2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5093
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:18 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Xeio wrote:I mean, we're in a situation where no third party candidate has won an electoral vote since 1968, so winning as a third party is already shown to be all but mathematically impossible. Humorously, we actually have a candidate who has good odds at geting at least a few EVs this year... Evan McMullen, who nobody had heard of till a week and a half ago. I think that should really nail home the point of how much of a joke our national third parties are. They're not even the most viable of the third-party candidates.

Electoral votes is a poor measure of third party strength. Perot with 20% of the vote won 0 electoral votes, while a
Regional candidate can win a single state with only a few percent of the vote.
Well, it's the only measurement that matters as far as winning the presidency is concerned. McMullin could almost conceivably be president since the house can technically pick from the top 3. Only a .4% chance of an EV deadlock on 538, but that's almost as much chance as Johnson has to get any EVs at all...

I think they'd be way better off pushing Ranked Choice systems (like Maine is doing this year) for national and state offices, at least then they're not spoilers anymore.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11028
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 21, 2016 2:40 pm UTC

It'd be fun to at least see it considered. I agree that the odds of all those things coming together is pretty small, but it'd make for interesting watching, at least.

I also note that Trump's odds on fivethirtyeight, while understandably not great, include a reasonably high chance of winning the EV without picking up the popular vote. This would also be an interesting outcome, from the standpoint of watching the world burn.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It'd be fun to at least see it considered. I agree that the odds of all those things coming together is pretty small, but it'd make for interesting watching, at least.

I also note that Trump's odds on fivethirtyeight, while understandably not great, include a reasonably high chance of winning the EV without picking up the popular vote. This would also be an interesting outcome, from the standpoint of watching the world burn.

538 says they use a distribution that favors fat tails, so unlikely events have a higher chance of happening.

My concern over a Trump rebellion are dwindling, but before anyone forgets, Trump still has 42%of the vote. Remember, Trump's target demographic, uneducated white males, are low propensity to vote demographic. So he has a potential command of a huge population of tens of millions. The key thing is to make them despondent enough to not vote but not so desperate as to lash out.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4517
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Oct 21, 2016 4:57 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:What's frustrating about the discussion about third parties is that there is a fairly clear path for parties like the Green party to make a real difference, and they don't, apparently, seem to be prepared to put in the effort to attempt it.


How so? They have strategy, sure, but what is this clear path to third party power, and why is EVERYONE but you oblivious to it?


I don't think there is a clear path to third party power--the advantages in the establishment are what they are. And it is possible that people just won't buy what the third parties are selling. It just seems abundantly clear that the path to power of any sort for them is not through the presidency.

Third parties DO run candidates for senate. Including the green party. Shit, the senate seat I'm voting for has a Green candidate running. She's not going to win, obviously, but they are trying this.


If she's not going to win, why is she running? Why is the Green party wasting their scarce resources on candidates that they know won't win? I'm not talking about a 50 state campaign. I'm talking about a 3 state campaign. Focus all of your resources in the areas that you have the highest probability of winning.

I don't think the branding is good enough either, but fundamentally, that's not the problem. Libertarians are not single-issue, but they face similar problems to the Green party. Some of their issues are very popular, even, but pushing a popular position is not sufficient to get power. If you talk to folks from the Green party about politics, they're usually quite happy to discuss non-environmental policies. Some of which they have fairly sane positions on. Pro-transparency? Cmon, that's not some unpopular stance.


Sure, but if you're the Green Party, you probably have an average of what, maybe 20 seconds of exposure to an average voter over the entire election cycle? If you're lucky? The average person isn't going to be reading your platform. They aren't even going to read the platforms of the major parties. Your name is your message.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1784
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: pew! pew! pew!

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:11 pm UTC

And any nation 3rd party would do well to start in New England; ME has 4 independent state legislators, an independent Senator (Angus King, also former governor); as previously mentioned ad nauseam VT has Bernie & his cadre; NH has an independent & a Libertarian, etc.

If the Greens or Libertarians were serious, they'd be working a lot harder to swing those legislatures, rather than wasting donors' time and money on a Presidential campaign. Heck, the Free Staters have attempted to do this (with limited success, likely due to funding) in NH for years.
"We have met the enemy, and we are they. Them? We is it. Whatever."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:15 pm UTC

There are plenty of individual Democratic politicians that embrace Green party issues wholeheartedly, too, but run as Democrats because, well, they want to win. While Clinton herself might not be super-left, the current Dem platform certainly is. There just isn't a whole lot of room for them.

