2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Sir Codin]

> REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE AND SENATE

Did someone completely ignore me when I said that the House and Senate are also doing elections this year?

Look, blow out debates between liberalism and social democracies all you want, but at the end of the day, despite being a slightly right-wing libertarian freedom nut, if it really came down to a Threeway between Trump, Sanders, and Clinton, I will put a damn Sanders 2016 sticker on the back of my car.

 

[Netto Azure]

It's a Presidential election year of course the focus will be on the Presidential run.

As for the legislature, that is wholly dependent on the state and districts you live in. All I could contribute is probably how I'd vote for Kamala Harris if I still lived in CA, but I'm now in WA so eh. We could get into traditional discussions about legislative district mapping, but that won't change until 2021 at the earliest. The Senate could flip Dem, but we'll still have the absurdity of the filibuster.

We could also get into discussions about electoral systems, but that usually bores people. Though I do think a lot of people could agree that FPTP is just a detriment to actually accurately represent people in a district.

 

[Kanzler]

How else will he get his 18 trillion dollars? Logically he cannot get the money by taxing the rich all by itself, even if the tax is 90% it will never raise enough money for that astronomical amount.

Again, you fail to see that fact that if you get something like cancer, by the time you get surgery you could've already been dead. Those wait times are ridiculous. Meanwhile, as I've said, we have uneducated healthcare workers championing our forms of government healthcare. I say this because they are incompetent and don't care about the patient and merely the money; this is not good at all.

You're also assuming most of these people who want to go to college are what you describe. If a person flunked all of high school, they should never get a free ride in college because their clear intentions was to never benefit society. In fact, a majority of students seem to not care about their education at all (in my area, anyways), so why should they be given a free ride on the expense of the Middle and Upper Classes even after they had known that if they actually worked hard, they could have accessed many scholarships that would've driven down the costs as well as other forms of financial aid. This is why incentivizing making higher and higher grads in high school would be a better course of action then just making college free with a highly expensive plan; as this would make more people in our education system have these scholarships available.

Another thing that people also fail to realize is that Bernie is spineless. He has low leadership potential and he would be against a house and senate that is Republican controlled, essentially making any and all of his plans null unless he uses an executive action, and he seems like the kind of person who wouldn't do that due to his spinelessness. An example of this would be when he let a BLM supporter take his mic in his rally.

I don't think American government and politics will be transformed overnight. I don't know about other countries, but I can tell you the way we do things in Canada was built over many decades. I think the American people aren't unrealistic. The point isn't so much to get a socialism now, today, but to have someone in power with the vision and the chops to take it seriously and see it through.

At this point you're talking about hypotheticals, and deeply disingenuous ones. I get it. $18 trillion dollars is scary. But various news sources have already covered the tax hikes he would use to fund his programs:

And this is what you're getting out of it:

All of which benefits the middle and working class. So that's how he'll get those 18 trillion dollars.

@college. Look, your argument here is highly disingenuous, and if you're already in college or are applying to college, you'd know - so I'm assuming you're neither of those things. There exists something that is called entrance requirements. You may have to get a certain GPA. You may have to do well on the SAT. Let me tell you something. Making college more affordable has nothing to do with changing entrance requirements. The fact that you make this connection is ludicrous - there is simply no logical connection there. I mean, we Canadians must be producing a workforce of morons given how low undergrad tuition is - on average $7000 a year.

Also, you know scholarship are supply-side and not demand-side right? They come from donors. It's not like if everybody in the incoming class became high-achieving enough to deserve a scholarship, they're all going to get one. It doesn't work that way because the supply of scholarships is limited.

@bernie sanders being spineless. Just too much Fox News man. Wayy too much Fox News. I could slander all of the frontrunners in the Republican Party as well, but unfortunately everything I say would be true.

 

[Sir Codin]

Not to mention social democracy doesn't seem too terrible. Before claiming people in Europe are miserable due to the system, try actually going there first like I am right now. Germany and Netherlands are breathtaking and they are third world holes like people think the US will be if we took on some more socialist tendendcies. People still work and theye still own property and there are still loads and loads of markets. He'll some shit that is illegal in the US is legal in the Netherlands, like hookerz and pot.

