2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Aliencommander1245]

I think it's fair to say Hillary won hands down and fact checkers had another field day every time Trump opened his mouth, so that's something.

I'm glad the abhorrent republican platform isn't likely to go anywhere in regards to presidential behavior no matter who wins, but Pence would probably stick to it enough that I'm very, very glad he's not going to touch the whitehouse. Hopefully supporting Trump for as long as they did nets the republican establishment a loss in the senate too so they can go back and rethink their whole "Let's be awful" strategy

Sadly, I didn't get to see the debate, but I hope I can find it online somewhere. When I have time, I might look into it some more, but as time wheres on and I hear more about the Democratic party's dirty laundry I become more cynical. Both sides are bad, but with the timeclock running on those e-mails and such, I think they need to get down to business quick before more is uncovered and there's enough sway to damn them through popular opinion.

Huh? As far as i'm aware there's neither new "dirt" nor anything email related about the DNC going on

I have an article in my local paper say that the voting officials (those that count votes, I suppose is more accurate) are offended at Trump saying that "The system is rigged". I'm not sure whether or not the system is rigged, but it sure is suspicious that Bernie Sanders was never going to get the ticket no matter what. It was one of those raw deals that he got stuck with, so forgive me if I think that rigging an election is fully within the toolbelts of some officials. Not that that means they always do such things, but we've seen something like it before with Al Gore so... I don't know. All we can do is watch I suppose.

Bernie was behind from the start and it became pretty clear fairly early on that he couldn't get the numbers to stay in, it's unfortunate but he's a relative unknown running as a firebrand so it's not entirely unsuspected or anything.

Let's be clear though, rigging an election or even committing voter fraud on the ridiculous scale required to influence an election is both implausible and near impossible, simply the act of attempting it would also be impossible to hide considering the scale and amount of people that would need to be involved.
It's like the moon landing conspiracy, the amount of effort and people involved would guarantee it'd be leaked out if it were to (have) happen(ed) and it's so difficult to do to start with that there's not really a point.

 

[Mewtwolover]

Let's be clear though, rigging an election or even committing voter fraud on the ridiculous scale required to influence an election is both implausible and near impossible, simply the act of attempting it would also be impossible to hide considering the scale and amount of people that would need to be involved.

Actually it's fully possible, rigging the electronic voting machines is easy (they're closed source) and that's what they're going to do: https://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-voter-fraud/

Btw, remember the 2000 US Presidential election in Florida, there were many controversial issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

 

[Esper]

Rigging elections has historically been used to disenfranchise minorities and since, generally speaking, minority groups currently favor the Democratic side there's not really any precedent or reason for them rigging a general election. That's not to say that it couldn't happen, but it would be an awful idea to try it in the current climate. If even one vote gets miscounted you'll probably see people in the streets with their guns. We've already see that kind of intimidation tactic in practice and Trump's basically encouraging it at polling places for election day.

Actually it's fully possible, rigging the electronic voting machines is easy (they're closed source) and that's what they're going to do: https://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-voter-fraud/

I agree that electronic voting machines are a bad idea in general because they'd be easy enough to manipulate by whoever has control over them and they lack a paper trail. But if you think that there is some Soros-Clinton conspiracy in battleground states like Florida you gotta remember that those battleground states mentioned in your link are run by Republicans legislatures. (Illinois, Oregon, California, and others are controlled by Dems, but those states wouldn't ever go to Trump.)

So, really, the people you gotta watch for cheating on election day and after are more likely than not the Republicans because they're the ones guarding the hen house in the states that will determine the winner of the election.

 

[Sektor]

Let's be clear though, rigging an election or even committing voter fraud on the ridiculous scale required to influence an election is both implausible and near impossible, simply the act of attempting it would also be impossible to hide considering the scale and amount of people that would need to be involved.
It's like the moon landing conspiracy, the amount of effort and people involved would guarantee it'd be leaked out if it were to (have) happen(ed) and it's so difficult to do to start with that there's not really a point.

Have you ever heard of gerrymandering? It's a very real thing and (I'm not certain of the particular laws violated) illegal. Voter fraud is a very real thing. Ballot stuffing, 'zombie' votes, gerrymandering, destruction of valid votes, 'dropped' or 'lost' counts, tampering with electronic machines, and more. Zombie votes and voter fraud are a used nearly every election and cases of fraud are always prevalent. Rigging elections is highly plausible, if not possible.