A UK-style parliamentary system works okay in other places, but the balance between Congress and the Executive is pretty essential here. I'd love for Obama to be able to enact most every policy he wants, but I wouldn't wish the same for Paul Ryan.

Does any county have a multiparty system *and* a separately elected head of state + government?
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:53 pm UTC

Liri wrote:Does any county have a multiparty system *and* a separately elected head of state + government?

Iceland?
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:19 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:
Liri wrote:Does any county have a multiparty system *and* a separately elected head of state + government?

Iceland?

Mmm, close, but I should maybe have been more specific - I meant where the primary power-holding executive is directly elected. It looks like their prime minister is appointed.

A single party had never gotten a majority in their parliament's current incarnation, which is cool, so an abusive government isn't as much of an issue.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8127
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:24 pm UTC

Israel used to have that - you would vote for a party in parliament and a prime minister. It hasn't done that in a long while to avoid having conflicting legislative and executive branches. Nowadays Israelis vote on the parliament only, and then heads of parties try to form a coalition. Whoever can create the more stable coalition is named prime minister (by the president, which is a mostly ceremonial duty) and creates the government. And we have around 10 or so parties in our parliament.

The system has many disadvantages, the biggest IMO is that in order for the PM to gain a different party's they sign "coalition agreements" with them, which often block them from doing meaningful changes, and gives a lot of political power to small groups of people. Well, actually, I would say the biggest downside is Netanyahu has been the PM for approximately a thousand years.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

moiraemachy
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby moiraemachy » Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:49 pm UTC

Liri wrote:Does any county have a multiparty system *and* a separately elected head of state + government?
Brazil has that. Our system has a few quirks that arguably stop it into devolving into a two-party system: mandatory voting, a two-round system for executive elections, and rules that try to make elections "fair" (some level of government funding and rules regarding stuff like debate participation). To me it's pretty great.

Zohar wrote:The system has many disadvantages, the biggest IMO is that in order for the PM to gain a different party's they sign "coalition agreements" with them, which often block them from doing meaningful changes, and gives a lot of political power to small groups of people.
We have those too, but my opinion is that that's just politics as usual. It's not like there aren't coalition agreements in a full blown parliamentary systems. The main difference IMO is that the president negotiates those in Brazil, while in other systems this sort of thing would be done in the shadows, by faceless party leaders. I call it a win, since the president is more heavily scrutinized.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4517
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:56 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I don't think the branding is good enough either, but fundamentally, that's not the problem. Libertarians are not single-issue, but they face similar problems to the Green party. Some of their issues are very popular, even, but pushing a popular position is not sufficient to get power. If you talk to folks from the Green party about politics, they're usually quite happy to discuss non-environmental policies. Some of which they have fairly sane positions on. Pro-transparency? Cmon, that's not some unpopular stance.


I think the problem for Libertarians, specifically, is that their name has been co-opted in part by Republicans who aren't really libertarian at all. Given how small the Libertarian Party is to begin with, it's more likely that the average person would think of Paul Ryan in reference to the term rather than Garry Johnson.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:07 am UTC

For those of you voting third party, take heart. You do matter. FiveThirtyEight complained about how much complication it added to his modeling. Every third party voter makes the election more uncertain, since that means you don't know which way they'll actually vote come November. In addition, each third party candidate adds 5 minutes to each simulation, which is run every time a new poll is added.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... -election/

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:32 am UTC

I think, Trump will win the Popular Vote, here.
It's a little uncomfortable, a lot. So, sad.

Trump voters are not the shy and retiring type.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6100
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:39 am UTC

addams wrote:I think, Trump will win the Popular Vote, here.
It's a little uncomfortable, a lot. So, sad.

Trump voters are not the shy and retiring type.


Hillary has been polling at around +4% for some time, with Trump never being a clear favorite, even at his peak. Hillary is on track to humiliating Trump in the popular vote, and absolutely destroying him in the electoral vote.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:55 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
addams wrote:I think, Trump will win the Popular Vote, here.
It's a little uncomfortable, a lot. So, sad.

