being both pro-Hillary and anti-Trump arguments being used as part of the campaign strategy. Where we disagree is the extent to which the latter should be emphasized. Rather than writing out a point-by-point counter this time around, I think it would be better to just point out key areas of our differences. We've both said our pieces and I doubt I'll be able to add more without the discussion getting repetitive.

So as I see it, our disagreements can be boiled down to three interrelated issues:

1. The effectiveness of a negative campaign against Trump in getting people to vote. You think it's not motivation enough to increase voter turnout, while I think given who Trump is and the existential threat that he poses, that would be incredibly effective. Cf. my point on the LBJ-Goldwater election.

2. The effect of criticisms against Trump. You think they wouldn't be very effective because throughout the campaign trail he has been sapping up all criticisms and thriving on them, while I think that's only because the criticism hasn't been done in the right way.

3. The effect extolling the virtues of Hillary as a candidate would have on the disgruntled voters. While Bernie or Bust is indeed something of a fringe movement, I think a general feeling of unconscionable distrust towards Hillary has spread over a significant part of the constituency, especially given her past track record as well as her actions this season. You disagree and think a happy-go-luck pro-Hillary parade would be effective in winning them over.

Again, none of this is to suggest that I'm calling for the democratic campaign to rest solely on anti-Trump tirades, but rather to emphasize and bank on it more than they were doing, say, during the first two days of the DNC.

Shamol July 31st, 2016 2:31 PM

(Hope this doesn't count as double post)

I found this video on my YouTube feed. This is by no means an endorsement of all the positions Dave Rubin has adopted, but this short video encapsulates pretty much all of my thoughts about this election, and especially Hillary's nomination.


Tsumiikii July 31st, 2016 2:49 PM

Trump is going to win :^)
Crooked Hillary has no chance, no energy at all! Sad!

Esper August 4th, 2016 6:42 PM

I hope his losing streak keeps going. I just heard about how he was all coy and non-committal on the use of nuclear weapons, as in he teases and intimates that he would use them so that voters who like that idea will vote for him, but then when pressed said he wouldn't use them. Seriously though, this is more dangerous and worrying than anything else he has said in this entire campaign.

But this is America and anything is possible. I would have said that Trump couldn't be nominated in the first place and look at where we are now. The depths of American craziness are so much deeper than I think anyone knows. Trump could easily jump back up in the polls.

Ivysaur August 4th, 2016 11:37 PM

Elections become more or less locked two weeks after the last convention. The candidate who led the polls after that always (since there are scientific polls) ended up winning the popular vote (obligatory Gore asterisk here). So Trump has essentially one week to recover his lost ground, except he already wasted his Convention card, so... I don't know what else he can do. I don't think continuing to act like a deranged socipath is helping him in any way, shape or form, and it's only reinforcing Clinton's campaign, which is laser-focused on Trump being completely off the rails and utterly unfit to become president. And it's working.

It's also worth mentioning how Trump is running fourth with Blacks (with a surreal 1% support) and Under-29s (41 Cl - 23 Jo - 16 St - 9 Tr). Clinton is also winning the non-white vote 83%-12%. This is completely devastating.

Hands August 10th, 2016 12:27 AM

I'm worried regardless. Clinton has an absolutely abysmal track record of standing for racist policies, against gay rights, massive war mongering and heavy corruption. I don't want her dragging my country into another illegal war for profit, I don't want my friends who are serving dying for her bottom line.

On the flipside, Trump is Trump. I don't really need to explain why he worries me.

Kanzler August 10th, 2016 6:44 AM

It seems that the media has finally turned against Donald Trump. Now that he's Republican nominee and is unlikely to drop out, they have an endless supply of negative media attention against him which is just as profitable as the positive media attention they gave him in the primaries. Besides, the Republicans at this point are well divided while the Democratic leadership is well united, so it's obvious who can win the media war and who is responsible for the media failure Trump is experiencing right now.

Ivysaur August 11th, 2016 8:58 AM

As a member of the Dishonest Media™ who is covering the race for a newspaper (boo! hiss!), I want to comment on that. It's not that we all have decided "lol let's make Trump lose the race to sell more newspapers!", it's that Trump is... abnormal. It's hard to have a "fair and balanced" coverage when, on a side, you have a perfectly normal politician, with her pros and cons, running a perfectly normal campaign; and, next to her, a guy who knows nothing about etiquette and who keeps making outrageous, outlandish, outright dangerous and utterly unbelievable comments every day. It's hard to treat this race as a normal political debate between left and right when you have plenty of conservatives running away from the guy who is supposed to be the "conservative". It's hard to treat this race as a normal political debate when one goes out and say "maybe... Clinton... guns... stopping her... wink wink". Trump is not a normal politician running a political campaign, and that's why he gets such an abnormal coverage- because he's an abnormal candidate doing abnormal things.

Look, eight years ago, McCain said during a rally that Obama wasn't "someone to be afraid of" and that he just happened to be "someone he disagreed with on political issues". Nowadays we have Trump calling Clinton "unhinged", "the devil" and hinting that someone shoot her. That's the difference.

Esper August 11th, 2016 9:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9363195)
As a member of the Dishonest Media™ who is covering the race for a newspaper (boo! hiss!)

What's a newspaper?

I think the feeling that the media is now being harsher on Trump is just that before people didn't think he was a serious candidate and now they have to treat him like one since he's the nominee. That means you've got to, you know, point out the really obvious flaws he has. You've got to try to give equal weight to your criticisms of Trump and Clinton and Trump is just made of brittle stuff so the cracks show pretty easily.

Shamol August 11th, 2016 10:50 AM

I basically nodded along almost the entirety of Ivysaur's last post. In a recent interview Rudy Giuliani made a big deal about media not being "fair" towards Trump. What him and his ilk fail to realize is when you have someone openly calling for war crimes (compare that to W who, regardless of the havoc he proceeded to wreak after he stepped into office, sold himself as the 'compassionate conservative'), neutral coverage is 'negative coverage'. Saying Donald Trump is "calling for war crimes" or "joking about killing his opponent" are as matter-of-fact reports as they come. That's not being biased against Trump, that's being neutral towards him.

Kanzler August 11th, 2016 8:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9363195)
As a member of the Dishonest Media™ who is covering the race for a newspaper (boo! hiss!), I want to comment on that. It's not that we all have decided "lol let's make Trump lose the race to sell more newspapers!", it's that Trump is... abnormal. It's hard to have a "fair and balanced" coverage when, on a side, you have a perfectly normal politician, with her pros and cons, running a perfectly normal campaign; and, next to her, a guy who knows nothing about etiquette and who keeps making outrageous, outlandish, outright dangerous and utterly unbelievable comments every day. It's hard to treat this race as a normal political debate between left and right when you have plenty of conservatives running away from the guy who is supposed to be the "conservative". It's hard to treat this race as a normal political debate when one goes out and say "maybe... Clinton... guns... stopping her... wink wink". Trump is not a normal politician running a political campaign, and that's why he gets such an abnormal coverage- because he's an abnormal candidate doing abnormal things.

Look, eight years ago, McCain said during a rally that Obama wasn't "someone to be afraid of" and that he just happened to be "someone he disagreed with on political issues". Nowadays we have Trump calling Clinton "unhinged", "the devil" and hinting that someone shoot her. That's the difference.

Well, my point still stands. In the primaries, Trump had much more media presence than his competitors, which helped propel him to the top. From what I remember, one of the main themes of the coverage was how unstoppable he was, in addition to all of his controversies. It might not have been what you normally think of as "positive" coverage at first glance, but when he was dominating the coverage of the Republican primaries and a major thread of the coverage is shock at how much electoral success he's gathering, it certainly cements his image as a frontrunner and someone who "wins". Trump could easily spin all that attention into his "winning" message. He can't do that anymore, which is why I'd say that his media coverage has decidedly made a turn for the worse. I don't think that suggests that the media is somehow dishonest at all.

Hands August 12th, 2016 1:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9363195)
As a member of the Dishonest Media™ who is covering the race for a newspaper (boo! hiss!), I want to comment on that. It's not that we all have decided "lol let's make Trump lose the race to sell more newspapers!", it's that Trump is... abnormal. It's hard to have a "fair and balanced" coverage when, on a side, you have a perfectly normal politician, with her pros and cons, running a perfectly normal campaign; and, next to her, a guy who knows nothing about etiquette and who keeps making outrageous, outlandish, outright dangerous and utterly unbelievable comments every day. It's hard to treat this race as a normal political debate between left and right when you have plenty of conservatives running away from the guy who is supposed to be the "conservative". It's hard to treat this race as a normal political debate when one goes out and say "maybe... Clinton... guns... stopping her... wink wink". Trump is not a normal politician running a political campaign, and that's why he gets such an abnormal coverage- because he's an abnormal candidate doing abnormal things.

Look, eight years ago, McCain said during a rally that Obama wasn't "someone to be afraid of" and that he just happened to be "someone he disagreed with on political issues". Nowadays we have Trump calling Clinton "unhinged", "the devil" and hinting that someone shoot her. That's the difference.

Clinton isn't exactly a conventional left wing candidate either. She's a bought candidate and has been on the wrong side of history consistently through her career. Sanders should be the Democrat nominee, not a war hawk who constantly lies, "misremembers", takes big money from interest groups and patronizes minorities with ridiculous hot sauce stunts.

Ivysaur August 12th, 2016 3:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9364509)
Clinton isn't exactly a conventional left wing candidate either. She's a bought candidate and has been on the wrong side of history consistently through her career. Sanders should be the Democrat nominee, not a war hawk who constantly lies, "misremembers", takes big money from interest groups and patronizes minorities with ridiculous hot sauce stunts.

In other words, she is a conventional centre-left candidate. Because I'm afraid you can list all the democratic candidates all th way back to 1988 and you'll see many if not all of these problems.

I mean, I hope you can see the difference between "candidate I think is too moderate/gets money from rich people/looks untrustworthy/has some policy positions I disagree with" and "candidate who suggests murdering a political rival during a rally".

Hands August 12th, 2016 3:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9364565)
In other words, she is a conventional centre-left candidate. Because I'm afraid you can list all the democratic candidates all th way back to 1988 and you'll see many if not all of these problems.

I mean, I hope you can see the difference between "candidate I think is too moderate/gets money from rich people/looks untrustworthy/has some policy positions I disagree with" and "candidate who suggests murdering a political rival during a rally".

She's not centre-left. She is acting that way now because of Sanders' popularity. Give her a year and we'll have "Super Predators need to be brought to heel" Hill back again.

Arguably, Clinton's remark in May 2008 rg. Bobby Kennedy's assassination and the chance it could happen to Obama as justification to her not dropping out is on par with Donald Trump's comment about second amendment activists stopping the appointment of judges (I'm not sure if he was suggesting the assassination of Clinton or full scale armed retribution, both are not good things to suggest)

Edit: (Forgot to address this) I do understand there is a difference between a bad candidate and outright suggesting unstable people should take up arms. I think Trump and Clinton are both terrible people, but I also think they might be in it together. They've been friends for decades, and up until 2010, Trump was a long time Democrat and donor to both the party and the Clinton foundation. Clinton bombed hard against Trump, and we all know how dirty the DNC played things against Sanders. It stands to reason that she'd need an easy opponent to win and she has that in Trump, a man who seems to be deliberately sabotaging his own campaign time and time again.