 

[Kanzler]

Let's move the discussion forward to more relevant and more objective territory: the results of Super Tuesday.

Who won? Who lost? What's changed?

 

[Thepowaofhax]

I don't think American government and politics will be transformed overnight. I don't know about other countries, but I can tell you the way we do things in Canada was built over many decades. I think the American people aren't unrealistic. The point isn't so much to get a socialism now, today, but to have someone in power with the vision and the chops to take it seriously and see it through.

At this point you're talking about hypotheticals, and deeply disingenuous ones. I get it. $18 trillion dollars is scary. But various news sources have already covered the tax hikes he would use to fund his programs:

And this is what you're getting out of it:

All of which benefits the middle and working class. So that's how he'll get those 18 trillion dollars.

@college. Look, your argument here is highly disingenuous, and if you're already in college or are applying to college, you'd know - so I'm assuming you're neither of those things. There exists something that is called entrance requirements. You may have to get a certain GPA. You may have to do well on the SAT. Let me tell you something. Making college more affordable has nothing to do with changing entrance requirements. The fact that you make this connection is ludicrous - there is simply no logical connection there. I mean, we Canadians must be producing a workforce of morons given how low undergrad tuition is - on average $7000 a year.

Also, you know scholarship are supply-side and not demand-side right? They come from donors. It's not like if everybody in the incoming class became high-achieving enough to deserve a scholarship, they're all going to get one. It doesn't work that way because the supply of scholarships is limited.

@bernie sanders being spineless. Just too much Fox News man. Wayy too much Fox News. I could slander all of the frontrunners in the Republican Party as well, but unfortunately everything I say would be true.

So he's going to do all of this by hiking many different taxes, including income tax. Only three of these taxes are definitely targeted at the 1%, being the Wallstreet and Corporate Offshore taxes, and capital gains. The rest are just general taxes that will be added onto the potential Middle and Working Class. So no, I see no reason to increase government spending by about our national debt to give try and "help" our middle class if we're just going to stab them with more taxes. We're already taxed on just about everything in our country; the food, the gas, the internet, your phone bills, the horrendous and pointless death tax, etc. And to add INSULT TO INJURY, all these taxes will only hurt those who live paycheck to paycheck.

Yeah, I've heard of these requirements. But I don't think your 2.0 GPA from partying hard should allow you to get a free ride in college under Bernie's plans. That education would go to waste, as it would be "free" education for everyone. You also seem to think I only said scholarships, when I also mentioned that there are other ways to get money to help in college (which is a little something called financial aid; pell grants, ETC). What I'm arguing for is not a change in the requirements to go in, but a change in the public school system that further incentivizes actually working hard because if we have more people coming out of high school with a meaningful education, they will have more availability when it comes to financial aid or scholarships. Then, I further mentioned that we could eventually heighten standards in public schooling. However, you completely disregarded the fact that I mentioned financial aid or didn't read the whole paragraph and skimmed toward the very bottom and assumed that I only mentioned scholarships.

And no, that is personal opinion. I do not watch Fox News and I've been paying attention to a majority of these candidates. If he can't handle someone forcing off his stage at his rally, and eventually gives in to their request, he clearly has some form of spinelessness. Also, I wouldn't really want someone who hasn't gotten a job until 40 with a networth of 300,000$ running a country with a weak economy. At least Trump can boast about being a billionare (but where's that when you've bankrupted yourself four times, never disavowed David Duke on live television and committed fraud with his phony university?). Obviously as well, I wouldn't be attacking each and every candidate as well.

 

[Kanzler]

So he's going to do all of this by hiking many different taxes, including income tax. Only three of these taxes are definitely targeted at the 1%, being the Wallstreet and Corporate Offshore taxes, and capital gains. The rest are just general taxes that will be added onto the potential Middle and Working Class. So no, I see no reason to increase government spending by about our national debt to give try and "help" our middle class if we're just going to stab them with more taxes. We're already taxed on just about everything in our country; the food, the gas, the internet, your phone bills, the horrendous and pointless death tax, etc. And to add INSULT TO INJURY, all these taxes will only hurt those who live paycheck to paycheck.