Trump voters are not the shy and retiring type.


Hillary has been polling at around +4% for some time, with Trump never being a clear favorite, even at his peak. Hillary is on track to humiliating Trump in the popular vote, and absolutely destroying him in the electoral vote.

Her lead is 6.4%, down from 7%. Addams is also wrong, evidence shows Trump is not activating new white male uneducated voters. If he were, Trump would win in a landslide. There's 24 million of them(47 million are white, and uneducated, vs the 24 who are just male.)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mis ... -register/

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11078
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:10 am UTC

Here probably is a state.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:26 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Thesh wrote:
addams wrote:I think, Trump will win the Popular Vote, here.
It's a little uncomfortable, a lot. So, sad.

Trump voters are not the shy and retiring type.


Hillary has been polling at around +4% for some time, with Trump never being a clear favorite, even at his peak. Hillary is on track to humiliating Trump in the popular vote, and absolutely destroying him in the electoral vote.

Her lead is 6.4%, down from 7%. Addams is also wrong, evidence shows Trump is not activating new white male uneducated voters. If he were, Trump would win in a landslide. There's 24 million of them(47 million are white, and uneducated, vs the 24 who are just male.)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mis ... -register/


How does that have anything to do with what adams said? She said she thinks Trump will win the popular vote there; she will either be right or wrong on November 8.
lol everything matters
-Ed

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:38 am UTC

Yakk wrote:Here probably is a state.


That's my interpretation as well. Trump is going to win a number of states. Probably not enough to actually win the election, but Trump will probably win Arizona for example (even though its far closer there than things really should be)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:55 am UTC

Regarding 3rd parties: I think it's interesting to note that even over here, where we have a straight popular vote with proportional representation and no voting threshold, new parties still generally start out locally. It is just very very hard to build up a successful national infrastructure out of the blue. Even once they participate in the national elections, it's initially often only in a few regions.

Another point of interest is that we have local parties in almost every municipality. Many municipalities have several.

So my advice for US 3rd parties: Focus on local elections. Then regional ones. You shouldn't even be thinking about national elections before you have a significant influence in several states. Even then start with the house and senate.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9921
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:23 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Regarding 3rd parties: I think it's interesting to note that even over here, where we have a straight popular vote with proportional representation and no voting threshold, new parties still generally start out locally. It is just very very hard to build up a successful national infrastructure out of the blue. Even once they participate in the national elections, it's initially often only in a few regions.

Another point of interest is that we have local parties in almost every municipality. Many municipalities have several.

So my advice for US 3rd parties: Focus on local elections. Then regional ones. You shouldn't even be thinking about national elections before you have a significant influence in several states. Even then start with the house and senate.

That is good, sound, level headed advice.

oh,...sigh..
Do you know your audience?

It takes a lot to get people interested and involved.
The majority will Not choose boring local meetings.

Especially, in corrupt locals.
(I've seen bad things at the local level.)

The real meetings, often, happen before the public meeting.
Breaking into local politics is expensive, time consuming, hard work.

and, Often.
Very, often, it is Impossible.

And! Dangerous!
Did we mention how dangerous politics in the U.S. is?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

lorb
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:34 am UTC
Location: Austria

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby lorb » Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:31 am UTC

addams wrote:And! Dangerous!
Did we mention how dangerous politics in the U.S. is?


Please elaborate? What dangers are awaiting aspiring politicians at the local level, except frustration and boredom?
Please be gracious in judging my english. (I am not a native speaker/writer.)
http://decodedarfur.org/

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:32 am UTC

lorb wrote:
addams wrote:And! Dangerous!
Did we mention how dangerous politics in the U.S. is?


Please elaborate? What dangers are awaiting aspiring politicians at the local level, except frustration and boredom?

Smear campaign, false accusations of child molestation via puppet accounts on social media, release of home address and a "no smoke without fire" mob torching the place with the candidate inside "just to be safe."

I can't cite an example of it happening, but would you really be surprised?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5161
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Felstaff » Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:20 pm UTC

lorb wrote:
addams wrote:And! Dangerous!
Did we mention how dangerous politics in the U.S. is?


Please elaborate? What dangers are awaiting aspiring politicians at the local level, except frustration and boredom?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:37 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
So my advice for US 3rd parties: Focus on local elections. Then regional ones. You shouldn't even be thinking about national elections before you have a significant influence in several states. Even then start with the house and senate.