Raestro August 12th, 2016 4:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9361163)
I'm worried regardless. Clinton has an absolutely abysmal track record of standing for racist policies, against gay rights, massive war mongering and heavy corruption. I don't want her dragging my country into another illegal war for profit, I don't want my friends who are serving dying for her bottom line.

On the flipside, Trump is Trump. I don't really need to explain why he worries me.

This is pretty much my worry, on one hand Clinton could be for (or at the least keep) gay rights, Trump said on the other hand that he'd be in favor of essentially reversing the supreme court's decision (however he may try to do that) and that scares me because it would actually affect my life.

Hands August 12th, 2016 5:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raestro (Post 9364621)
This is pretty much my worry, on one hand Clinton could be for (or at the least keep) gay rights, Trump said on the other hand that he'd be in favor of essentially reversing the supreme court's decision (however he may try to do that) and that scares me because it would actually affect my life.

Yeah, I worry about that too. I think as long as the lbgt marriage cause is held in a positive light by the majority of people then Clinton will leave it alone, despite her long record of standing against it. Trump however is likely to appoint people who will destroy the progress you've made, despite Trump previously defending the LBGT movement in his book.

The really scary thing is the pair of them lie so much you never know what's real and what's lip service.

Aliencommander1245 August 12th, 2016 5:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9364684)
Yeah, I worry about that too. I think as long as the lbgt marriage cause is held in a positive light by the majority of people then Clinton will leave it alone, despite her long record of standing against it. Trump however is likely to appoint people who will destroy the progress you've made, despite Trump previously defending the LBGT movement in his book.

The really scary thing is the pair of them lie so much you never know what's real and what's lip service.

Honestly i think Hillary is going to be Obama Skim at worst; more centre/right than what you'd call Obama Lite but not nearly as bad as people keep saying?

Her changing on issues to align with what'll get her the most votes and make her seem the best isn't a thing i think will disappear magically once she becomes president, she'll stick to the mindset that got her elected and hope for a second term more than she'll do a 180 and reveal her true cackling witch self or something

Ivysaur August 12th, 2016 5:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9364684)
Yeah, I worry about that too. I think as long as the lbgt marriage cause is held in a positive light by the majority of people then Clinton will leave it alone, despite her long record of standing against it. Trump however is likely to appoint people who will destroy the progress you've made, despite Trump previously defending the LBGT movement in his book.

The really scary thing is the pair of them lie so much you never know what's real and what's lip service.

One question: why would Clinton try to undo same-sex marriage? 76% of democrats supported same-sex marriage, most independents did too. Do you think she really wants to make a big "fuck you" to her voter base for no good reason? Do you really think she sits at home thinking "damn, I should roll back marriage rights just so my voter base gets really angry at me and I probably get an actual primary challenger four years from now"? Yeah, okay, she had a big flop from being against it to supporting it. But she's running in a party which overwhelmingly supports same-sex marriage, and it's not like it's currently illegal and she can just sit on it doing nothing while paying lip service; she'd have to pass a fucking constitutional amendment to re-ban it. All of that to win 0 votes and lose millions, and possibly get booted off from the democratic leadership in 4 years. Do you really think she's utterly unhinged?

Of course, the party that is full of anti-ssm members and which is running on a platform that supports discrimination laws against lgtb people, the Republicans, have nothing to lose from enacting those laws because their own supporters like them. So Trump would be fine doing that (or "leaving it to the states").

But yeah, if you believe Clinton could possibly think that undoing marriage equality is anything worth considering, then it's pretty obvious you have bought her "She's The Devil Incarnate" caricature so there isn't much hope, sadly.

Hands August 12th, 2016 5:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9364708)
One question: why would Clinton try to undo same-sex marriage? 76% of democrats supported same-sex marriage, most independents did too. Do you think she really wants to make a big "**** you" to her voter base for no good reason? Do you really think she sits at home thinking "damn, I should roll back marriage rights just so my voter base gets really angry at me and I probably get an actual primary challenger four years from now"? Yeah, okay, she had a big flop from being against it to supporting it. But she's running in a party which overwhelmingly supports same-sex marriage, and it's not like it's currently illegal and she can just sit on it doing nothing while paying lip service; she'd have to pass a ****ing constitutional amendment to re-ban it. All of that to win 0 votes and lose millions, and possibly get booted off from the democratic leadership in 4 years. Do you really think she's utterly unhinged?

Of course, the party that is full of anti-ssm members and which is running on a platform that supports discrimination laws against lgtb people, the Republicans, have nothing to lose from enacting those laws because their own supporters like them. So Trump would be fine doing that (or "leaving it to the states").

But yeah, if you believe Clinton could possibly think that undoing marriage equality is anything worth considering, then it's pretty obvious you have bought her "She's The Devil Incarnate" caricature so there isn't much hope, sadly.

I think you've misread my post, I said despite her history of being against it, she's likely to leave it alone. I never said I thought she'd go after it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9364706)
Personally I think the notion that Hillary is some giant liar is a lie in itself.

But that's just me. Surely fact-checkers that have analyzed her every statement throughout her campaign and found her to be more honest than your typical politican are wrong, right?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html

It's far from the only time she's "misspoke" or "misremebered" something that was significantly different to what happened.

Hands August 12th, 2016 6:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9364749)
Oh look! She fibbed! Like every politican does. Meanwhile, Politifact, an actual reputable independent fact-checking website, has deemed her the second most honest politician, behind Obama.

Yes, she's more honest than Bernie Sanders.

If you don't want an answer that doesn't fit your narrative, don't ask a question that challenges it. I mean Politifact is hardly a non bias source, regardless of what they claim.

She lies, she lies a lot. She gets away with lines like "I misspoke" which is of course political talk for "i was caught lying".

She also constantly flip flops on issues, there's no consistency and there's a lot of hypocrisy.

She's not a trustworthy person, and sure, you could argue a lot of politicians aren't, but a lot of politicians aren't running to be POTUS.

Hands August 12th, 2016 6:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9364770)
"I can't find anything to refute that point, so I'm just going to make a snarky response."

The initial reply was refuting your point about her supposed honesty. The snarky remark was in response to your cop out of "oh no she fibbed better ignore it thats just politics" rhetoric.

Quote:

I dunno. I rely on fact-checkers because honesty of a politican does matter to me. I'm not expecting her to be squeaky clean, I'm expecting her to be honest on the positions that matter most i.e social issues, fiscal issues, economical issues, etc. And she generally is. But hey, who am I to disagree with people more qualified to verify claims than me?
How are they more qualified to verify claims than me or you? In the digital age its increasingly easy to check facts yourself without relying on others like Politifact and Snopes, who have both been noted for using their own interpretation as opposed to what was actually said. Clinton outright made up a story about coming under sniper fire to try and make herself seem heroic, but the evidence showed nothing of the sort happened. That's not a little fib or a white lie, that's an outright porkie.

Quote:

On one hand, you can call it flip-flopping.
http://imgur.com/gallery/yZ0LZDP

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/03/16/4-Hillary-Clinton-Flip-Flops-Will-Make-Voters-Think-Twice

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/15/hillary-clinton-gave-the-exact-right-answer-to-explain-her-flip-flops-it-still-might-not-work/

http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage-and-immigration-flip-flops-2015-4

It's not me calling it flip flopping, that's what the universally used term for behavior of this nature is.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=compromise&oq=compromise&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3343j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Completely changing your stance to an opposite of positions you've held for years because another candidate's popularity increased isn't compromise, its outright flip flopping. I want someone who really believes what I believe as a leader, someone who's history backs it up. Not someone who is fickle. I want a rock, not a weather-vein.

Esper August 12th, 2016 1:20 PM

I just want to add my own $0.02 about how Politifact is not without bias. Anecdotally, I've seen some of their reasoning for labeling something false are based on very narrow, cherry picked phrases not taken in the context they were spoken in. On the whole they're probably correct more often than not, probably even most of the time, but they are not infallible and I wouldn't agree with their statement that Clinton is more honest than Sanders and others - itself a troubling statement since that comparison doesn't state what statements they are drawing from and we're meant to take their word for it without being to check ourselves.

I don't doubt their motives, but I don't think they're as reliable as they could be since they have to deal with making their analyses easy to digest for the widest group of people interested in this kind of political stuff - and not everyone who is is going to have the same degree of critical thinking to understand a more nuanced answer than "pants on fire."

MadHatter62 August 12th, 2016 5:54 PM

#jigglypuffforpresident2016

Kanzler August 12th, 2016 7:02 PM

Okay, in an attempt to Correct The Record, when did Politifact say that Clinton was more honest than Sanders?

The Gunney August 12th, 2016 8:45 PM

One thing constantly over looked is the fact that 80% of congress is up for re-election in November as well. You honestly think that Trump will be able to pass any of his more radical policies with a hostile Republican congress? or do anything at all with a Democrat majority? If you remember EO's are not law. With Hillery I'm worry about entering the realm of wrong thought policing that Canada and Australia has wondered into as of late.

Kanzler August 12th, 2016 9:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9365683)
It was never explicitly said (of course they wouldn't say something like that), but I've already provided a link that states as much through comparisons of statements. Here it is if you've missed it.

it could very well be that Sanders hasn't made enough statements to really gauge his actual honesty, because this going way back like nine years ago (probably before Sanders was relevant), so there's that.

But you said:

Quote:

Ultimately, it is up to you as an individual whether or not you want to take Politifact's word as truth or not. You can do your own research and come up with your own results. It's certainly true that sometimes their results can seem more or less haphazard or cherry picked, but not without reason. Whether that reason is acceptable is another matter in its entirety.
It doesn't seem like there is a word from Politifact at all.

If we look at the records now, Bernie's file has 52% True and Mostly True, and 28% Mostly False and False. Hillary Clinton has 50% True and Mostly True, and 26% Mostly False and False, but 2% Pants on Fire False.

To Correct the Record, it looks like that, yeah, Bernie Sanders is more honest than Hillary Clinton, give or take.

Sarcasm aside, I don't think that Politifact had any opinion one way or another about the relative trustworthiness between Sanders and Clinton at all. For that reason, I don't think Politifact's reputation is at stake. I also think there's not much value in comparing quantifiable, yes, but ultimately highly abstract and decontextualized data points. But I think it's worth pointing out that a highly reputable source can come up with ideas or data that aren't very valuable, and I'm sure they never meant for it to be taken too seriously.

Kanzler August 12th, 2016 9:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9365703)
Thanks for the unneeded sarcasm,

Much obliged ;)

I wouldn't agree that how serious you take the Politifact numbers depends on individual preference - data, depending on the context, can be more or less rigorous and I don't think either of us disagree that the numbers aren't very rigorous. If the data isn't rigorous, how meaningful can any conclusions derived from said data be? I am pleased that we are in agreement, however, that it's each statement, in its own specific context, that counts.