During the 2000 election, like Mewtwolover pointed out, Al Gore won the popular vote meaning that the people wanted him as president. However, even though the majority of Americans wanted him as President the electoral vote stalled and barred Gore from becoming President and we received another Bush instead. It happened, it's real and the only time in history a candidate that won the Popular vote lost. None of this is news, it happens all the time and I implore you to looking a bit more into it, because it isn't a 'fake moon landing' as you put it.

Also, John Podesta's leaked e-mails further the drill a tad. Now, I'm not saying all the leaked e-mails are true, however there is always some kernel of truth in every half-truth. Now, if allegations that Podesta colluded with the NYT to paint opponents in a bad light, hosted a private party for 'noteworthy' media persons to sway them against trump, working with Wall Street trying to paint her economic plans in a 'progressive' light. Now, I'm not naive in thinking that all of these e-mails are true, but if even 20% of them are true or even 10% it shows a painted picture that's pretty ugly. Now, Podesta may or may not have acted on his own and not consulted Hillary Clinton, but it doesn't help her in the least that he was caught with his pants down.

To further cement the shoes, Esquire published this today, stating that: Podesta's e-mail along with several other officials was indeed hacked. Like I said, as time wears on and these e-mails are gone through it's not looking pretty. It's an ugly mess and it doesn't help Clinton in the least.

Again, either side is as desirable as a bowl of live maggots, but these e-mails are beginning to push buttons and not in a good way.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Actually it's fully possible, rigging the electronic voting machines is easy (they're closed source) and that's what they're going to do: https://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-voter-fraud/

https://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

Oh look, debunked. Took me all of five seconds to google it :P

Have you ever heard of gerrymandering? It's a very real thing and (I'm not certain of the particular laws violated) illegal.

It's legal if it's bipartisan for some reason, but it's not at all voter fraud and mostly prevalent within republican owned states statistically, although both parties have done it, but voter restriction laws targeted at specific groups or minorities are a much more prevalent problem, look at the multiple republican laws voted down recently that were directly and undeniably targeted specifically at african american voters (Who are a lot more democrat leaning)

Voter fraud is a very real thing. Ballot stuffing, 'zombie' votes, gerrymandering, destruction of valid votes, 'dropped' or 'lost' counts, tampering with electronic machines, and more. Zombie votes and voter fraud are a used nearly every election and cases of fraud are always prevalent. Rigging elections is highly plausible, if not possible.

All of those methods are either too small a scale to have any effect (On the basis of an individual voting more than once) and as such pointless (While also not being widespread at all, as records and prosecutions of said crimes/evidence of said crimes are near nonexistent in number) or too large a scale (Destroying or losing votes) to go unnoticed by a bipartisan and highly rigorously checked process like voting.

During the 2000 election, like Mewtwolover pointed out, Al Gore won the popular vote meaning that the people wanted him as president. However, even though the majority of Americans wanted him as President the electoral vote stalled and barred Gore from becoming President and we received another Bush instead. It happened, it's real and the only time in history a candidate that won the Popular vote lost. None of this is news, it happens all the time and I implore you to looking a bit more into it, because it isn't a 'fake moon landing' as you put it.

I have looked into it, and the evidence is simply not there to support any concept of widespread voter fraud effecting elections, and considering the lineup of presidents in modern history that's not really surprising. You're also wrong about Al Gore being the first to win a popular vote but lose, as he was the fourth, BUT he won the popular vote by such a small margain that it's not really surprising that there was the possibility he could lose, it's not like it was 70/30 and somehow this guy no one liked won the election.
But you are correct that the 2000 election was very very close, and it's for that reason that the florida recount in particular was so controversial as was bush's response to it.

Also, John Podesta's leaked e-mails further the drill a tad. Now, I'm not saying all the leaked e-mails are true, however there is always some kernel of truth in every half-truth. Now, if allegations that Podesta colluded with the NYT to paint opponents in a bad light, hosted a private party for 'noteworthy' media persons to sway them against trump, working with Wall Street trying to paint her economic plans in a 'progressive' light. Now, I'm not naive in thinking that all of these e-mails are true, but if even 20% of them are true or even 10% it shows a painted picture that's pretty ugly. Now, Podesta may or may not have acted on his own and not consulted Hillary Clinton, but it doesn't help her in the least that he was caught with his pants down.

To further cement the shoes, Esquire published this today, stating that: Podesta's e-mail along with several other officials was indeed hacked. Like I said, as time wears on and these e-mails are gone through it's not looking pretty. It's an ugly mess and it doesn't help Clinton in the least.