For the most part, I think they actually do this. Both the Greens and libertarians have infrastructure in place for local candidates and have had some success in municipal elections. Scaling that though to winning on the national or even state level just seems to be awfully difficult.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:10 pm UTC

I've seen bad things everywhere. And life is dangerous. But this line is the truest.
addams wrote:Breaking into local politics is expensive, time consuming, hard work.
Doing everything I need to do to be in a position to wake up tomorrow is time consuming hard work. But if you don't do it eventually there is no tomorrow.
Sableagle wrote:Smear campaign, false accusations of child molestation via puppet accounts on social media, release of home address and a "no smoke without fire" mob torching the place with the candidate inside "just to be safe."

I can't cite an example of it happening, but would you really be surprised?
You could cite all kind of examples if you wanted to. I can. And it isn't just politicians. But I seem to be missing the point. In most places I can walk down the street and do pretty much as I please within limits. My world is relatively safe. And my local politics is violence free, in as much as anything related to humans is.

Edit
This represents humans. Looks like a firefight somewhere in the third world. This is part of my world and it takes place about thirty minutes from my house.ImageTrumps fertile ground.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:29 pm UTC

Ear defenders and the guy in the foreground sitting back with his arm on the chair next to him kinda make it look like they've paid to be there and are having fun.

Where you are is fairly safe for you. You are not a target. Malala Yousufzai was a target (and still is).
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Layco
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:54 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Layco » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:50 pm UTC

Guys, ask yourselves why you aren't voting for Jill Stein; if the answer is that "she can't win", then ask yourself why she can't win. The answer? Because you won't vote for her because you think she can't win prima facie.

Conservatives/Liberals (as they are called in the US) all want the same things... higher standard of living, ethical decision making (ethics across country share a lot of common ground), free and open democratic politics, and to feel that they are treated equally/fairly. The differences are that one side has been tricked by the Republicans and the other side has been tricked by the Democrats.

Partisan politics is a thing of the past - it will come back after societies are far more advanced and the only policy decisions to rule on are social issues, but that's a ways away.

Hillary Clinton belongs in prison, has committed war crimes (as has Obama folks - Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Palestine, Lybia, Sudan), and has laundered money through her foundation including bribes from dictators from countries like Saudi Arabia and the DRC.

Donald Trump is a racist and hate-fueled demagogue. He hasn't actually committed any crimes near the level of Clinton, but he also hasn't had nearly as much power as her. His racism, however, seems to run pretty deep and one can imagine that it will color every important policy decision he makes. He has made zero effort to challenge AIPAC, NSA, or any other seriously corrupt institution - signaling that he intends to use them for his own corrupt benefit once he obtains power.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:18 pm UTC

First did you read the least few pages? Because some people have stated they don't consider her a good candidate beside her having no chance of winning. So what makes her a good choice beside your stance against the main two? (Well I guess her being not very powerful as presidents go since non of her party are in house or senate means she would at least limit what she can do.) (About the "she just has no chance because nobody thinks she has one" argument. Are there polls or something that indicate that without tactical considerations she would have a real chance of winning?)

Second when someone makes claims that obviously need evidence and aren't widely accepted already and doesn't give evidence, my first guess is that they simply don't have evidence anyone will find convincing. So if you say for instance Hillary laundered money through her foundation you will have to demonstrate that the claim is true if you want me to take you serious. (I can't speak for others of course, but I kinda doubt I am the only one here who expect evidence for such claims.)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:31 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Ear defenders and the guy in the foreground sitting back with his arm on the chair next to him kinda make it look like they've paid to be there and are having fun.
Well yeah. The article could tell you that. The concrete blockhouse with two foot thick walls(or thereabouts) at the range makes a fun store too. However the vibe is what it is.

Sableagle wrote:Where you are is fairly safe for you. You are not a target. Malala Yousufzai was a target (and still is).
This isn't Pakistan and we aren't electing her. And while I'm sorry for her hazard this thread is about the US Presidential election and politics. I don't want the US to be that way. And to this point it isn't. Although I have fears about the future.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:37 pm UTC

Yeah. Despite liking the ideals of the Green party, Stein had given incoherent and uninformed answers to questions on a whole range of issues and is generally unsuited to govern.