Esper August 13th, 2016 9:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colours (Post 9365323)
Forgive me, I'm not quite understanding the kind of point that you're making, here. They're not as reliable as they could be because they dumb down information for people who aren't as political inclined? I'm not sure why that makes them unreliable in particular, can you explain?

Like, when you simplify you lose nuance. It's like in math where you're not supposed to round your numbers before multiplying. 9.78 x 10 isn't the same as 10 x 10. But lemme use a different example.

There's been claims that climate change helped cause ISIS and Politifact said that was a lie, but when you get into the nitty gritty details about how climate change forced lots of agrarian people into cities and ruined many people's livelihoods and such that means that, yes, climate change did help push people into desperate situations like forming terror groups. ISIS wouldn't say "We're doing this because of climate change" and there are other factors that come into it, but it did play a part. But that's all very messy and my summary of it is very brief - not the kind of thing that the average person would be willing to learn about just to see if a politician is being honest or not. When you have to simplify the narrative about the founding of ISIS it's all about the political/military events of the Middle East, the US invasion, and that sort of thing - so Politifact says "Climate change cause ISIS? Wrong!" because there's no room for that factor in the simple explanation of it.

Basically, I would say that a lot of what politicians say isn't just direct yes or no statements about very narrow topics - it's more nuanced, which is how you can have confusion about honesty and I don't think Politifact is as nuanced as I would like it to be in order for them to be considered as accurate and authoritative as they are taken to be.

Shamol August 14th, 2016 1:17 AM

Here are my thoughts on Hillary's honesty.

In my experience, the allegations of out-and-out lying against Hillary Clinton usually come not from the progressives or the left, but primarily from the right (on issues like Benghazi) or right-leaning independents. The main gripe the left has with Hillary is that she's a standard establishment politician- whatever major downsides she has ultimately have to do with that fact. Being a standard politician comes with having to be flexible, to an extent, with one's principles. You can only be as good and revolutionary as the donor money and the establishment strictures allow you to be. When these subvenient causes change, so would your policies, thereby explaining the flip-flopping characteristic of the establishment politicians. This means even when you make appeals to change in the right direction it sounds disingenuous. So Hillary, according to the phenomenology of the left, is untrustworthy, compromising, flexible, manufactured, and inauthentic- but all of these come only because of her being a politician.

Now people- democrats, at least- would probably have been accepting of all of this were it not for Bernie Sanders and the political revolution he speaks of. It's because of Bernie setting a different, higher standard than what people are used to is why Hillary is getting so much flak. That's the only reason. Hillary is not more evil than the usual standards, but Bernie came and threw a wrench into those standards that all of us probably considered normative.

Sarah Silverman explains it nicely (link) when she says Hillary's taking corporate donor money really wasn't an issue for her, since it's a necessary evil for the system there is. But when Bernie came along and showed a new way, what was once 'necessary evil' just became 'evil'.

Finally, I posted this video earlier in this thread, Dave Rubin basically encapsulates pretty much all of my thoughts on her becoming the nominee (link).

Hands August 14th, 2016 3:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shamol (Post 9367342)
Here are my thoughts on Hillary's honesty.

In my experience, the allegations of out-and-out lying against Hillary Clinton usually come not from the progressives or the left, but primarily from the right (on issues like Benghazi) or right-leaning independents. The main gripe the left has with Hillary is that she's a standard establishment politician- whatever major downsides she has ultimately have to do with that fact. Being a standard politician comes with having to be flexible, to an extent, with one's principles. You can only be as good and revolutionary as the donor money and the establishment strictures allow you to be. When these subvenient causes change, so would your policies, thereby explaining the flip-flopping characteristic of the establishment politicians. This means even when you make appeals to change in the right direction it sounds disingenuous. So Hillary, according to the phenomenology of the left, is untrustworthy, compromising, flexible, manufactured, and inauthentic- but all of these come only because of her being a politician.

Now people- democrats, at least- would probably have been accepting of all of this were it not for Bernie Sanders and the political revolution he speaks of. It's because of Bernie setting a different, higher standard than what people are used to is why Hillary is getting so much flak. That's the only reason. Hillary is not more evil than the usual standards, but Bernie came and threw a wrench into those standards that all of us probably considered normative.

Sarah Silverman explains it nicely (link) when she says Hillary's taking corporate donor money really wasn't an issue for her, since it's a necessary evil for the system there is. But when Bernie came along and showed a new way, what was once 'necessary evil' just became 'evil'.

Finally, I posted this video earlier in this thread, Dave Rubin basically encapsulates pretty much all of my thoughts on her becoming the nominee (link).

Well yeah, Clinton isn't Hitler. She's just another career politician who only cares about her own pockets. Clinton is getting so much flak because she's the one running for POTUS. I mean, the DNC e- mail hacks, the CNN collaboration and the clandestine paid speeches to Wall Street haven't helped her in the eyes of the left (although the 'lost' votes, voter registration changing, polling stations closing etc certainly benefited her nomination) but the whole thing is indicative of a bigger problem.

Of course, there's also her own political record to take into account, the fact she hired DWS literally a day after she had to step down from the DNC Chair for attempted antisemitic attacks against Sanders and her Super PAC paying people to post child porn to Bernie Sanders facebook pages which haven't helped her credibility either.

The western world is getting tired of it. We saw it in Greece, in Spain, in Britain (Jeremy Corybn, a borderline socialist, won a landslide victory to lead his party and is set to win it again) and have already seen a far more left Germany, France, Sweden and Holland. America is playing catch up, but rest assured, people have had enough.

Ivysaur August 14th, 2016 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9367414)
The western world is getting tired of it. We saw it in Greece, in Spain, in Britain (Jeremy Corybn, a borderline socialist, won a landslide victory to lead his party and is set to win it again) and have already seen a far more left Germany, France, Sweden and Holland. America is playing catch up, but rest assured, people have had enough.

As a Spaniard who voted for Podemos, I feel I need to point out a massive difference: the US political system is designed to actively punish parties that split up and to make radical agendas pretty much undoable. Let me explain. To begin with, I need to point out that the parties rising in Germany, France, Sweden and Holland are more akin to a mix between Trump and Cruz than anything resembling "left-wing", which is slightly terrifying. In fact, a few of those parties started as reformed neo-Fascist outlets, so i don't think that's something to be jealous of.

Second, the places where insurgent left-wing parties have been most successful (Greece, Spain, Italy) are countries that -albeit with bonuses to the winner in G and I- approportion their seats in a proportional way to the vote. You get X votes, you get X seats (again, there are some distortions, but the base is that). So you actually can afford to vote for a new party. In Spain, the Socialists (the equivalent to US Democrats) got 44% of the vote in 2008 and 47% of the seats. This year, the Socialists and Podemos got a combined 43% of the vote... and a combined 43% of the seats. Fair enough! The US, on the other hand, has a First Past The Post system- or Winner Takes All. Meaning, if the Democrats split their votes according to the primary results (55-45), then the resulting two parties would end... with a combined handful of seats in Philadelphia, California and little else. Ever heard about deranged and hated Republican Paul lePage winning blue Maine twice with 30-odd percent of the vote because the left wing split up their votes between two different candidates? That, in all levels of Government, accross all the country, times ten. And this is exactly why the Labour party is trying to kick Corbyn away, fearing a complete wipeout in the next election if they are seen as "too radical" and moderate voters choose to pick the safer-sounding Conservatives, as it already happened in the UK during the 80s.

Third, not only the US has an electoral system that punishes divisions and parties whose leaders seem too radical (see: McGovern, Goldwater), the legislative system is designed to force parties to compromise, drop part of their proposals, pass wishy-washy bargains and flip-flop inside dark rooms. Why? Because, unlike in European systems where Parliament is all-powerful and appoints and removes Governments (and usually the House-equivalent alone has that power, even if there is a Senate), ensuring that both wings are on the same page and can pass laws without too much trouble, in the US there is a complete, absolute division of powers. What does that mean? That one party with barely 41 senators (which is 41% of just 1/3 of Government) can veto every single bill from ever becoming law - even if the other party controls the presidency and has majorities in both houses of Congress. When you give veto power to such a tiny piece of the system, you are essentially forcing both sides to deal. Even if only one of the two sides becomes crazy (see: Republicans), the entire system is doomed into gridlock forever unless both sides compromise in everything.

In other words, the US Constitution was written to encourage moderate, centrist leaders who can deal in the shadows and who can appeal to the largest share of the population by not looking too extreme or radical, and to encourage a "lesser-of-evils" mindset on the voters. Thus, Hillary Clinton. Hence, Trump is tanking. Therefore, insurgent parties simply cannot grow. The US can wake up, but as long as the Constitution is intact, it won't do much good.

Also good luck changing the US Constitution.

Hands August 14th, 2016 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9368025)
As a Spaniard who voted for Podemos, I feel I need to point out a massive difference: the US political system is designed to actively punish parties that split up and to make radical agendas pretty much undoable. Let me explain. To begin with, I need to point out that the parties rising in Germany, France, Sweden and Holland are more akin to a mix between Trump and Cruz than anything resembling "left-wing", which is slightly terrifying. In fact, a few of those parties started as reformed neo-Fascist outlets, so i don't think that's something to be jealous of.

Second, the places where insurgent left-wing parties have been most successful (Greece, Spain, Italy) are countries that -albeit with bonuses to the winner in G and I- approportion their seats in a proportional way to the vote. You get X votes, you get X seats (again, there are some distortions, but the base is that). So you actually can afford to vote for a new party. In Spain, the Socialists (the equivalent to US Democrats) got 44% of the vote in 2008 and 47% of the seats. This year, the Socialists and Podemos got a combined 43% of the vote... and a combined 43% of the seats. Fair enough! The US, on the other hand, has a First Past The Post system- or Winner Takes All. Meaning, if the Democrats split their votes according to the primary results (55-45), then the resulting two parties would end... with a combined handful of seats in Philadelphia, California and little else. Ever heard about deranged and hated Republican Paul lePage winning blue Maine twice with 30-odd percent of the vote because the left wing split up their votes between two different candidates? That, in all levels of Government, accross all the country, times ten. And this is exactly why the Labour party is trying to kick Corbyn away, fearing a complete wipeout in the next election if they are seen as "too radical" and moderate voters choose to pick the safer-sounding Conservatives, as it already happened in the UK during the 80s.

Third, not only the US has an electoral system that punishes divisions and parties whose leaders seem too radical (see: McGovern, Goldwater), the legislative system is designed to force parties to compromise, drop part of their proposals, pass wishy-washy bargains and flip-flop inside dark rooms. Why? Because, unlike in European systems where Parliament is all-powerful and appoints and removes Governments (and usually the House-equivalent alone, even if there is a Senate), ensuring that both wings are on the same page and can pass laws without too much trouble, in the US there is a complete, absolute division of powers. What does that mean? That one party with barely 41 senators (which is 41% of just 1/3 of Government) can veto every single bill from ever becoming law - even if the other party controls the presidency and has majorities in both houses of Congress. When you give veto power to such a tiny piece of the system, you are essentially forcing both sides to deal. Even if only one of the two sides becomes crazy (see: Republicans), the entire system is doomed into gridlock forever unless both sides compromise in everything.