A lot of the information is falsified, those emails are an annoying tangled mess of false propaganda and legitimate leaked emails, but not enough of the information is incriminating beyond stuff that's pretty patently false, or taken as out of context lines for news sites. It's a mess sorting through the slog that they are and trying to gleam what's actually true within the mess of falsified and edited documents but in particular i find the idea that Clinton is "colluding with the media" to be pretty hard to swallow considering how critically her actions are being looked at by the media, and how impossible it is not to paint her opponent in a negative light when there's nothing positive about his campaign, plans for the country or even things he says in public.

"I'll only accept the result of the election if i win" Is hard to spin anything other than the ramblings of a man on the verge of a tantrum.

Again, either side is as desirable as a bowl of live maggots, but these e-mails are beginning to push buttons and not in a good way.

I really do not feel like you're well informed about either candidate if this is the extent of your knowledge on them with the emails vs.. everything. A man who admitted to sexual assault, has several people accusing him of sexual assault, is currently in a court battle over sexually assaulting a child, claims the election is rigged only if he doesn't win and has no actual clear plans for his presidency with a vice presidental pick who cannot be described as anything other than a poor governor and fairly awful person who prefers to pretend his candidate hasn't and doesn't say hateful things rather than defending or (rightfully) decrying them is in no way equitable to a woman with years of political experience who hasn't been convicted of criminal wrongdoing for easily understandable and outlined reasons over mistakes which, while not particularly defendable, either didn't break laws or were not solely her fault and has been accused of shady activity without legitimate evidence

 

[Kanzler]

Actually it's fully possible, rigging the electronic voting machines is easy (they're closed source) and that's what they're going to do: https://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-voter-fraud/

https://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

Oh look, debunked. Took me all of five seconds to google it :P

That doesn't debunk the possibility that electronic voting machines can be easily rigged. It only suggests that George Soros himself isn't controlling Smarmatic voting machines in 16 states. I think it's important to have a paper trail as a security measure.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

That doesn't debunk the possibility that electronic voting machines can be easily rigged. It only suggests that George Soros himself isn't controlling Smarmatic voting machines in 16 states. I think it's important to have a paper trail as a security measure.

It debunked the soros claim directly, but the line noting that there's a variety of machines from different manufacturers in use in different states (Different electoral areas? I can't find anywhere if it's on a state by state basis of deals with individual companies or if it's an electorate by electorate thing) does sort of go along with the idea that any kind of widespread vote fraud using that means would be very difficult, I can't find anywhere on if it's a singular closed system used or multiple on state/electorate/machine manufacturer basis but it seems like if it's the former, physical access is required to install software on the individual machine and if it's the latter then it would require significantly more resources and ability to be able to influence much due to the different systems involved

But you're right, they do certainly have issues that are hard to adress. It should be noted that 27 american states do already mandate a paper audit on electronic voting, and 18 have them in some places but not all, with a total of 5 that have no paper involved whatsoever, as it's not like there's no paper trail fullstop anywhere

 

[0]

https://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

Oh look, debunked. Took me all of five seconds to google it :P

I have a simple question. Why do you fight so hard for Clinton?

JD repeatedly says that neither candidate is good, but Trump is green in this regard while Clinton has a no-so-great political past. He supplies examples and reasons for why both candidates are bad, and constantly, you refute them with lame "evidence", like snopes, and go on about how great one is over the other.

I mean, seriously, why do you defend this terrible candidate so much, so vehemently? What possible gain do you have in this?

To me, both are garbage. Clinton has a past and trump plays a fool. Neither candidate is one that I think should run an ant farm, much less a country. So, why do you fight so hard for her? Because of a notion that she will be 0.000001% better?

 

[0]

Why do you think Clinton is terrible? Because she's a stereotypical politican?

Clinton isn't flawless, nor am I implying that. I keep seeing these pessimistic, oftentimes world ending prophecies from people that she's the coming of Satan in disguise as a Democrat when the only evidence people have of the such is that she screwed up on her emails and some leaked Wikileaks stuff that turned out to be a big deal to precisely nobody but Trump supporters and people who didn't like Clinton in the first place. But the fact of the matter is that through and through, she's about as status quo politican as you can get. I don't see what's so bad about that (right now, anyway).

If you really believe a stereotypical politican is as bad as an openly racist, ableist, mysoginistic turd who praises dictators and wants to mimic their style of government, then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

"Neither candidate is one that I think should run an ant farm, much less a country." Interesting how you pointed out that I said that only Clinton was terrible. I said both were terrible to clear the record, and I was wondering why people fight so hard, just like you, for a crummy candidate against another crummy cadidate.