As reading through the last couple pages would have told you.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:47 pm UTC

Layco wrote:Guys, ask yourselves why you aren't voting for Jill Stein; if the answer is that "she can't win", then ask yourself why she can't win. The answer? Because you won't vote for her because you think she can't win prima facie.

Conservatives/Liberals (as they are called in the US) all want the same things... higher standard of living, ethical decision making (ethics across country share a lot of common ground), free and open democratic politics, and to feel that they are treated equally/fairly. The differences are that one side has been tricked by the Republicans and the other side has been tricked by the Democrats.

Partisan politics is a thing of the past - it will come back after societies are far more advanced and the only policy decisions to rule on are social issues, but that's a ways away.

Hillary Clinton belongs in prison, has committed war crimes (as has Obama folks - Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Palestine, Lybia, Sudan), and has laundered money through her foundation including bribes from dictators from countries like Saudi Arabia and the DRC.

Donald Trump is a racist and hate-fueled demagogue. He hasn't actually committed any crimes near the level of Clinton, but he also hasn't had nearly as much power as her. His racism, however, seems to run pretty deep and one can imagine that it will color every important policy decision he makes. He has made zero effort to challenge AIPAC, NSA, or any other seriously corrupt institution - signaling that he intends to use them for his own corrupt benefit once he obtains power.

You start off OK, and then you descend into the loony bin. The part where Democrats and Republicans trick voters, that's where you start sounding hyperbolic. After that, you sound like a conspiracy theory/nut job.

What's the evidence? Did you listen to too much reporting from the Breitbart? Your criticism of Trump seems very superficial. For one thing, Trump has committed crimes, he's settled more court cases than Clinton. Wait, did you just accuse the (AIPAC)Jews of being seriously corrupt?
Do you know how military strikes are ordered? Who's responsible for it?

You sir, are just as bad as Trump. You're full of hate, and an example of the worst that third parties bring to the table. Welcome to the forums.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3370
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Oct 23, 2016 4:36 pm UTC

Layco wrote:Guys, ask yourselves why you aren't voting for Jill Stein; if the answer is that "she can't win", then ask yourself why she can't win. The answer? Because you won't vote for her because you think she can't win prima facie.

Looking at her positions on things, it's not all crackpot, like some would say, but I seriously doubt she represents the viewpoints of any significant minority(/ies) enough to do anything about it, because of spoiler issues. She can't eat into Trump's support by suggesting massive military cuts (despite the US military budget plainly being unneccessary to ramp up the way Trump vainly promises) and ditto her stance on Immigration. Meanwhile, scrapping ACA for "something that is a step in the right direction" isn't useful amongst those who think The Affordable Care Act just needs deneutering, and her pro-Russian stance is comparable to Trump's (so long as she had any airtime to say as much, and her anti-Israeli rhetoric) so the support from the other side is going to be discouraged...

I, personally, do like some of her ideas (not that I have a horse in that race, at all) but I'm discouraged at her anti-scientific views. I probably would ignore these, for the most

I put her in the same class as the Liberal Democrats (UK politics) betwixt their formationin the '80s and the 2010+ mess, in that there's a lot of alternative policy with good intentions, but nothing to make for an all-round candidature seriously aiming to get into power. (Ditto the UK Greens.) Good for a protest vote, but at a time when people really shouldn't be protesting, but should pick a side with whoever they think is the least worst of the Big Two, lest the worst worst benefits.

Obviously if it is such that the two evils are just as evil (by magnitude, if not by specific directions) in your opinion, that's a knife-edge fence you might have to sit upon yourself, but if you have even a smidgen of sway either way the choice effectively not to choose is going to be taken as the wrong message as your little lost vote exhibits no message of worth to the world as a whole as to which evil you don't want. Now is not the time for subtleties. Pick your battles wisely, don't just throw water-bombs at a gun-fight.

(I see various 'di-partisan' biases in your other-candidate assessments, but I wouldn't know where to start boiling them down...)

Layco
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:54 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Layco » Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:01 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Layco wrote:Guys, ask yourselves why you aren't voting for Jill Stein; if the answer is that "she can't win", then ask yourself why she can't win. The answer? Because you won't vote for her because you think she can't win prima facie.