I guess there's nothing that'll change your mind until you get a full-time job or apply to college or get a serious illness.

Yeah, I've heard of these requirements. But I don't think your 2.0 GPA from partying hard should allow you to get a free ride in college under Bernie's plans. That education would go to waste, as it would be "free" education for everyone. You also seem to think I only said scholarships, when I also mentioned that there are other ways to get money to help in college (which is a little something called financial aid; pell grants, ETC). What I'm arguing for is not a change in the requirements to go in, but a change in the public school system that further incentivizes actually working hard because if we have more people coming out of high school with a meaningful education, they will have more availability when it comes to financial aid or scholarships. Then, I further mentioned that we could eventually heighten standards in public schooling. However, you completely disregarded the fact that I mentioned financial aid or didn't read the whole paragraph and skimmed toward the very bottom and assumed that I only mentioned scholarships.

I don't think you understood my previous post. The entire point of that is making college more affordable has nothing to do with the requirements of getting in, and it's disingenuous for you to suggest that Sanders' plan would imply that. You don't have to tell me that you're not arguing for a change in the requirements, because I have reading comprehension skills.

Regarding financial aid: please try applying to college and see how far financial aid gets you. Average student debt is over $30,000 and that's including scholarships, financial aid, and all of that.

And you didn't merely mention scholarships, but suggested that the better marks people get, the more scholarships will be available. That's either ignorance of reality or just plain stupidity. The fact of the matter is that people compete for scholarships - meaning that there will always be more people than there are scholarships. But perhaps you've never applied for a scholarship before so I'll assume you're not informed about what actually goes on there.

And no, that is personal opinion. I do not watch Fox News and I've been paying attention to a majority of these candidates. If he can't handle someone forcing off his stage at his rally, and eventually gives in to their request, he clearly has some form of spinelessness. Also, I wouldn't really want someone who hasn't gotten a job until 40 with a networth of 300,000$ running a country with a weak economy. At least Trump can boast about being a billionare (but where's that when you've bankrupted yourself four times, never disavowed David Duke on live television and committed fraud with his phony university?). Obviously as well, I wouldn't be attacking each and every candidate as well.

Didn't get a job until 40? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Net worth of $300,000 is a bad thing? The average American net worth is about $300,000. He talks the talk and walks the walk. He doesn't take donations from the rich and he hasn't fattened himself up from his political career. Why would you think a billionaire is a better representative for the middle class than someone who actually has a middle class lifestyle?

Your posts are disingenuous and full of misinformation. Dissenting opinions usually add value for a thread like this one, but yours so far have been a disservice.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

I guess there's nothing that'll change your mind until you get a full-time job or apply to college or get a serious illness.



I don't think you understood my previous post. The entire point of that is making college more affordable has nothing to do with the requirements of getting in, and it's disingenuous for you to suggest that Sanders' plan would imply that. You don't have to tell me that you're not arguing for a change in the requirements, because I have reading comprehension skills.

Regarding financial aid: please try applying to college and see how far financial aid gets you. Average student debt is over $30,000 and that's including scholarships, financial aid, and all of that.

And you didn't merely mention scholarships, but suggested that the better marks people get, the more scholarships will be available. That's either ignorance of reality or just plain stupidity. The fact of the matter is that people compete for scholarships - meaning that there will always be more people than there are scholarships. But perhaps you've never applied for a scholarship before so I'll assume you're not informed about what actually goes on there.



Didn't get a job until 40? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Net worth of $300,000 is a bad thing? The average American net worth is about $300,000. He talks the talk and walks the walk. He doesn't take donations from the rich and he hasn't fattened himself up from his political career. Why would you think a billionaire is a better representative for the middle class than someone who actually has a middle class lifestyle?