"she screwed up on her emails" This isn't a game. National secrets should never be run on a private server unless you have hundreds of people who know what they're doing that lock it down to any and all break ins. Just a couple of emails on wikileaks doesn't do any justice to how grave that situation is. Information is no joke. Don't pretend that it is.

"she's about as status quo politican as you can get." this is true, no one is really as much of a snake as Clinton right now, at least not in public office.

"If you really believe a stereotypical politican is as bad as an openly racist, ableist, mysoginistic turd who praises dictators and wants to mimic their style of government, then I'm not sure what else to tell you." Yes, that is exactly what I am implying. I'd rather someone have open beliefs and ideals, no matter how bad, then a snake whom I don't really get what they think.

As I've said, both are bad. Both are stinking piles of garbage, but one smells more like rotten eggs then rotten fish, and some people prefer one over the other.

Me personally, I know that both are bad in their own ways. But, my real question wasn't addressed by you, which is, why do you fight so hard for rotten garbage in the first place? Because it stinks a bit less?

 

[Nah]

I'm pretty sure that people are more saying that Clinton is (clearly) the less bad of the two rather than that she's a wholly good candidate in general.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

I don't fight for clinton, i fight to dispel this misinformation people seem to have and the idea that somehow she's just as bad as trump, neither are paragons of good governance but it's very clear clinton is just a politician with nothing particularly notably good about her, but very little bad either (As most, if not all the claims that she's a "snake" or "criminal" come from places of misinformation or baseless conspiracy) while it cannot be overstated how bad Trump is, and even if you disregard a presidency under him as no one doing anything because he's so outlandish any laws he tries to push would go for them (Ignoring that people would go for for some of his more xeophobic and racist ideals) his vice president being closer to republican establishment does legitimately put people in danger, and put a lot of things people have worked very hard for at risk

 

[Hands]

I really do not feel like you're well informed about either candidate if this is the extent of your knowledge on them with the emails vs.. everything. A man who admitted to sexual assault, has several people accusing him of sexual assault, is currently in a court battle over sexually assaulting a child, claims the election is rigged only if he doesn't win and has no actual clear plans for his presidency with a vice presidental pick who cannot be described as anything other than a poor governor and fairly awful person who prefers to pretend his candidate hasn't and doesn't say hateful things rather than defending or (rightfully) decrying them is in no way equitable to a woman with years of political experience who hasn't been convicted of criminal wrongdoing for easily understandable and outlined reasons over mistakes which, while not particularly defendable, either didn't break laws or were not solely her fault and has been accused of shady activity without legitimate evidence

Yeah because no one has ever put forward complaints about Clinton that exceed the e-mail scandal (which one is anyone's guess since the DNC hacks) like targeting her abysmal record in office, her shady dealings with Bahrain or her dirty dancing with Wall Street.

Trump is a worse person than Clinton sure, and i think it's been fairly clear since his nomination he wasn't going to win. But stop pretending the only issue with Hillary is that she's careless at best with confidential material.

 

[Ivysaur]

The problem is that she might not be as exciting as Sanders or have the same gravitas as Obama, but she is a normal politician with a coherent platform, actual experience, and who needs the support of progressives to win, meaning she has to at the very least include some of their proposals in their plans. Trump is an inexperienced racist who admits to sexual assault, can't speak in coherent sentences, has no idea of policy or how the Government works, ans is running for a party of no-taxes, no-redistribution white nationalists.

If Clinton is a 0, Trump is a -1,000. So saying "both are equally as bad" is actually kind of belittling to Clinton. And if you literally cannot see any difference between their candidacies, then it speaks really poorly about your civic knowledge, sorry to say.

 

[Hands]

The problem is that she might not be as exciting as Sanders or have the same gravitas as Obama, but she is a normal politician with a coherent platform, actual experience, and who needs the support of progressives to win, meaning she has to at the very least include some of their proposals in their plans. Trump is an inexperienced racist who admits to sexual assault, can't speak in coherent sentences, has no idea of policy or how the Government works, ans is running for a party of no-taxes, no-redistribution white nationalists.

If Clinton is a 0, Trump is a -1,000. So saying "both are equally as bad" is actually kind of belittling to Clinton. And if you literally cannot see any difference between their candidacies, then it speaks really poorly about your civic knowledge, sorry to say.

And therein lies the problem, all of her awful behaviour is normalised. Giving private speeches for millions of dollars in exchange for favours down the road? Yeah sure that's just politics! Advocating and overseeing the destruction of Libya? Just politics! Dodging tax? Politics!