Conservatives/Liberals (as they are called in the US) all want the same things... higher standard of living, ethical decision making (ethics across country share a lot of common ground), free and open democratic politics, and to feel that they are treated equally/fairly. The differences are that one side has been tricked by the Republicans and the other side has been tricked by the Democrats.

Partisan politics is a thing of the past - it will come back after societies are far more advanced and the only policy decisions to rule on are social issues, but that's a ways away.

Hillary Clinton belongs in prison, has committed war crimes (as has Obama folks - Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Palestine, Lybia, Sudan), and has laundered money through her foundation including bribes from dictators from countries like Saudi Arabia and the DRC.

Donald Trump is a racist and hate-fueled demagogue. He hasn't actually committed any crimes near the level of Clinton, but he also hasn't had nearly as much power as her. His racism, however, seems to run pretty deep and one can imagine that it will color every important policy decision he makes. He has made zero effort to challenge AIPAC, NSA, or any other seriously corrupt institution - signaling that he intends to use them for his own corrupt benefit once he obtains power.

You start off OK, and then you descend into the loony bin. The part where Democrats and Republicans trick voters, that's where you start sounding hyperbolic. After that, you sound like a conspiracy theory/nut job.

What's the evidence? Did you listen to too much reporting from the Breitbart? Your criticism of Trump seems very superficial. For one thing, Trump has committed crimes, he's settled more court cases than Clinton. Wait, did you just accuse the (AIPAC)Jews of being seriously corrupt?
Do you know how military strikes are ordered? Who's responsible for it?

You sir, are just as bad as Trump. You're full of hate, and an example of the worst that third parties bring to the table. Welcome to the forums.


I'm actually filled with sorrow and compassion, but let us leave our emotions aside from this point forward.

I don't go on right-wing media, I don't go on any mainstream media (breitbart is right-wing isn't it?). The last time I went on Fox/CNN's website was to check if they were covering the latest uptick in the genocidal massacres of Kurds by Turkey's government (unfortunately they were not, and AP's tiny article on it left out many important details). My criticisms of Trump sound superficial because I'm more interested in actions than words; Trump hasn't held power, so there's less to point at. Let us be content with the consensus that he'd make a poor president for many reasons that we are well aware of.

Before I get to PeteP's post (I think it's a bit more challenging and I would be remiss to ignore such a clear offer for a level-headed dialectic on an important topic) let me just say that AIPAC doesn't represent Judaism. It represents the reactionary forces in Israeli politics (including its current head of state). AIPAC supports and advocates for terrorism in the form of a violent, genocidal oppression against the civilian population of Palestine. It advocates for the stealing of Palestinian land and expansion of the settlements in Palestinian territory. If anyone is interested in denying the existence of one of the most horrific occupations in human history, please do not engage me on this topic. It's tangential (sadly) to what we are here to discuss.

----------------------------------------------------------------

PeteP (and others), let me know what it is that you require historical evidence for. We have Obama's war crimes in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Libya, and Sudan - of which Clinton is most directly complicit in Libya. We have Clintons' war crime not covered by this list: namely the tragedy of the Haitian relief effort.

Next we have her accepting of bribes from dictators in foreign countries (I named Saudi Arabia and DRC).

Then we have her money laundering activities with the Clinton Foundation. The evidence here isn't definitive (it can't be without an official government investigation), but clearly there is illicit activity going on.

I'll also submit into her list of crimes election fraud, specifically in the Democratic Primary versus Bernie Sanders.

There's also the matter of her carelessness in handling her private email server... but I'm uninterested in that so I won't bother linking you to the FBI's official statement.

I think I hit all the major criminal activity that Clinton is responsible for... I could be wrong about that though.

As for Trumps' failure to confront AIPAC for NSA etc... I'm guessing you don't care to have that demonstrated. At any rate I hope we can just agree that Trump is a horrible candidate and set aside any concerns about him for this discussion.

My hope is that I won't have to provide a comprehensive case for every one of these points and that you'll already be satisfied with at least some of them. Let me know if that isn't the case, however.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Also Jill Stein is not anti-science, she's a doctor. She's not anti-vacines, she's not anti-GMOs prima facie and she's not anti-scientific progress. By the way the ACA is fundamentally and economics failure. It's a very basic failure too - the idea that you can have a government opt-in health insurance plan that competes on the market and have it be high quality is disproven at every level of economics education. Government health insurance has to have three characteristics: Obligatory,All-Inclusive, and Monopoly.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3370
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:20 pm UTC

Layco wrote:Also Jill Stein is not anti-science, she's a doctor. She's not anti-vacines, she's not anti-GMOs prima facie and she's not anti-scientific progress.