In other words, the US Constitution was written to encourage moderate, centrist leaders who can deal in the shadows and who can appeal to the largest share of the population by not looking too extreme or radical, and to encourage a "lesser-of-evils" mindset on the voters. Thus, Hillary Clinton. Hence, Trump is tanking. Therefore, insurgent parties simply cannot grow. The US can wake up, but as long as the Constitution is intact, it won't do much good.

Also good luck changing the US Constitution.

I was saying that Germany, France etc are now more left win countries, not that there are new, big left wing movements there. Sorry for any confusion.

The Political system differences are irrelevant to the tides of people who are disenfranchised. Whether or not the constitution pushes moderates is of little value to the millions of Americans who back Sanders, Stein, Johnson or don't vote. The sentiment is still there.

Ivysaur August 14th, 2016 1:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9368033)
I was saying that Germany, France etc are now more left win countries, not that there are new, big left wing movements there. Sorry for any confusion.

The Political system differences are irrelevant to the tides of people who are disenfranchised. Whether or not the constitution pushes moderates is of little value to the millions of Americans who back Sanders, Stein, Johnson or don't vote. The sentiment is still there.

Actually... France and Germany are becoming increasingly right-wing, as moderate socialists collapse and the only upstart parties gathering up angry voters are profoundly right-wing and even neo-fascistic. Not sure where the left-wing idea came from, exactly.

And second, the differences are profoundly relevant, as in a Parliamentary system, Sanders could easily build his own party and win well over a hundred seats in the House without needing to jump into the hoops of the Democratic Party, and Stein and Johnson could have a seat (or a dozen) each and actually get a voice in Congress. In the US, disenfranchised voters can only cry and resign themselves to try and take over a major party in the primaries.

Hands August 14th, 2016 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9368076)
Actually... France and Germany are becoming increasingly right-wing, as moderate socialists collapse and the only upstart parties gathering up angry voters are profoundly right-wing and even neo-fascistic. Not sure where the left-wing idea came from, exactly.

And second, the differences are profoundly relevant, as in a Parliamentary system, Sanders could easily build his own party and win well over a hundred seats in the House without needing to jump into the hoops of the Democratic Party, and Stein and Johnson could have a seat (or a dozen) each and actually get a voice in Congress. In the US, disenfranchised voters can only cry and resign themselves to try and take over a major party in the primaries.

Are you honestly suggesting France and Germany, as countries, have more right wing Govts and policies now than they had 10 years ago? You're misunderstanding most of what I'm saying. They have become more left wing countries over time. I never once suggested there are growing left wing movements there, I said they already had left wing govts.

Her August 30th, 2016 8:25 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/us/politics/donald-trump-mexico-enrique-pena-nieto.html?_r=0

Quote:

Donald J. Trump will visit Mexico on Wednesday to speak with President Enrique Peña Nieto, a trip that will take him to a nation he has repeatedly scorned as a candidate.

Mr. Trump said on Twitter on Tuesday night that he had accepted an invitation from Mr. Peña Nieto and looked “very much forward” to meeting with him. Mr. Peña Nieto’s office confirmed the invitation on Tuesday and said one had also been sent to Hillary Clinton.

The negotiations for the trip were reported in The Washington Post.

Mr. Peña Nieto’s outreach to Mr. Trump is likely to strike many Mexicans as odd. Mr. Trump has regularly taken an antagonistic attitude toward Mexico in his policies and campaign rallies, saying many immigrants entering the United States illegally from there are rapists and repeatedly insisting that Mexico will pay for his proposed wall along the southern United States border.

He is widely reviled in the country, where the border wall plans revived deep grievances over sovereignty and respect that have historically dogged Mexico’s relationship with the United States.

Politicians in Mexico have largely remained silent on Mr. Trump, though there have been outbursts, including from Mr. Peña Nieto himself. In March, he compared Mr. Trump to Hitler and Mussolini for what he called Mr. Trump’s strident remarks and populism, though he later tried to soften his words without quite taking them back. There are likely to be protests during Mr. Trump’s visit, which Mr. Peña Nieto’s office said would involve a private meeting at the presidential palace in Mexico City.
Quite a lot more in the article itself, but that's the gist of it. What do you guys make of this?

Kanzler August 31st, 2016 4:01 AM

I'm not surprised. There needs to be the continuation of policy on the part of both Mexico and the US since their relationship is so comprehensive with such close trade, economic, and security ties. It's also an opportunity for both parties to gauge the actual positions of one another, filtered from all the public rhetoric.

Her September 12th, 2016 1:16 AM

With the first presidential debate happening in exactly two weeks, do you guys have any predictions about how things will go? Do you think that there will be any real bombshells dropped?

gimmepie September 12th, 2016 1:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley Quinn (Post 9405252)
With the first presidential debate happening in exactly two weeks, do you guys have any predictions about how things will go? Do you think that there will be any real bombshells dropped?

At a wild guess Trump will yell baseless rhetoric very loudly, repeatedly mention emails and all around be out-debated by Hillary. Although Trump's supporters will likely talk as though he was in every way superior.

I just hope Hilary doesn't sink down to the same level and rely more on personal attacks and bullshit than discussion of political issues... but I don't know if I see that happening either.

Kanzler September 12th, 2016 3:28 AM

Hillary Clinton Has Pneumonia.

Expect relentless attacks upon her fitness to be President.

Thepowaofhax September 12th, 2016 4:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9405384)
Hillary Clinton Has Pneumonia.

Expect relentless attacks upon her fitness to be President.

Oh my god, someone got a disease! Clearly that makes them incoherent and not capable of running the United States. We never had a president like this! FDR was never in a wheel chair, nor did Woodrow Wilson have a stroke in his second term, rendering him paralyzed, those are just loony conspiracy theories made by the Democrats. /s.

The only real reason why this is an issue is because the Republicans and Democrats are having a contest on who's side is the shiniest pile of shit, and they need to put any reason possible on why someone shouldn't be in office. Then again, this has been an issue in politics since Nixon vs Kennedy and will probably not stop any time soon.

Livewire September 13th, 2016 5:34 PM

People are acting like she has Stage IV Cancer or Alzheimer's, it's ridiculous. Although, it does raise an interesting ethical issue between a person's right to privacy, particularly when it pertains to their health, and the ability to be commander in chief sanely and free of any physiological or mental roadblocks. That one time you got sick in the summer on a long and brutal campaign trail has nothing to do with one's mental and physiological ability to be President. Hillary with pneumonia, doped up on Amoxicillin would still make more sane choices than Trump regardless, not sure how that affects one's character or judgment, haha.

gimmepie September 13th, 2016 9:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livewire (Post 9408261)
People are acting like she has Stage IV Cancer or Alzheimer's, it's ridiculous. Although, it does raise an interesting ethical issue between a person's right to privacy, particularly when it pertains to their health, and the ability to be commander in chief sanely and free of any physiological or mental roadblocks. That one time you got sick in the summer on a long and brutal campaign trail has nothing to do with one's mental and physiological ability to be President. Hillary with pneumonia, doped up on Amoxicillin would still make more sane choices than Trump regardless, not sure how that affects one's character or judgment, haha.

It shouldn't make a difference but I'm sure Trump's campaign is going to make an enormous deal out of this and I'm sure some people will be stupid enough to buy into it.

Ivysaur September 14th, 2016 2:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9408476)
It shouldn't make a difference but I'm sure Trump's campaign is going to make an enormous deal out of this and I'm sure some people will be stupid enough to buy into it.

The thing is, chances are most of the people stupid enough to buy into it were already voting for Trump regardless.

Another point: since May, polls have been stubbornly flat, save for the conventions (where polls have always gone haywire since there are records, so it doesn't really count). Picture from HuffPost Pollster.

http://i.imgur.com/fUcXMpv.jpg

What are the chances Trump suddenly shoots past Clinton when nothing in these past months have caused any of them to budge?

gimmepie September 14th, 2016 2:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9408693)
The thing is, chances are most of the people stupid enough to buy into it were already voting for Trump regardless.

Another point: since May, polls have been stubbornly flat, save for the conventions (where polls have always gone haywire since there are records, so it doesn't really count). Picture from HuffPost Pollster.

http://i.imgur.com/fUcXMpv.jpg

What are the chances Trump suddenly shoots past Clinton when nothing in these past months have caused any of them to budge?

You raise a good point.

Mewtwolover September 14th, 2016 9:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livewire (Post 9408261)
People are acting like she has Stage IV Cancer or Alzheimer's, it's ridiculous.

Watch this and you'll understand why people are acting like that.


Pinkie-Dawn September 14th, 2016 9:07 AM

And now there's a conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton has a body double because of her illness. I know someone who will definitely believe this since he also believes in the 9/11 conspiracy theory. >_>

Esper September 14th, 2016 1:43 PM

Even if she has an illness it's not like we haven't had presidents will disabilities or anything before. I just wish Clinton were better about being transparent in general so there wouldn't be so much ink wasted talking about these crackpot theories. I know she's done better than Trump at showing her financial and medical records, but for the sake of convincing people she's really got to make the whole campaign feel more transparent.

Kanzler September 14th, 2016 2:05 PM

Apparently Colin Powell's got some beef with the Clintons and now it's out in the public for everyone to see.

Somewhere_ September 14th, 2016 2:08 PM

Looks like Obama is out touring in place of Hillary Clinton. Do ya'll think she will lose steam because of her sickness?

Kanzler September 14th, 2016 7:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadSheep (Post 9409527)
Looks like Obama is out touring in place of Hillary Clinton. Do ya'll think she will lose steam because of her sickness?

I think so. From what I know about presidential campaign politics, the trail supposedly heats up after Labour Day. If she's not in the thick of it, it's not going to look good.

gimmepie September 14th, 2016 8:23 PM

You'd think that after all this fanfare people would mostly have made up their minds by now anyway. How big a difference could it make, same as Went said.

Kanzler September 15th, 2016 6:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9409949)
You'd think that after all this fanfare people would mostly have made up their minds by now anyway. How big a difference could it make, same as Went said.

Big difference. On the fence people who aren't deciding between Trump or Clinton, but rather whether or not to participate in the election, contributing to relative differences in turnout, could be a big factor. Also the number of conservatives who vote libertarian to send a message.

ATM the margin between Trump and Clinton appear to be several percent, from 1% to 5% IMO, so even something that changes the margin by 0.5% is a very big deal.

But Trump still needs to get ALL the swing states so there's that.

gimmepie September 15th, 2016 6:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9410282)
Big difference. On the fence people who aren't deciding between Trump or Clinton, but rather whether or not to participate in the election, contributing to relative differences in turnout, could be a big factor. Also the number of conservatives who vote libertarian to send a message.