She's not worse than say, Blair, Cameron, Bush or Johnson, but to suggest any of those people were anything other than terrible is ridiculous. A good bulk of people don't rag on Clinton to support Trump, they rag on her because they're sick of the state of corruption in the west. Why do you think Jeremy Corbyn is doing so well now in England? Or why Nigel Farrage gained such a following?

 

[Sektor]

I don't fight for clinton, i fight to dispel this misinformation people seem to have and the idea that somehow she's just as bad as trump, neither are paragons of good governance but it's very clear clinton is just a politician with nothing particularly notably good about her, but very little bad either (As most, if not all the claims that she's a "snake" or "criminal" come from places of misinformation or baseless conspiracy) while it cannot be overstated how bad Trump is, and even if you disregard a presidency under him as no one doing anything because he's so outlandish any laws he tries to push would go for them (Ignoring that people would go for for some of his more xeophobic and racist ideals) his vice president being closer to republican establishment does legitimately put people in danger, and put a lot of things people have worked very hard for at risk

Maybe I still don't get it. How are they not both bad? Trump is mean and Clinton is a questionable reptile. Trump has been, from as far as I can tell, a business man and NOT a politician. Clinton, on the other hand has been a politician for three decades. She's backed policies that I don't personally agree with, such as their (the Clinton's) Crime Bill and stance on three strikes (most of which has been abused). Trump is not a career politician. He has never had the chance to enact any bill whatsoever that had any adverse effects on any law anywhere. I know that is why a lot of people are drawn to him. Trump is truly outside of the elements of congress and he's gotten this far because people thought he was a joke.

Clinton, on the other hand, has hung her hat in the same office as the 'wall street fat cats' she lobbies against! She's going to fight for women's rights, gay rights and the LGBTQ community? She takes money from the same people that would behead you if you're gay, stone you if you're a woman that gets raped, and are spiritually obligated to murder you if you're a queer or outside the faith.

I've brought up Benghazi and her utter incompetence in the situation! Her dismissal of her involvement and detestable behaviour towards the families of the victims.

Her abhorent failure at Comsec and Transec regardless whether or not there wasn't anything damning on the files, but as time wears on people are reading some pretty gritty stuff. I showed you an article stating how the e-mails were hacked utilizing a phishing scam. She should not have had a private server in her residence at all. There was no reason for it and no excuse to have one.

She defended a rapist and said all sorts of horrendous things to the alleged victim. She laughed about it regardless. She could have stepped down, risked censure. You ALWAYS have a choice, or do you just think 'All good Germans'? What in the world happened to the case files? Did they just get magicked away to Les Schtroumpfs ville? Where did the files go? No one knows.

How is that not bad? How is any of that not equally as bad? Trump evades taxes? I've already pointed out that Clinton does as well. Trump says racist things? Clinton does as well, not to mention her 'mentor' was a known leader of a KKK chapter! We don't like either candidate. I'm not trying to be rude, but both Clinton and Trump have cannons leveled at them.

Trump is being accused of sexual assault. Do keep in mind we live in America, where you are innocent until proven in a court of law. So It makes me curious why you're willing to damn one candidate over allegations and not the other. Both candidates are bad, I'm sure of it. I don't know what Trump has done, and I don't care much to know. I feel like I am being extremely lenient on Clinton by saying both candidates are equally bad. I know that she is reprehensible and vile and a snake in the grass. She takes money from evil people and says she'll 'protect' those that her donors kill and murder on a daily basis. She has backed terrible people through the years and has taken money from pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street banks to lobby for them. She lies, she cheats, she steals (maybe not directly but it has a nicer ring to it than just two things). What I have been trying to say all this time probably should have been 'Trump is as bad as Clinton'.

I don't like either, and I won't be bullied into saying that my opinion is wrong or incorrect because you have an opposing view. I've been constantly defending my position saying that both candidates and I'm growing weary of it. I don't like either candidate, I've said I'd rather vote for a Barbie Doll, my dog or any other inanimate object even. But I can't, and I'm stuck with bad choices all around. I haven't divulged for whom I am voting for and I don't think I will. I will no longer entertain the thought or idea that my opinion is wrong, skewed or a lapse in judgment.

I didn't come here to make waves, I came here to perhaps exchange ideas on a somewhat equal level and I'm not feeling like that's happening. I do, however, feel somewhat attacked and always on the defensive in regards to my opinion on how both candidates are just as bad. I'm not going to defend my position any longer because there is no need too. We could go back and forth providing sources and samples but the fact is you're probably going to vote for Hillary Clinton if you are able and I may or may not as is my prerogative as a US citizen.