Your posts are disingenuous and full of misinformation. Dissenting opinions usually add value for a thread like this one, but yours so far have been a disservice.

Actually, you are missing my points and in turn building a giant strawman. I said if someone flunked high school, they shouldn't get free tuition. Not that he would in his entirety, lower the bar for everyone as well as make tuition free. People shouldn't lower tuition if they have such a low GPA in college, nor again flunk high school. Besides, there are plenty of colleges with a minimum of a 2.0 GPA. Whether it be 2.1, 2.2, they are still low. Here is a list of them.

I probably should have rephrased it a little bit, but what I meant to say was that if they had higher grades their availability to get potential scholarships are easier by nature because of the fact that they would meet more requirements for different scholarships if they are academic. For example, if a person has a 3.5 GPA and didn't have a 4.0 GPA, they wouldn't make the requirements and couldn't get it. If we managed to get their grades higher, they internet could meet that requirement. That is what I've been trying to say.

Now for that last bit, there is a bit of hyperbole. However, he is still a politician and many politicians have higher net worths than himself, even in his own party. That doesn't seem good for him.

 

[Kanzler]

Actually, you are missing my points and in turn building a giant strawman. I said if someone flunked high school, they shouldn't get free tuition. Not that he would in his entirety, lower the bar for everyone as well as make tuition free. People shouldn't lower tuition if they have such a low GPA in college, nor again flunk high school. Besides, there are plenty of colleges with a minimum of a 2.0 GPA. Whether it be 2.1, 2.2, they are still low. Here is a list of them.

LOL if somebody flunked high school, they don't even get a chance to get into college. Also, you literally put "2.0 gpa universities" in a search engine and thought that you'd literally get 2.0 GPA universities out.

Well, it turns out the first entry is for a Doctor of Nursing program at Quinnepac University, who requires a Master's Degree whose GPA requirement is 3.0. In fact, all of these schools are graduate schools, not undergraduate schools which is what people mean when they talk about making college affordable.

This is frankly becoming increasingly pathetic. I thought here at the Round Table you're supposed to give a damn about supporting your arguments. It looks like you just google whatever and copy-paste the first thing that comes up without taking a second look, let alone understanding what you're using to "support" your arguments.

I probably should have rephrased it a little bit, but what I meant to say was that if they had higher grades their availability to get potential scholarships are easier by nature because of the fact that they would meet more requirements for different scholarships if they are academic. For example, if a person has a 3.5 GPA and didn't have a 4.0 GPA, they wouldn't make the requirements and couldn't get it. If we managed to get their grades higher, they internet could meet that requirement. That is what I've been trying to say.

That's not how grades are supposed to work. If you tried to "raise everybody's grades" which appears to be what you're suggesting, you get grade inflation. If everybody had a 4.0, a 4.0 wouldn't be worth very much. If you believe that trying to raise everybody's grades is a good policy, then you're not going to get anybody anywhere.

Now for that last bit, there is a bit of hyperbole. However, he is still a politician and many politicians have higher net worths than himself, even in his own party. That doesn't seem good for him.

There's more to life than making money. If you have a man in a position where he could leverage his political privileges but chooses not to, that's what you call integrity. According to you, however, apparently net worth is more important than integrity. You speak for yourself, but I can only hope that the rest of the voting population has their priorities sorted out.

How about we move on from this discussion. 1) This isn't getting anywhere, 2) we've discussed our points to death, 3) I don't want there to be a precedent for ill-supported posts to be acceptable at neither RT or this thread, and 4) there's plenty more election stuff for us to be talking about and let's not derail this thread further.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

LOL if somebody flunked high school, they don't even get a chance to get into college. Also, you literally put "2.0 gpa universities" in a search engine and thought that you'd literally get 2.0 GPA universities out.

Well, it turns out the first entry is for a Doctor of Nursing program at Quinnepac University, who requires a Master's Degree whose GPA requirement is 3.0. In fact, all of these schools are graduate schools, not undergraduate schools which is what people mean when they talk about making college affordable.