ATM the margin between Trump and Clinton appear to be several percent, from 1% to 5% IMO, so even something that changes the margin by 0.5% is a very big deal.

But Trump still needs to get ALL the swing states so there's that.

American politics is very complicated.

Livewire September 15th, 2016 10:59 AM

The overall trend, not counting the Conventions or the FBI findings on Benghazi episode, is Clinton +3 nationally which is in line with turnout and with what Obama did in '12, and it's held up. Nevada/Iowa might go Red, as there's always a state or two that switch sides every election, but the overall polling has her up in FL, PA, VA, OH, etc. And, Trump's interaction with the preacher who shut him down yesterday and his dipshit son's holocaust joke haven't had a chance to make the news yet, once that does, expect a hit in his polling.

CoffeeDrink September 15th, 2016 6:04 PM

Spoiler:
Edit: phone auto corrects things. Pardon the errors.

He really wasn't trying to make a joke about the Holocaust. Here's what he said: "The media has been her number one surrogate in this. Without the media, this wouldn’t even be a contest, but the media has built her up ... they’ve let her slide on every indiscrepancy, on every lie, on every DNC game trying to get Bernie Sanders out of this thing. If Republicans were doing that, they’d be warming up the gas chamber right now."

While it may have been poor taste, I can't really see this statement as a joke per second. I think it's one of those allusion type deals where someone stumbled into a blunder unintentionally. Calling someone anti-semitic because of one phrase (and using the pepe frog meme because 'white supremacists' use pepe the frog) is like calling someone a racist because they got mad at a different skin color.

What I'm surprised at is the ADL went after Trump on the basis of being anti-semitic when he was calling out the media. Not to mention that Hillary backs Black Lives Matter, a movement that supports the killing of all white people, of whom most Jewish descendants are white. I don't know about you but I like to disassociate with those types of people. Besides, they attacked the guy for using a meme, an internet trend that millions use, not just 'whites supremacists'.

That's like saying white supremacists like peanut butter and jelly, so if you like peanut butter and jelly then you're preaching hate. Utterly ridiculous and total bunk. Hillary's campaign persons are telling folks not in the know that a green frog (that's been around since late '05) is racist and anyone using it supports white supremacy. I wouldn't take all those claims with a pinch of dirt.

Don't much like liars, son.


Edit: spoiled milk is just early cheese.

Anti September 16th, 2016 9:18 PM

Political polarization has made me more disillusioned with politics than I ever have been. Most of the Republican Party has decided that it is better to support an unqualified, racist demagogue than a liberal. This is terrifying.

Thank goodness I can at least get a chuckle out of Pepe the Frog improbably going mainstream.

Ivysaur September 18th, 2016 12:05 AM

Two new live polls, Clinton +6 in Minnesota (which voted exactly the same as Wisconsin in 2012, almost down to the first decimal point) and +8 in Pennsylvania despite the recent shocks, coupled with a Virginia +10 in Ipsos, show the point of the story: Trump can win in all the swing states, but sadly there aren't enough swing states to get to 270.

Now I want to see a few more live polls in Colorado and NH.

CoffeeDrink September 18th, 2016 1:35 AM

Spoiler:
I still awaiting the day when someone can prove to me that the Republican candidate is racist. If you want someone that breaks the law, siphon off resources and takes your tax dollars than that makes you racist? I've encountered real racism. My great uncle is racist as hell. Racism is absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous in a functional society. For example: he hates the way the 'damn spics push their carts' in reference to a grocery cart/basket. What? Racism is hate based upon nothing other than point of origin (skin/heritage).

Hillary Clinton is a damn liar. She's been paid numerous times on numerous occasions to lobby on behalf of Pharmaceutical corporations. She backs the 'common sense' gun laws, even though they do jack shit in preventing crime (Google shovel AK if you don't believe me when I say you can get guns if'n you want 'em.)

She lies about her health. Her campaign managers are a joke. Calling Trump fat? Look who'should calling the kettle black. Speaking of black...

Hillary backs Black Lives Matter, a group of racist hoodlums that want to abolish the police, kill ALL white people, defend criminals, refuse to acknowledge that black on black crime is a thing, rioting, looting, killing cops, killing white folks 'just 'cause #blm'. Why would I ever trust Hillary? Her docket is chock full of backers linked to a myriad of interests that don't lie with the best interests of the nation.

Please, please, please do not tell me that hydraulic fracturing isn't harmful to the environmental ecosystem in any way. Hydraulic Fracking is a bad no-no, and anyone who says it 'does no harm' is either a fucking moron or a goddamn liar, so which of the two categories does Clinton fall into?

Supporting Hillary? Supporting Fracking.

Ivysaur September 18th, 2016 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 9414575)
I still awaiting the day when someone can prove to me that the Republican candidate is racist. If you want someone that breaks the law, siphon off resources and takes your tax dollars than that makes you racist? I've encountered real racism. My great uncle is racist as hell. Racism is absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous in a functional society. For example: he hates the way the 'damn spics push their carts' in reference to a grocery cart/basket. What? Racism is hate based upon nothing other than point of origin (skin/heritage).

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4r2yxs/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is/

Look, here is a list of all racist things Trump has done, such as ordering that blacks be kicked out of his casinos, refusing to rent homes to blacks and saying "laziness is a trait on blacks". And a hundred more things. Honestly, look at that list and then tell me how you want to redefine the word "racism" so Trump doesn't get covered by it because if we look at the current definition he falls squarely within it.

Quote:

Hillary Clinton is a damn liar. She's been paid numerous times on numerous occasions to lobby on behalf of Pharmaceutical corporations. She backs the 'common sense' gun laws, even though they do jack **** in preventing crime (Google shovel AK if you don't believe me when I say you can get guns if'n you want 'em.)

She lies about her health. Her campaign managers are a joke. Calling Trump fat? Look who'should calling the kettle black. Speaking of black...
Clinton lies? About 2/3 of statements made by Donald Trump since he started his campaign are lies, compared with 1/3 of Clinton's. Trump lies twice as much as Clinton, and he has a baffling amount of "Pants on Fire" statements. Maybe your problem is that Clinton doesn't lie enough?

Quote:

Hillary backs Black Lives Matter, a group of racist hoodlums that want to abolish the police, kill ALL white people, defend criminals, refuse to acknowledge that black on black crime is a thing, rioting, looting, killing cops, killing white folks 'just 'cause #blm'. Why would I ever trust Hillary? Her docket is chock full of backers linked to a myriad of interests that don't lie with the best interests of the nation.
That is a deranged statement worthy of Donald Trump. Congratulations!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 9414575)
Please, please, please do not tell me that hydraulic fracturing isn't harmful to the environmental ecosystem in any way. Hydraulic Fracking is a bad no-no, and anyone who says it 'does no harm' is either a ****ing moron or a goddamn liar, so which of the two categories does Clinton fall into?

Supporting Hillary? Supporting Fracking.

Clinton about fracking:

Quote:

"I don’t support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don’t support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don’t support it — No. 3 — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.

So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that’s the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated."
Trump about fracking:

Quote:

Fracking poses ZERO health risks http://bit.ly/18pdO8H In fact, it increases our national security by making us energy independent.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/329676026382790656

Quote:

Fracking will lead to American energy independence. With price of natural gas continuing to drop, we can be at a tremendous advantage.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/198131842593984515

So yeah. Everything you dislike about Clinton? Trump also does it, except wholeheartedly, and 100 times worse.

CoffeeDrink September 19th, 2016 12:54 AM

Spoiler:
What's worse though? Honestly? I'll even take into account that, yes, I could be wrong but it doesn't change the fact that Clinton has been in a position to better the country for over three decades and has failed time and again. She's been paid astronomical amounts by companies that lord over the decision making process. Okay, so I was incorrect on more than a few things. But I know for certain that Hillary is the greater of two evils here.

What was my deranged statement? That Hillary backs #blm or that they attack white people 'just 'cause'? Which is it? I know for certain that both those statements are true. Hillary backs #blm and #blm promotes acts of senseless violence.

White water, Benghazi, Rose Law, the Vince Foster mess, lying about 'sniper fire', took items from the white house (illegal in terms of civil suit), completely ignored comsec and transaction, fired from her first political position, backed the 'common sense' gun laws, flunked her bar exam, 'speaking fees', insider trading, travel gate, China gate, file gate, sex scandals, utilizing the FBI and the IRS for personal gain, loose ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, pardon gate, The Money Cows, Saul Alenn, laughs about her defense of a rapist, Iranian payoffs, embezzlement and useless AIDS pills, gift gate and even Spider-Gate (Stan Lee was involved somehow, I forget)

That list is not all conclusive, but it does paint a pretty shade of red on the palm. So, even if Trump is indeed a racist (I still doubt it, but ah well) Clinton is a clear cut liar and she's been doing it for longer than you've even been alive. Lying about sniper fire, not calling anybody at all (Benghazi attacks), lying about her health (I've had pneumonia before and it stretched out for months) even though she seems to have been ill for years; I don't feel slighted that she lied about her health, but more about lying about her diagnosis. Hillary has been in place where she can do whatever she wants to whomever she pleases, so forgive me when I say I'll vote for a heap of flaming elephant shit to the Presidency before I would ever vote for Hillary.


Edit: spoilers, like on the back of a 1993 Honda Civic. Also, reddit.

Hands September 19th, 2016 2:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 9414575)
Hillary backs Black Lives Matter, a group of racist hoodlums that want to abolish the police, kill ALL white people, defend criminals, refuse to acknowledge that black on black crime is a thing, rioting, looting, killing cops, killing white folks 'just 'cause #blm'. Why would I ever trust Hillary? Her docket is chock full of backers linked to a myriad of interests that don't lie with the best interests of the nation.

Can you please cite an official statement by BLM as an organisation that says "kill all white people"? because frankly you are talking absolute nonsense as usual.

BLM doesn't want to abolish the police either, that's an insane statement to make. They want to abolish police brutality, against all people. It just so happens that black Americans are usually on the receiving end of it.

This is literally the most misinformed post I've ever seen on the internet, and I'm aware I'm going off topic to take this part into the spotlight but I really had to do something other than laugh till i cry.

as for your second post

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 9416052)
What's worse though? Honestly? I'll even take into account that, yes, I could be wrong but it doesn't change the fact that Clinton has been in a position to better the country for over three decades and has failed time and again. She's been paid astronomical amounts by companies that lord over the decision making process. Okay, so I was incorrect on more than a few things. But I know for certain that Hillary is the greater of two evils here.

I don't disagree with this, Clinton has been routinely terrible for three decades, why you feel the need to embezzle your posts with all the other falsehoods is beyond me.

Quote:

What was my deranged statement? That Hillary backs #blm or that they attack white people 'just 'cause'? Which is it? I know for certain that both those statements are true. Hillary backs #blm and #blm promotes acts of senseless violence.
As I said initially, what you're saying about BLM is baloney, anyone who has done even minor research into them could tell you that.