Unless Trump has had equal political opportunity to revel in as much badness that Clinton has, they will remain equally poor, equally bad. I would rather see a taco in office or perhaps a pair of old, crusty underwear with the elastic eroded away in them, but I won't. I'm stuck with two people I wouldn't share a bottle of water with in a desert. I don't feel lucky that Clinton and Trump are running. I don't feel comforted or assuaged. I wish Duke Nukem was President, I wish Harrison Ford was President but they're not. They aren't running. Clinton and Trump are. And those are the choices. I don't like them, and I am not going to sit here and hear all about how Trump is bad and how Clinton is not and be belittled and attacked because of it.

 

[Ivysaur]

And therein lies the problem, all of her awful behaviour is normalised. Giving private speeches for millions of dollars in exchange for favours down the road? Yeah sure that's just politics!

Giving speeches sure _is_ politics. I MEAN, there are worse things you can do than give speeches when you aren't holding any public office.

Advocating and overseeing the destruction of Libya? Just politics!

Actually, you must know that it was the UN Security Council that approved that (UK, France, China, Russia, US) that gave the ok to the "no fly zone" that left Khadafi alone against the opposition in their civil war, that the proceedings were held under the flag of NATO, with the participarion of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and the US, and that the only job of the foreign armies was to keep a sea blockade and prevent the Government from flying planes, right? I mean, the "destruction" of Libya was managed by their own citizens, and it's hardly fair to say that Clinton has the sole responsibility for a 17-country intervention that was approved by Russia and China.

Dodging tax? Politics!

Source? As far as I know, the only one who has done this is Trump, but I might be wrong.

She's not worse than say, Blair, Cameron, Bush or Johnson, but to suggest any of those people were anything other than terrible is ridiculous. A good bulk of people don't rag on Clinton to support Trump, they rag on her because they're sick of the state of corruption in the west. Why do you think Jeremy Corbyn is doing so well now in England? Or why Nigel Farrage gained such a following?

Oh, you don't need to tell me, I vote for the radical left Spanish party Podemos. But the difference is that the US electoral system (which I do despise) makes it so that you are forced to choose between one or another, and the only moment in which you can choose the "good" option is during the primaries. Once the candidates are set, not voting equals supporting the "worse" of the two.

Same goes in the UK- I gladly vote for Corbyn's ideals in our (proportional representation) elections. But in the UK, with the same "winner takes all" system as in the US, Corbyn's greatest achievement will probably be a Conservative landslide in the next election. In a Winner-takes-all system, you need, by force, to appeal to the middle ground, because you absolutely need to be the majority, or else you are irrelevant. And that's why a traditional politician like Clinton is going to become President, and why the only Labour Prime Minister in decades was Blair.

 

[Elysieum]

The lack of cohesion on Trump's part in the final debate sealed it for me. You can really tell that Clinton has thought everything through - she came prepared. And not just in the conventional soundbite-speech kind of way, Clinton had potent counters ready to fly at Trump's "election is rigged" attitude and his usual attack on her history in office. She adapted in a way that Trump did not.

Let's be real - to equate Trump's pitfalls at this point with Clinton's is hideously stupid. He is an ethical disaster area compared to her and trying to get him to own up to it is ostensibly like trying to draw water from stone. Yes, in a normal election (whatever that is) Clinton's bad moves would probably have knocked her out of the running, but that is not the situation America finds itself in right now.

 

[Hands]

Giving speeches sure _is_ politics. I MEAN, there are worse things you can do than give speeches when you aren't holding any public office.

Giving speeches is fine, giving speeches to financial lobbyists and interest groups in private for the sum of millions of dollars then refusing to release the transcripts to the public when you're running for the most public official position there is, is to me, very shady.

Actually, you must know that it was the UN Security Council that approved that (UK, France, China, Russia, US) that gave the ok to the "no fly zone" that left Khadafi alone against the opposition in their civil war, that the proceedings were held under the flag of NATO, with the participarion of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and the US, and that the only job of the foreign armies was to keep a sea blockade and prevent the Government from flying planes, right? I mean, the "destruction" of Libya was managed by their own citizens, and it's hardly fair to say that Clinton has the sole responsibility for a 17-country intervention that was approved by Russia and China

.