This is frankly becoming increasingly pathetic. I thought here at the Round Table you're supposed to give a damn about supporting your arguments. It looks like you just google whatever and copy-paste the first thing that comes up without taking a second look, let alone understanding what you're using to "support" your arguments.



That's not how grades are supposed to work. If you tried to "raise everybody's grades" which appears to be what you're suggesting, you get grade inflation. If everybody had a 4.0, a 4.0 wouldn't be worth very much. If you believe that trying to raise everybody's grades is a good policy, then you're not going to get anybody anywhere.



There's more to life than making money. If you have a man in a position where he could leverage his political privileges but chooses not to, that's what you call integrity. According to you, however, apparently net worth is more important than integrity. You speak for yourself, but I can only hope that the rest of the voting population has their priorities sorted out.

How about we move on from this discussion. 1) This isn't getting anywhere, 2) we've discussed our points to death, 3) I don't want there to be a precedent for ill-supported posts to be acceptable at neither RT or this thread, and 4) there's plenty more election stuff for us to be talking about and let's not derail this thread further.

Well to be fair, I did search up 2.0 and I don't quite frankly feel like looking at each and every single college meticulously. It's a damned search engine, it should be putting in the right information and not this shit.

However, this merely resulted in a bunch of cherrypicking since a college search engine cannot simply work today.
Here are some examples:
University of Floride at minimum 2.0
University of Colorado (2.75 for automatic, lower are considered)
University of Pennsylvania (2.5 for one location, others 2.0)


These are just a few to name. Sad that a search engine cannot work. Sure, you could say I was a jackass for not checking the campuses linked but for fuck's sake, it's supposed to be a search engine and clearly the people who made it don't understand how those work because a 2 isn't a 3.

Now, I do find net worth important for our economy, which is a very important issue in our election. If our economy crashes, so does a lot more countries and well, we'd rather not be in a shithole.

Now, I'll probably end here, I'm just mad that a search engine designed for searching colleges doesn't work.

Also, that's the only source I probably did that on. but w/e.

 

[ddrox13]

-snip-

The flaw all of these plans is an extension of the law of supply and demand. If college is more affordable, more people will apply. If more people apply and the school still has the same number of openings, the quality of transcript needed to get into the school will rise. Then again, that same argument could still be used against Sanders, as still not everyone will get the education. I feel that having smarter or more hardworking students is better than having less intelligent persons who's parents can pay the fees for them, only to have that money go to waste when they don't keep a job because they screwed around rather than working while on the clock. There is no perfect way to do this because humans are imperfect.

As many people have pointed out, there is basically no "good" outcome (except possibly Carson). Trump will send America's reputation down the drain by flipping off every other country and religion, which is not how to "Make America Great Again". Cruz is nearly as crazy. Sanders' socialist policies scare people like user Thepowaofhax. Clinton can't beat Trump if it comes down to it. Why can't everyone just be nice to each other?

Canada seriously needs to come up with an emergency immigration policy in the event that Trump becomes president.

EDIT:

Here are some examples:
University of Floride at minimum 2.0
University of Colorado (2.75 for automatic, lower are considered)
University of Pennsylvania (2.5 for one location, others 2.0)

Reading is encouraged

Florida is Florida. It's a sports school. But yea, your point is correct on THIS one...

For CU Denver, that was requirements to transfer in. As far as Freshman admissions are concerned, "On average, our admitted freshmen were in the top 25 percent of their graduating class, had a 3.3 GPA and scored 23 on the ACT or 1060 on the SAT."

Your data, which is on Penn State University (NOT the University of Pennsylvania), is also for transfers. Their site doesn't list specific GPA or standardized test requirements for rising Freshman.

 

[Anti]

I am legitimately frightened at the prospect of Donald Trump winning the presidency.

Forgetting his base for a moment--and it's really quite obvious what his appeal is for them--I am alarmed at how everyone else has dealt with (or has not dealt with) the Trump phenomenon.