Quote:

White water, Benghazi, Rose Law, the Vince Foster mess, lying about 'sniper fire', took items from the white house (illegal in terms of civil suit), completely ignored comsec and transaction, fired from her first political position, backed the 'common sense' gun laws, flunked her bar exam, 'speaking fees', insider trading, travel gate, China gate, file gate, sex scandals, utilizing the FBI and the IRS for personal gain, loose ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, pardon gate, The Money Cows, Saul Alenn, laughs about her defense of a rapist, Iranian payoffs, embezzlement and useless AIDS pills, gift gate and even Spider-Gate (Stan Lee was involved somehow, I forget)
Here we go. Sex scandals have absolutely zero to do with politics or political ability, Benghazi wasn't solely, or even mostly her fault, your gun laws are awful as is your gun culture (Britain, Asutralia and half of Europe have done just fine with tighter laws, the other half of Europe has done just fine with the same/looser laws). How is she taking Iranian bribes when she threatened to nuke them a few years back? Do you mean Saudi Arabia and Bahrain? Because she took a shedload from them, but certainly not Iran. The Spiderman thing is absolutely baffling and has zero to do with anything. You can't even remember what it's about.

Quote:

That list is not all conclusive,
That's putting it lightly


Quote:

but it does paint a pretty shade of red on the palm. So, even if Trump is indeed a racist (I still doubt it, but ah well)
He kinda is. So is Clinton, but then no one is denying that outright anymore.

Quote:

Clinton is a clear cut liar and she's been doing it for longer than you've even been alive.
Then just stick to this stuff, stop talking about movements you clearly know nothing about and Spiderman comics

Quote:

Lying about sniper fire,
yeah that was pretty poor and its a valid attack, again, stick to stuff like this that actually happened.


Quote:

not calling anybody at all (Benghazi attacks), lying about her health (I've had pneumonia before and it stretched out for months) even though she seems to have been ill for years; I don't feel slighted that she lied about her health, but more about lying about her diagnosis. Hillary has been in place where she can do whatever she wants to whomever she pleases, so forgive me when I say I'll vote for a heap of flaming elephant **** to the Presidency before I would ever vote for Hillary.
I think we should calm down on wild speculation about how long she's been ill for. it's certainly not being for years. It's something that's become notable in the last 3-6 months.

CoffeeDrink September 20th, 2016 12:40 AM

Spoiler:
Considering that Clinton was found to have serious blood clotting issues since 2013. So I don't think she's in very good health by far. Due to the fact that she's been spontaneously collapsing and/or falling since 2008.

I'm also not joking about spider man. The only reason why I can remember the case was because of that. An artist, employee or other related in some way to spider man was also found guilty of fraud and/or insider trading that involved the Clintons. I can't for the life of me remember who it was but it's true. I think Stan Lee was involved at one point by being subpoenaed.

Edit: Aha! Bingo was his goddamn ****ing namo. Peter F. Paul. Lawyer, drug dealer, 'donated' money to his good friend Hillary. Stan Lee was involved. Spiderman.

Hillary was fired for incompetence and lying from her spot on the house committee. So that too.

Also, you probably have no clue how bad the gun trade is. Ever seen an 8 year old machine a receiver by hand? Illegally? In any bazaar in any middle eastern country? No? It's fascinating to say the very least. Their fingers are small enough for those tough jobs. The Kalashnikov rifle is a superb piece of work...

Further more, Europe has never, ever been close to the amount of drugs that flood our borders, so no. Wherever the hell you are your gun laws mean jack **** over here. They don't work, and they never will. The problem is that too many yaks and dumb ****s think that sprinkling magic fairy dust on a piece of legislation will make every criminal magically obey the law all of a sudden.

Europe doesn't have as many gangs as we do and they imprison far less people than we do. We deal with cartels and drug lords the likes of which you've never seen. We deal with the world's largest gang networks the world has ever seen and then you all shrug and say 'meh Australia does it better'. Come on kid. Murderers are gonna murder, gang bangers gonna gang bang. Most of the shootings that happen over here in the US are felons shooting at felons. Guess which social group aren't allowed to have guns at all? Felons. It never fails to amuse me that someone that has no clue how firearms function, never owned one, never fired one and doesn't know the difference between single action and double action tell me how bad our gun laws are.

Let's not forget to bring up Chicago. No, it doesn't have the strictest gun laws, but the police themselves have stated that criminals face harsher punishment from their gang than the prison system. And let's not forget their all out ban of all handguns that ended in 2010. Did we see a decrease in deaths when it was in place? Haha haha. No. They also banned 'assault weapons' meaning any and all long guns. Both the handgun ban and ass rifle ban were in place at the same time but that didn't stop gangers from shooting eachother up.

So, when I say that the 'common sense' gun laws makes absolutely no sense I mean it. The laws specific lyrics target 'scary looking' firearms. Meaning anything that has polymer on it, basically. Regardless the fact that Mossberg's most popular shotguns feature wooden components. Needless to say I have yet to see the man that walks away from taking a super sonic 1oz piece of lead.

The ban targets many rifles that fire either the .223 or the 5.56 (trick question, both are pretty much interchangeable despite a minor drop in pressure rates for the 5.56). In fact, when the law was in effect, more people were actually killed using long rifles than when it wasn't previously enforced. All the data is there and free. The FBI has records of this.

Hey, think of it this way, because it is the best way I can think of: when opponents of the death penalty claim that there is no solid evidence that the death penalty decreases crime, they go out and shout for more gun control. Does that not sound stupid as ****? So a law (being within the state's right to enact capital punishment) that doesn't prevent crime is okay to argue against, but the fundamentally same argument against fire arm ownership is ludicrous. It makes no sense, is what I'm trying to say.

Not only that, but around the globe in countries that do ban firearms they see an increase of blunt weapons, stabbings tools, and personal weapons murders.

Arguing for gun control because felons shoot and kill people is by far one of the stupidest and mundane arguments in the US. The police themselves have even stated as such because criminals don't care about the law or the law enforcement. It's really not that hard to grasp. Stealing, murder, rape, fraud, etc that's all against the law, right? So how come we have all these people breaking it?

More gangs, more drugs, more criminals, more illegal firearms, more prisoners, more cop killers, more murders. What more do you want me to say? We have royal issues.


Edit: spoilers. Should have done it sooner. Ah, well

Ivysaur September 20th, 2016 1:30 AM

Quote:

Europe doesn't have as many gangs as we do and they imprison far less people than we do. We deal with cartels and drug lords the likes of which you've never seen. We deal with the world's largest gang networks the world has ever seen and then you all shrug and say 'meh Australia does it better'. Come on kid. Murderers are gonna murder, gang bangers gonna gang bang. Most of the shootings that happen over here in the US are felons shooting at felons. Guess which social group aren't allowed to have guns at all? Felons. It never fails to amuse me that someone that has no clue how firearms function, never owned one, never fired one and doesn't know the difference between single action and double action tell me how bad our gun laws are.
The problem is, most mass-shootings were cased by people using guns from their family/friends. So it's pointless to ban X person from buying guns if you allow every person surrounding X to buy two and give him one.

Also, the US has the biggest gangs in the world? Biggest drug cartels? Have you ever been in Mexico or Colombia? Or Italy, for that matter?

Quote:

Let's not forget to bring up Chicago. No, it doesn't have the strictest gun laws, but the police themselves have stated that criminals face harsher punishment from their gang than the prison system. And let's not forget their all out ban of all handguns that ended in 2010. Did we see a decrease in deaths when it was in place? Haha haha. No. They also banned 'assault weapons' meaning any and all long guns. Both the handgun ban and ass rifle ban were in place at the same time but that didn't stop gangers from shooting eachother up.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Chicago_Murder_Rates.png

Well ionno, but this graphic looks pretty downward... until 2010, when the handgun ban is overturned. Then you get a small spike and then it flattens out at the same level it was in 2010!

Quote:

Not only that, but around the globe in countries that do ban firearms they see an increase of blunt weapons, stabbings tools, and personal weapons murders.
Source? Or is that just something you just came up with?

And anyway, this topic should go in another thread. This is a thread about the elections, not about the US's horrible violence issues.

CoffeeDrink September 20th, 2016 10:34 AM

The UNODC Global Study on Homicide 2011.
Spoiler:

The document shows that western, Southern, and eastern Asia with the lowest homicide rates over all (Africa is a godawful mess). They found that in the Americas (around 29 countries or so), 76% of all homicides involve firearms while only 10% involve other weapons. However, in the God almighty 'gun-less' region of Europe (32 surveyed countries) 36% of all homicides involved firearms while a whopping 43% involve knives or other blunt instruments. Considering the UNODC itself is part of the UN and the EU I believe the results are goddamn clear cut.

As to gangland...

Hell's Angel's MC, MS-13, 18th Street, Wah Ching, the Bloods, the Crips, Outlaws MC, Banditos MC, The Aryan Brotherhood, The Latin Kings, the Mexican Mafia, and other such smaller gangs and their ilk. Not to mention Transnational gangs...

So, you bring up drug cartels? That brings me to my next point. Trans-national gangs/organized crime rackets such as Los Zetos (one of the largest drug cartels in current operation) finds a market place for their wares. The US makes up a small portion of the world but is the largest consumer of illicit narcotics in the world. That's a fact.

There are also several terrorist groups from Europe such as the IRA for example, that operate within the US. The Russian Mob, the Sicilian mafia, Albanian, Jewish and the American mafia, the Korean mafia, the Yakuza and Triads... most of Europe's gangs are indeed transnational so the point about drug cartels and the like is pretty much null and void.

They might make their product in Scotland but they sure as hell don't sell it there (I have no clue if Scotland even has this issue but it's an example, not a fact). Some countries even promote drug growth and have come under fire for it. Farmers in South America can make much more by growing and selling plants to cartels than by growing legitimate crops. Response to 'sanitizing' the drug fields has been godawful slow.

Drugs, weapons, human traffiking... we get billions of dollars of black market goods going in and out of our country day in and day out. The world's largest gangs (the gangs we deal with in CA specifically) aren't even transnational, such as the Bloods and the Crips. Their members number in the hundreds of thousandskin. So no, I'm not making random **** up when I say Europe doesn't deal with as much gangland **** as we do.

Regardless of what you want to believe, or who told you what. Europe has, as far as I'm concerned, one of the lowest levels of criminal outfits operating within their borders. Sure, you get tons of illegal product moved through the borders but business men sell where there is high demand and that's not Europe.

Look, the UNODC document is all I really need to point you to to make my point, so have at it. Not trying to trip on anyone's toes but facts are facts and I'm somewhat invested in the field.

One last point, spree killings are the random fruitcake. It's impossible to nail down any such nuts. I'm sure you know all about china's stabbing spree where 10 people wounded 130+ with knives and slashing instruments or when a Japanese janitor got fed up with something and stabbed 8 kids to death.


Anyways, this is all a huge digression from what the thread was entirely about, like you said so I'll shut the hell up about it and let everyone be about their merry way.