I am not talking about the no-fly zone, nor am i saying Clinton was solely responsible. I am talking about her State Dept. sending over millions in arms, rockets, munitions and equipment to groups who, as always seems to be the case, turned out to be religious extremists who've laid waste to Libya since (with no effort to stop them by the UN) and Clinton has outright expressed zero regret over this. Whilst I do not like the Daily Mail, it's the first article that pops up relating to the Obama administration dropping charges against Turi is at the very least suspicious.

Of course she's not a sole player in the Libya mess, but she's the only key player from America who is currently running for POTUS. As such, she should be scrutinised for her role in it.

Source? As far as I know, the only one who has done this is Trump, but I might be wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton

You don't have a tax loophole address if you aren't dodging tax. Ironically enough they share the same one.

Oh, you don't need to tell me, I vote for the radical left Spanish party Podemos. But the difference is that the US electoral system (which I do despise) makes it so that you are forced to choose between one or another, and the only moment in which you can choose the "good" option is during the primaries. Once the candidates are set, not voting equals supporting the "worse" of the two.

Same goes in the UK- I gladly vote for Corbyn's ideals in our (proportional representation) elections. But in the UK, with the same "winner takes all" system as in the US, Corbyn's greatest achievement will probably be a Conservative landslide in the next election. In a Winner-takes-all system, you need, by force, to appeal to the middle ground, because you absolutely need to be the majority, or else you are irrelevant. And that's why a traditional politician like Clinton is going to become President, and why the only Labour Prime Minister in decades was Blair.

It's a discussion for another thread or time but I'm glad you voted for Podemos, I really would prefer if we all moved more to the left. However, i must disagree about Corbyn. Given how the brexit mess has started to polarise Britain's middle ground and how outright awful May is I really think he stands a good chance now. It's a shame that the PLP are such sneaky little snakes and careerists but hopefully we'll be able to deselect the careerist blues.

I just hope you understand my frustration with systems that give us the Blairs and the Clintons over the Benns and the Sanders of the world.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Giving speeches is fine, giving speeches to financial lobbyists and interest groups in private for the sum of millions of dollars then refusing to release the transcripts to the public when you're running for the most public official position there is, is to me, very shady.

My question to that is... why? She was paid to make speeches and she did as much, releasing transcripts for a speech you were paid by a company to make (Although not what to say, or how to say it) seems a little off anyway, I feel like you're more obligated to keep something like that private when it was a private-y event. Not to mention that when we did get the transcripts it revealed..... nothing. I think there was one thing she said years ago that didn't match up with her current policies, but beyond that there was nothing noteworthy or newsworthy about them.

Releasing things that actually have precedent for being released like tax returns or medical records (Although is there a precedent for that or did she just do it because trump kept saying she had every disease known to man? I can't remember) that are relevant to holding public office is one thing, but releasing speeches at private, mostly irrelevant events seems superfluous at best

I am not talking about the no-fly zone, nor am i saying Clinton was solely responsible. I am talking about her State Dept. sending over millions in arms, rockets, munitions and equipment to groups who, as always seems to be the case, turned out to be religious extremists who've laid waste to Libya since (with no effort to stop them by the UN) and Clinton has outright expressed zero regret over this. Whilst I do not like the Daily Mail, it's the first article that pops up relating to the Obama administration dropping charges against Turi is at the very least suspicious.

The daily mail is not at all a good source for information and is pretty frequently caught out embellishing or making up things to fuel a good story but you're still blaming Clinton solely for her dept for acting out orders from NATO and the president as if sole blame lays at her feet or that she somehow could have just not done her job and averted this mess. Does she need to apologise for doing her job? Does everyone at the state dept, in the military, in the judicial branches of the US government responsible for libyan involvement?

Maybe i'm wrong because i'm not super educated on that situation, but as far as i'm aware you can't really blame a singular cog in the machine for that whole situation

Of course she's not a sole player in the Libya mess, but she's the only key player from America who is currently running for POTUS. As such, she should be scrutinised for her role in it.

This is a little odd because you're kind of right, her actions in that role should be evaluated from the lens of information at the time and the actions even possible for her to take at the time, but crying out and blaming her and demanding she apologise and saying that somehow it makes her as bad as Trump doesn't seem right at all

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton

You don't have a tax loophole address if you aren't dodging tax. Ironically enough they share the same one.

This i can actually agree is something negative that she shouldn't be doing when she plans to close said loophole anyway, but it should be noted that Trump's tax dodging includes several shell companies and the whole bankruptcy-into-tax-free-status too. Trump being worse doesn't make this better, and you're correct this isn't something particularly ok even if it's widespread among the wealthy (Although with the clinton plans to close several tax loopholes, I think this actually comes under one of the ones she plans to close? Could be wrong because i can't 1-1 equate it, but i'm fairly sure)

I just hope you understand my frustration with systems that give us the Blairs and the Clintons over the Benns and the Sanders of the world.