The Republican retaliation against Trump never materialized unless you count Cruz and Rubio going after him months too late in the most recent debate. Christie even endorsed him, which I find very, very dispiriting. Despite being sympathetic to at least parts of the coalition that the Republican Party represents, I don't know if I would be able to forgive the GOP if they didn't do something to stop Trump. (Sidenote: thanks a lot John Kasich for assist to Trump! You're a real pal!) I understand that rigging the nomination is more or less out of the question, but if Trump gets the nomination--and I have a hard time believing he won't--I really hope some conservatives form a robust enough third party candidate to give Hillary the election. I know how much some people don't like Hillary, and I don't love her either, but Trump simply cannot win. This is not a liberal-conservative thing. Even ignoring how murky Trump's ideology is, a president's personality and qualifications often matter much more. I sincerely hope that some Republicans are part of the solution rather than fatalistically accepting the problem.

On the Democratic side, well, living in a far-left echo chamber, I am disappointed that some people still smugly treat Trump as a joke or a meme. News Flash: even if Trump is just "trolling" us or whatever, the people who support him are completely serious, and the fact that the racism, sexism, etc. that he represents have enough electoral power to steamroll toward the nomination against the wishes of a political structure that many on the left deem to be all-powerful is very real and very frightening. Similarly, most people I associate with support Sanders, and I simply have no patience for those who have become so zealous in their support for him that they would refuse to turn out for Hillary. I don't like Hillary either, but not voting in an election where low turnout from Democrats could let a demagogue take public office is unbearably self-indulgent, and anyone who has sour grapes about Bernie's impending defeat who doesn't vote for Clinton should feel personally responsible if Trump manages to become the most powerful man in the world. (Reread that last part again.) Finally, I hope Sanders drops out soon so the Democrats can coalesce around Hillary and put their best foot forward in the general election.

As much as I protest many of the same things Trump does--runaway political correctness, the corrupt fatcattery and indifference of our government, etc.--the man is a charlatan and his rise is frightening.

(...I would even prefer Ted Cruz, and my only truly strong political opinion these days is that ideologues make for the worst public servants. What is happening right now...?)

ps the media sux

 

[Kanzler]

I highly disagree with the notion that Sanders should drop out to allow the Democratic Party to coalesce around Clinton. And a Trump presidency might not be that bad, tbh. He seems hardly the ideologue and has been constantly criticized for his lack of conservatism. How many of the things he claims do you think he could actually get passed once in office? He's just another Republican candidate.

 

[Anti]

I highly disagree with the notion that Sanders should drop out to allow the Democratic Party to coalesce around Clinton. And a Trump presidency might not be that bad, tbh. He seems hardly the ideologue and has been constantly criticized for his lack of conservatism. How many of the things he claims do you think he could actually get passed once in office? He's just another Republican candidate.

It is certainly possible it might not be that bad. It is also not a chance worth taking.

Donald Trump has publicly advocated for war crimes. He has publicly advocated for a trade war with China. He public degrades *insert minority here* and is more popular because of it. He is not "just another Republican candidate." Even if his domestic policies would not pass Congress--hardly a guarantee, by the way--he would still be in control of the strongest military force in human history, an area of executive power that the Congress has relatively little say in, especially in recent history.

 

[Mobile Tsk]

It is certainly possible it might not be that bad. It is also not a chance worth taking.

Donald Trump has publicly advocated for war crimes. He has publicly advocated for a trade war with China. He public degrades *insert minority here* and is more popular because of it. He is not "just another Republican candidate." Even if his domestic policies would not pass Congress--hardly a guarantee, by the way--he would still be in control of the strongest military force in human history, an area of executive power that the Congress has relatively little say in, especially in recent history.

You have definitely captured what is in my mind the most dangerous thing about Trump. It isn't necessarily that he supports irresponsible, dangerous foreign policy. It isn't the fact that he supports policies that disproportionately harm people based on ethnic groups, etc. It's not that he ignores the Constitution. His opponents are equally guilty of all of those things. However the fact that he is able to use such reckless rhetoric and it has virtually no negative consequences for his presidential prospects is frightening. I still think he is the weakest of Clinton's challengers, though, and a strong, thorough Clinton campaign will beat him.