What are your thoughts on the candidates meeting foreign nationals and officials? I think it could have been better considering there were two bombings recently. I don't know how I feel. Pissed off people think that blowing up people needlessly is a 'good' result. Sickening.

I thought Clinton actually handled herself better and saw positive results from the Japanese. Good for her. Don't want her to win, but she's handled the forming delegates a tad better than Trump but that was expected.

Hands September 20th, 2016 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink (Post 9417667)
Considering that Clinton was found to have serious blood clotting issues since 2013. So I don't think she's in very good health by far. Due to the fact that she's been spontaneously collapsing and/or falling since 2008.

I'm also not joking about spider man. The only reason why I can remember the case was because of that. An artist, employee or other related in some way to spider man was also found guilty of fraud and/or insider trading that involved the Clintons. I can't for the life of me remember who it was but it's true. I think Stan Lee was involved at one point by being subpoenaed.

Edit: Aha! Bingo was his goddamn ****ing namo. Peter F. Paul. Lawyer, drug dealer, 'donated' money to his good friend Hillary. Stan Lee was involved. Spiderman.

Hillary was fired for incompetence and lying from her spot on the house committee. So that too.

Also, you probably have no clue how bad the gun trade is. Ever seen an 8 year old machine a receiver by hand? Illegally? In any bazaar in any middle eastern country? No? It's fascinating to say the very least. Their fingers are small enough for those tough jobs. The Kalashnikov rifle is a superb piece of work...

Further more, Europe has never, ever been close to the amount of drugs that flood our borders, so no. Wherever the hell you are your gun laws mean jack **** over here. They don't work, and they never will. The problem is that too many yaks and dumb ****s think that sprinkling magic fairy dust on a piece of legislation will make every criminal magically obey the law all of a sudden.

Europe doesn't have as many gangs as we do and they imprison far less people than we do. We deal with cartels and drug lords the likes of which you've never seen. We deal with the world's largest gang networks the world has ever seen and then you all shrug and say 'meh Australia does it better'. Come on kid. Murderers are gonna murder, gang bangers gonna gang bang. Most of the shootings that happen over here in the US are felons shooting at felons. Guess which social group aren't allowed to have guns at all? Felons. It never fails to amuse me that someone that has no clue how firearms function, never owned one, never fired one and doesn't know the difference between single action and double action tell me how bad our gun laws are.

Let's not forget to bring up Chicago. No, it doesn't have the strictest gun laws, but the police themselves have stated that criminals face harsher punishment from their gang than the prison system. And let's not forget their all out ban of all handguns that ended in 2010. Did we see a decrease in deaths when it was in place? Haha haha. No. They also banned 'assault weapons' meaning any and all long guns. Both the handgun ban and ass rifle ban were in place at the same time but that didn't stop gangers from shooting eachother up.

So, when I say that the 'common sense' gun laws makes absolutely no sense I mean it. The laws specific lyrics target 'scary looking' firearms. Meaning anything that has polymer on it, basically. Regardless the fact that Mossberg's most popular shotguns feature wooden components. Needless to say I have yet to see the man that walks away from taking a super sonic 1oz piece of lead.

The ban targets many rifles that fire either the .223 or the 5.56 (trick question, both are pretty much interchangeable despite a minor drop in pressure rates for the 5.56). In fact, when the law was in effect, more people were actually killed using long rifles than when it wasn't previously enforced. All the data is there and free. The FBI has records of this.

Hey, think of it this way, because it is the best way I can think of: when opponents of the death penalty claim that there is no solid evidence that the death penalty decreases crime, they go out and shout for more gun control. Does that not sound stupid as ****? So a law (being within the state's right to enact capital punishment) that doesn't prevent crime is okay to argue against, but the fundamentally same argument against fire arm ownership is ludicrous. It makes no sense, is what I'm trying to say.

Not only that, but around the globe in countries that do ban firearms they see an increase of blunt weapons, stabbings tools, and personal weapons murders.

Arguing for gun control because felons shoot and kill people is by far one of the stupidest and mundane arguments in the US. The police themselves have even stated as such because criminals don't care about the law or the law enforcement. It's really not that hard to grasp. Stealing, murder, rape, fraud, etc that's all against the law, right? So how come we have all these people breaking it?

More gangs, more drugs, more criminals, more illegal firearms, more prisoners, more cop killers, more murders. What more do you want me to say? We have royal issues.

Can you please quote me when you reply so I see that you've responded? Thanks.

Whilst it's irrelevant to the discussion to add the gun "manufactures" of the Khyber Pass and Kirkuk I will say this, the Kalashnikovs, alongside virtually every other gun produced there are not "superb" they often break as soon as live rounds are fired through and are rarely machined to an even semi professional standard. Also don't do the whole "have you....? no?" crap with me buddy.

Quote:

We deal with cartels and drug lords the likes of which you've never seen.
Dear me, what a fantasy. Britain had the Krays, Italy had/has the families, Germany has virtually hundreds of gangs etc.

Where are your sources of BLM officially calling for the mass killings of whites?

gimmepie September 20th, 2016 5:38 PM

Whilst Gun control might come up as a political thing relating to election, I think if you guys really want to get into that it's time for Gun Control Thread #3042

Ivysaur September 20th, 2016 11:30 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/20/politics/george-hw-bush-hillary-clinton/

So that makes four of the five living presidents to vote for Clinton in this election. Bush Jr. hasn't announced his vote either way. As someone said, it's a very bad rebuke when none of the previous guys who did the job you are applying for think you can do it.

Also of note is that an analysis of the Trump-Ryan tax plans by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center "99.6 percent of the tax cuts would benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, according to the analysis. This group would enjoy the greatest relief as a share of their income (increasing their incomes after taxes by 10.6 percent on average) and in terms of dollars (an average annual savings of $240,000 for each household). Poor and working-class households would gain more modest benefits. The poorest 20 percent of Americans would see an average increase of 0.5 percent in their incomes, or about $120 a year. Households in the upper middle class, those in the 60th percentile through the 95th percentile, would pay more in taxes on average."

So do you want more taxes for the middle classes and a millionaire windfall for the 1%? Vote Trump!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/16/analysis-by-2025-99-6-of-paul-ryans-tax-cuts-would-go-to-the-richest-1-of-americans/?wpisrc=nl_wonk&wpmm=1

CoffeeDrink September 21st, 2016 12:05 AM

Spoiler:
First, I never stated that bazaar knock offs were superb, simply that the Kalashnikov rifle itself is superb.

Nice to see you're a Tom Hardy fan. As far as I understand it, the Krays are dead, their gang is dead, and they're relevant because why? You've only given me the specific name of, not even that, just the names of the bosses of the Firm (that's it, right?). So, a single, dead, example. You haven't put forth any viable example for me to look at. I'd be willing to take a gander but there isn't anything there to gander at! At least put some pieces on the board man! Give me two examples of gangs in Europe that have an accurate guesstimate of members that number in the hundreds of thousands. I've given you four, so I think that's fair.

Also, the Italian mafia hasn't seen prominence in a good couple of decades. See: transinternational. So you deal with them too? Gosh, I had no clue what transinternational meant. The Five families are pretty much side show these days anyways...

Oh, and this made me chuckle "Germany has literally hundreds of gangs". Where is your data sir? You laugh and chortle and mock me for living in the land of fantasy make believe. Why is that? Where is the data? Where is your data? The facts? Where is the research, collection, logged, tagged, bagged, sanctioned data? You have given me absolutely nothing to fact check the great D-20 in the sky- sorry, the 'hundreds of gangs' in Germany! No data, no references just a bunch of smoke. No names of functioning gangs, no governmental entity that has conducted research and nothing to compare it to. No numbers, nothing!

You've also completely ignored the fact that all of Europe is leagues away from all the homicides and criminal activity that the United States alone suffers! I've pointed you towards a UNODC document even! Named it specifically even! If you did a simple search the UNODC pdf. pops. That doesn't even cover what the FBI has stored in its data banks!

The NGTA (National Gang Threat Assessment) has several public documents on file with the FBI, all of it free and all of it accessible with the click of a button, but you refuse to see the data or even look for it. Again, utilize all of the FBI data.

Europe has as much gangland activity? 'Hundreds of gangs'? Don't make me squirt whiskey out my nose, it burns! You want the last count by the FBI on noticeable gangs and functional active gangs in the United States?The qualifiers being violent, criminal activity. Active, not defunct or shriveled dry like the Tom Hardy twins. I mean Kray twins, sorry.

Try thirty three thousand (33,000).

My apologies almighty Pie, please allow me this one last salvo...

Hm. Looking at the WP article it is hard to say at this point. Reading through it it seems like both sides are being petty. The group that they chose to provide estimates seem pretty leery of their own estimates, unfortunate. I would have preferred if they released both at the same time.

Even if I was for Hillary I'd still like to see both side by side and not shuffled one after another. It risks miscalculation, misdirection (some articles can get buried under current events) and it's far easier to spot mistakes when you make them twice I guess.

Well, I don't think this will change my mind in any case. I was pretty angry at the bank bailout and the auto bailout back in '08. We'll be seeing that damage for decades to come. Taxes suck, but I'd at least liked to have seen both equally sucks tax proposals side by side.

EDIT: as always, auto corrections blow chunks. Errors be damned, I'm leaving them.

Mewtwolover September 21st, 2016 8:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands (Post 9416096)
Can you please cite an official statement by BLM as an organisation that says "kill all white people"?

Of course they don't say that directly, google "Black Lives Matter anti-white" and you'll find proof that it is an anti-white movement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoffeeDrink
What I'm surprised at is the ADL went after Trump on the basis of being anti-semitic when he was calling out the media. Not to mention that Hillary backs Black Lives Matter, a movement that supports the killing of all white people, of whom most Jewish descendants are white.

I'm not surprised at that.

Esper September 21st, 2016 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mewtwolover (Post 9419669)
Of course they don't say that directly, google "Black Lives Matter anti-white" and you'll find proof that it is an anti-white movement.

I did just that, googled it in quotes and everything, and I did not find any proof. I found a few websites with some very blatant anti-liberal political stances. Basically opinion pieces for (what I assume are) conservative news sites and blogs. I also got one of those conspiracy sites with the bad photoshop collages of faces and symbols of Judaism which I assume means they think that there is some kind of Jewish conspiracy involved in all of this. This was all on the first results page.

Point is, just googling it doesn't provide any proof at all.

Hands September 21st, 2016 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mewtwolover (Post 9419669)
Of course they don't say that directly, google "Black Lives Matter anti-white" and you'll find proof that it is an anti-white movement.

I'm not surprised at that.

I googled it, and, like Esper, the only thing I found backing your nonsense stance on this were alt right and far right blog type sites that provided zero sources or citations. Would you like to share some links with us?

Kanzler September 21st, 2016 3:02 PM

I'm sure some BLM members are virulently anti-white, but I honestly find it difficult to misconstrue its overall purpose - to defeat disproportionate police brutality upon black people and realise racial equality in the justice and law enforcement system. None of that requires one to be anti-white, or racist at all. I mean, were abolitionists anti-white? Tbqh the degree of social change they advocated for goes much further than what BLM is advocating for now. Not sure what the argument is associating BLM (as a movement) to anti-white racism.