I totally understand this, and it'd be great if left wing popularists were capable of drumming up the same frenzy right wing ones do but that's not the demographics right now, the whole idea of a right pushback against current social progress is a pretty stiff one and i'd say it's a fair bit more important to shine the spotlight on what there is to lose and what is at stake than to drill into and compare the center left with a microscope for the borderline misfractions while there's someone who is so bafflingly awful it cannot be overstated looming about

 

[Hands]

My question to that is... why? She was paid to make speeches and she did as much, releasing transcripts for a speech you were paid by a company to make (Although not what to say, or how to say it) seems a little off anyway, I feel like you're more obligated to keep something like that private when it was a private-y event. Not to mention that when we did get the transcripts it revealed..... nothing. I think there was one thing she said years ago that didn't match up with her current policies, but beyond that there was nothing noteworthy or newsworthy about them.

People were concerned that she was making clandestine promises and she refused to ever put it to rest, coming out with weird statements like "I'll release mine when the other candidates do" when we all know Sanders wouldn't of ever done said speeches so had no transcripts and the poor practice(s) of the GOP shouldn't be held to our own standards.

Releasing things that actually have precedent for being released like tax returns or medical records (Although is there a precedent for that or did she just do it because trump kept saying she had every disease known to man? I can't remember) that are relevant to holding public office is one thing, but releasing speeches at private, mostly irrelevant events seems superfluous at best

The medical thing is ridiculous and an older person like Clinton should never of faced scrutiny for health concerns, the woman is nearly 70 years old, of course she isn't going to be in flawless health. This is one criticism of Clinton I've been staunchly against.

The daily mail is not at all a good source

You can say that again, I used it because it was the biggest outlet to report on it, undoubtedly they have embellished the story, I was simply using it to source the charges being dropped and why that seems a bit suspicious to me.

but you're still blaming Clinton solely for her dept for acting out orders from NATO

Sorry, but that's how it is. The captain of the ship is responsible for the crew.

as if sole blame lays at her feet or that she somehow could have just not done her job and averted this mess. Does she need to apologise for doing her job? Does everyone at the state dept, in the military, in the judicial branches of the US government responsible for libyan involvement?

She's absolutely not the only guilty party by any means, but she is the only one running for President. I'd of held anyone heavily involved in that mess to the same level of scrutiny if they were running.

Maybe i'm wrong because i'm not super educated on that situation, but as far as i'm aware you can't really blame a singular cog in the machine for that whole situation

I don't know if there's some confusion here between us, if there is, my apologies. I don't blame just Clinton for Libya, far from it. But other key players aren't running for POTUS.

This is a little odd because you're kind of right, her actions in that role should be evaluated from the lens of information at the time and the actions even possible for her to take at the time, but crying out and blaming her and demanding she apologise and saying that somehow it makes her as bad as Trump doesn't seem right at all

I actually dropped the "bad as Trump" pattern after the sexual assault mess. I've always held them both as shady, buyable and dishonest and that's where my comparisons still start and end. Obviously she's not as bad as a man who likely raped people. I would like her to apologise though for her part(s) in the constant scandals. I'd respect her a lot more if she was ever humble.

This i can actually agree is something negative that she shouldn't be doing when she plans to close said loophole anyway, but it should be noted that Trump's tax dodging includes several shell companies and the whole bankruptcy-into-tax-free-status too. Trump being worse doesn't make this better, and you're correct this isn't something particularly ok even if it's widespread among the wealthy (Although with the clinton plans to close several tax loopholes, I think this actually comes under one of the ones she plans to close? Could be wrong because i can't 1-1 equate it, but i'm fairly sure)

Yeah, the problem is she still done it and she has still refused to explain why she's done it and continues to use said address. She;ll close some loopholes as pandering to the working class but, as with all careerists, she'll leave a few open for her friends.

I totally understand this, and it'd be great if left wing popularists were capable of drumming up the same frenzy right wing ones do but that's not the demographics right now, the whole idea of a right pushback against current social progress is a pretty stiff one and i'd say it's a fair bit more important to shine the spotlight on what there is to lose and what is at stake than to drill into and compare the center left with a microscope for the borderline misfractions while there's someone who is so bafflingly awful it cannot be overstated looming about

Yeah, I thought we must just be there with Sanders and Corbyn, we might still make it with Corbyn at the very least.