 

[Neil Peart]

And a Trump presidency might not be that bad, tbh.

Thank you for giving me a great belly laugh. It's been a rough day, and I needed that.

 

[Jauntier]

Of all the things that were hashed out last night in the Democratic debate, that disastrous question Don Lemon asked about how "everyone's just a little bit racist" and asking the candidates "what are your racial blindspots" was absolutely ridiculous and shameful. And the fact that Lemon posed it again when Hillary did a proper dodge of such a terrible question, it just floors me what responses they were forced to profess.

 

[Esper]

Of all the things that were hashed out last night in the Democratic debate, that disastrous question Don Lemon asked about how "everyone's just a little bit racist" and asking the candidates "what are your racial blindspots" was absolutely ridiculous and shameful. And the fact that Lemon posed it again when Hillary did a proper dodge of such a terrible question, it just floors me what responses they were forced to profess.

That was awkward, but not nearly as awkward as that one glassy-eyed woman from the audience who asked them about god and religion.

I think Sanders did an above average job at this debate (but of course it was all domestic issues). When the auto bailout, the crime bill, and the issue of gun manufacturers were brought up I think he responded really well by articulating why he did what he did, which was basically by saying that sometimes things aren't cut and dry and that even if you want to see auto manufacturing succeed, you don't want to keep propping up Wall Street with taxpayer money to do it. He's speaking a lot better than he has in previous debates where he was sometimes a bit of a broken record on Wall Street and the banks.

 

[Jauntier]

That was awkward, but not nearly as awkward as that one glassy-eyed woman from the audience who asked them about god and religion.

I think Sanders did an above average job at this debate (but of course it was all domestic issues). When the auto bailout, the crime bill, and the issue of gun manufacturers were brought up I think he responded really well by articulating why he did what he did, which was basically by saying that sometimes things aren't cut and dry and that even if you want to see auto manufacturing succeed, you don't want to keep propping up Wall Street with taxpayer money to do it. He's speaking a lot better than he has in previous debates where he was sometimes a bit of a broken record on Wall Street and the banks.

She had the vacuous, simple look of a delighted dementia patient, and Hillary was clearly trying to speak while the cogs in her head were turning because it was such an unexpected question, but it's a question in this country that the obvious answer would be to affirm it--by any degree. Not so tell me in what ways you're incapable of understanding my minority struggle as affluent white people. People have managed the "what are your weaknesses" question better at entry-level job interviews.

More on Sanders, I do agree with you on those three topics, he did shine brighter than his opponent in my eyes with his admittance concerning the bailout and crime bills. And where Hillary made such flagrant assertions concerning gun manufacturers' need to be accountable concerning what someone who has legally purchased a gun does with their legally-obtained product (since they mentioned Charleston, in that case, the FBI background examiner investigating Roof did not contact the right police department within the three-day waiting period in order to find that he admitted to a felony drug charge. The examiner would have otherwise sent those papers to the store that would sell him the gun, and they would have denied him the purchase of the gun for that crime. That, though, is not the fault of the sellers and definitely not the fault of the manufacturers, just an unfortunate goose chase that did not pan out in a timely manner) and her poor solutions ("make guns safer" lol), Bernie did not make such a promise. I feel like Hillary keeps making pandering promises to every unjust outcry she hears, more so in this particular debate than Bernie did, despite that ultimate poor whites don't exist highlight.

Oh well. This election cycle has been a shitshow all around. I hear the GOP establishment is trying to push for Mitt Romney to jump in the game to take on the unstoppable bull that is Trump's numbers in the party. I've also heard they want to risk backing Cruz. They're scrambling to rally behind anyone that isn't Trump, even attempting to suggest to Trump that he become a third-party candidate so that they have a better chance with their establishment candidates going against him, but Trump isn't that stupid to add one or two more competitors to vie against this far into the game.

I need to run to Costco and get myself another bulk box of popcorn. I'm running out from all these dramatic debates.

 

[Sir Codin]

Political Compass just updated:

In most accounts, we lose.