Her September 21st, 2016 3:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanzler (Post 9420098)
I'm sure some BLM members are virulently anti-white, but I honestly find it difficult to misconstrue its overall purpose - to defeat disproportionate police brutality upon black people and realise racial equality in the justice and law enforcement system. None of that requires one to be anti-white, or racist at all. I mean, were abolitionists anti-white? Tbqh the degree of social change they advocated for goes much further than what BLM is advocating for now. Not sure what the argument is associating BLM (as a movement) to anti-white racism.

From what I can tell, the only plausible reason for your final sentence is that by associating BLM with such a viewpoint, it knowingly causes further friction between them and the general public. By painting all BLM supporters as being anti-white, it's of course going to cause much more resistance from those they're trying to reach. At best, it's a foolish assumption based on outliers within a movement. At worst, it's a deliberate tactic of warping perception to support the status quo.

gimmepie September 21st, 2016 6:51 PM

Friendly reminder that this is an election discussion thread not a debate about the validity of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Pinkie-Dawn September 21st, 2016 10:20 PM

So what are your thoughts if Gary Johnson wins the election instead. After watch this video, it sounds like there's a chance for a third-party candidate to win the election, leaving those who dislike both Trump and Clinton satisfied.

gimmepie September 21st, 2016 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn (Post 9420597)
So what are your thoughts if Gary Johnson wins the election instead. After watch this video, it sounds like there's a chance for a third-party candidate to win the election, leaving those who dislike both Trump and Clinton satisfied.

I highly doubt there is any chance of that happening. Both Trump and Clinton have enormous followings and the US' political system is very much a two party system without much allowance for outside parties to have a shot.

Remember youtube videos are rarely good sources.

Ivysaur September 22nd, 2016 2:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinkie-Dawn (Post 9420597)
So what are your thoughts if Gary Johnson wins the election instead. After watch this video, it sounds like there's a chance for a third-party candidate to win the election, leaving those who dislike both Trump and Clinton satisfied.

Johnson is polling at 10% nationally, with about 2.3% chances of getting one single Electoral Vote, let alone 270. So, with a winner-takes-all electoral system, voting for Johnson is akin to not voting, or voting for the Spaghetti Monster- a waste of a good vote.

Also, Johnson's positions including cutting the budget by 43%, cut corporation tax to 0% and replace income taxes with a 23% sales taxes (who hit poorer people more, as they spend a larger share of their income in consumption);
supports displays of Confederate flags, abolish the Department of Education, end public education and instead give vouchers for young kids to go to basic and high school, and ban public loands for college students (tuition? Hope you have deep pockets!);
wants to remove all regulation about energy, do nothing about climate change, fracking is good;
wants to leave parents to choose whether to protect their kids from vaccinable diseases;
is against all tariffs or trade restrictions of any kind;
wants to completely privatize health care (aka kill Medicare, Medicaid and any sorts of subsides, if you can't pay out of pocket, you are free to die on the streets);
supports cutting unemployment benefits, raising retirement age to 75 and privatizing Social Security;
wants to give no federal funds for a public mass-transit system, but build more highways for private cars instead;

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

So yeah. You know Bernie Sanders? Then picture the opposite in everything except in legalising drugs.

Hands September 22nd, 2016 2:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivysaur (Post 9420807)
Johnson is polling at 10% nationally, with about 2.3% chances of getting one single Electoral Vote, let alone 270. So, with a winner-takes-all electoral system, voting for Johnson is akin to not voting, or voting for the Spaghetti Monster- a waste of a good vote.

Also, Johnson's positions including cutting the budget by 43%, cut corporation tax to 0% and replace income taxes with a 23% sales taxes (who hit poorer people more, as they spend a larger share of their income in consumption);
supports displays of Confederate flags, abolish the Department of Education, end public education and instead give vouchers for young kids to go to basic and high school, and ban public loands for college students (tuition? Hope you have deep pockets!);
wants to remove all regulation about energy, do nothing about climate change, fracking is good;
wants to leave parents to choose whether to protect their kids from vaccinable diseases;
is against all tariffs or trade restrictions of any kind;
wants to completely privatize health care (aka kill Medicare, Medicaid and any sorts of subsides, if you can't pay out of pocket, you are free to die on the streets);
supports cutting unemployment benefits, raising retirement age to 75 and privatizing Social Security;
wants to give no federal funds for a public mass-transit system, but build more highways for private cars instead;

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

So yeah. You know Bernie Sanders? Then picture the opposite in everything except in legalising drugs.

I'd argue on an issue to issue basis Johnson is probably the worst choice. Similar in liability to the British Johnson.

CoffeeDrink September 22nd, 2016 2:48 AM

Meh, I can't fathom how a third party could ever win, and this late in the game even. Most voters are pretty much locked in on who they want to vote for I think. Having a new face would have a couple people scratching their heads but it won't change much of anything I imagine.

Mr. King certainly has a... way with words, doesn't he? What are the thoughts on that? I thought it was funny as hell. I think the aftermath is even funnier. All the folks don't bat an eye when Kanye West goes all like "N this N that" (I would use the N word, because I'm allowed to because of my skin, apparently, but I wouldn't want to offend Whitey) but when Don King says it on accident everyone flips out. That's Hella funny. It's even more funny that he's black and talking about good ol' Michael J. I don't think I'll worry too much about that. I mean, what can you do? You can't control what the guy says.

Cura September 22nd, 2016 8:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 9420600)
Remember youtube videos are rarely good sources.

You should also remember forum board opinions are just forum board opinions too. Not factual. Also there are quite a few YouTube videos out there that actually work on fact data, not just opinion alone.

Hell, when you come to think of it. If you want true data, see outside news sources. Non regional nor national, since ABC, NBC, and many others in the US are bias to what you want to hear and say. If you really want to avoid bias and listen to professional news stuff, look to Japanese cable, a lot of their sourced stuff is pretty good.

Esper September 22nd, 2016 9:12 AM

Johnson has a snowball's chance in hell. All the third party candidates do since they have to take extreme positions and that's only going to appeal to a minority of voters. Especially in this election where it seems like there is a great concern regarding stable or otherwise properly hinged candidates. Half of all the worry and attacks are against the suitability and temperament of the candidates so for someone to be seen as advocating what is essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not going to play well with the electorate.

If he somehow were able to manage to win though, I think it would be worse than having Trump win in most ways except that I don't think Johnson would have any support from Congress no matter how Congress swings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CureYoshiDarkness (Post 9421162)
If you really want to avoid bias and listen to professional news stuff, look to Japanese cable, a lot of their sourced stuff is pretty good.

I've lived in Japan and watched their news and while they don't have the over-the-top, bombastic style of other news outlets, they have their own problems regarding what subject matter they choose to cover and how they portray it, i.e., they often go for conventional, unchallenging depictions of events, just like many other news outlets.

Netto Azure September 26th, 2016 8:11 AM

My Expectations today:


Ivysaur September 26th, 2016 9:01 AM

No pressure or anything but... Clinton needs to do well or else Trump will probably take the lead sometime soon:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Esper September 26th, 2016 10:51 AM

I don't even know what to expect from this debate. What will it accomplish?

I was listening to the news this morning and they were interviewing a couple from Georgia who were voting for Trump and all their stated reasons were things that weren't based in reality, just their feelings. Like, they feel that immigrants are taking all the jobs even when immigrants are taking jobs that existing American citizens don't want. How is a debate supposed to help inform the voting public when a bunch are making their decisions based on fantasies instead of reality?

Nakuzami September 26th, 2016 1:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Netto Azure (Post 9426560)
My Expectations today:


pretty much

my school is hosting the debate and it's already crazy here, oh my goodness, Netto help

a cop saw the button my friend made for me that says "Tenorio 2016" (Tenorio being my sock monkey) and he just saw the big "T" on it and mistook it for a Trump button and he complimented us for being Trump fans and he's stationed on the street right outside my dorm and 911 send better help

Somewhere_ September 26th, 2016 2:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esper (Post 9426790)
I don't even know what to expect from this debate. What will it accomplish?

I was listening to the news this morning and they were interviewing a couple from Georgia who were voting for Trump and all their stated reasons were things that weren't based in reality, just their feelings. Like, they feel that immigrants are taking all the jobs even when immigrants are taking jobs that existing American citizens don't want. How is a debate supposed to help inform the voting public when a bunch are making their decisions based on fantasies instead of reality?

Ya conservatives in the US also dont understand that immigration increases real wages lol, even if they take "MUH JOBS!"

My predictions are that Trump will absolutely destroy Hillary. Even if he has worse ideas, he will still win. I dont think it will even be close because of Hillary's health and Trump... being Trump. I have two homework assignments for two different classes, so ill be watching the whole thing and looking at everything they say. Im pretty excited!

I want to see if Trump can make me change my pre-registration from the Libertarian Party to the Republican party when i turn 18. Im considering it simply to have a say and because the LP has been terrible recently. Johnson and Weld are a joke and fake libertarians.

Kanzler September 26th, 2016 3:35 PM

It's been noted that challengers tend to do well in the first debate (I guess since they share a stage with the incumbent and that lends to their credibility) so I wouldn't be surprised if Trump appears to come out on top. I'm happy that Clinton isn't very arrogant (as I've seen her so far) and is also a woman, because it'd be very easy to act as if Trump doesn't belong on the stage (like how Al Gore would have possibly treated him) and that would really synergize with the fallout from the "basket of deplorables" comment.

Trump might be able to hype up Clinton's health, and if she tries to dodge and assert that it's irrelevant, he might be able to point a finger at her and denounce how all she does is hide things from people. That could play out a number of different ways.

Also, as the race stands, it seems like the election will be decided in Colorado and New Hampshire. If either one defects to Trump he'll have his 270. This is all based on the analysis on 538, btw.

I have a test on Wednesday, so as HYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYPE as the debate probably is (and will be lol), I have to abstain even though it would be very fun playing debate bingo and a drinking game at the same time. Ahh who am i kidding

Esper September 26th, 2016 5:28 PM

Watching now. Clinton just asked everyone to go online to fact check. Smart. You can't really rely on the moderators or networks to do that properly. She's been doing it pretty well, and Trump seems to be a little bit angry and uncontrolled.

Although it just devolved into bickering for a moment. Clinton is sometimes coming off as dismissive and Trump as whiny.

Desert Stream~ September 26th, 2016 5:32 PM

This debate is just... weird. Most of them are. I've been taking notes, and half of them don't even make sense.
Clinton's website was pretty smart, great way to think ahead.

Netto Azure September 26th, 2016 5:47 PM

Ayy this debate needed the pizza and root beer. Have some wine too with all the Politifact rated Falsehoods

Kanzler September 26th, 2016 6:43 PM

I think Trump managed to tank this debate. Clinton was on her A game.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.