Doctors aren't immune to wrong opinions.

For vaccines, she has rolled back from, but pandered in the past to the anti-vaxxers. In the GMO debate she has not helped things by confusing non-foodcrop GMOs with built-in pesticide toxins and GMOs with chemical resistance to allow increased external spraying, and I don't see any reference to the "suicide gene" aspect of Big GMO companies, which wouldhave been a useful argument to use if making an actual point. There does not seem to be any medical reason to oppose WiFi, yet she does. I feel her anti-NASA stance is not to my liking, but mine is only a view from the sidelines that doesn't affect me in a measurable way. As with many of the other issues, but not all.

(Tried to confirm/correct this on the Jill2016 site, but couldn't do anything with the vague information undet the published 'Plan'. It did confirm that there are a number of other things that I did like about her stance, but mixed together with the other bits I'm with no doubt that it cancels out any inclination that I might have had to support her, given the chance. And, as said, the socialist parts of her position would shun any currently wavering Trumpites, with other bits being not encouraging to wavering Clintonites. It'll be a rather special kind of person to support her, and not even al Greens would, from what I read.)

But vote as you will, ypurself. Just know that it won't stop (Trump|Clinton) winning in her stead, just worry if it'll mean that (Clinton|Trump) might do, instead, if she happens to draw enough support away from the other one.

elasto
Posts: 3481
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:44 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Layco wrote:Also Jill Stein is not anti-science, she's a doctor. She's not anti-vacines, she's not anti-GMOs prima facie and she's not anti-scientific progress.

Doctors aren't immune to wrong opinions.

Case in point: Dr Ben Carson...

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5093
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Sun Oct 23, 2016 9:58 pm UTC

Layco wrote:
I'll also submit into her list of crimes election fraud, specifically in the Democratic Primary versus Bernie Sanders.
For all the times I hear this repeated, you'd think there'd be some evidence of it. Like after all the thousands of hacked DNC e-mails I'd love to find the ones that explain how she rigged, say, Arizona (a Republican controlled state). I'm not just talking about "the party preferred her" and "she's been planning to run since 2008" emails either, because those are patently obvious and not election fraud. Like I want to know where she rigged the primary such that she got a 3 million vote lead. We saw claims of fraud all the way through the primaries even from the very first primary where people were claiming rigged coin flips in Iowa without evidence at all.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:08 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Layco wrote:I'm actually filled with sorrow and compassion, but let us leave our emotions aside from this point forward.
I don't go on right-wing media, I don't go on any mainstream media (breitbart is right-wing isn't it?). The last time I went on Fox/CNN's website was to check if they were covering the latest uptick in the genocidal massacres of Kurds by Turkey's government (unfortunately they were not, and AP's tiny article on it left out many important details). My criticisms of Trump sound superficial because I'm more interested in actions than words; Trump hasn't held power, so there's less to point at. Let us be content with the consensus that he'd make a poor president for many reasons that we are well aware of.
Before I get to PeteP's post (I think it's a bit more challenging and I would be remiss to ignore such a clear offer for a level-headed dialectic on an important topic) let me just say that AIPAC doesn't represent Judaism. It represents the reactionary forces in Israeli politics (including its current head of state). AIPAC supports and advocates for terrorism in the form of a violent, genocidal oppression against the civilian population of Palestine. It advocates for the stealing of Palestinian land and expansion of the settlements in Palestinian territory. If anyone is interested in denying the existence of one of the most horrific occupations in human history, please do not engage me on this topic. It's tangential (sadly) to what we are here to discuss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PeteP (and others), let me know what it is that you require historical evidence for. We have Obama's war crimes in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Libya, and Sudan - of which Clinton is most directly complicit in Libya. We have Clintons' war crime not covered by this list: namely the tragedy of the Haitian relief effort.
Next we have her accepting of bribes from dictators in foreign countries (I named Saudi Arabia and DRC).
Then we have her money laundering activities with the Clinton Foundation. The evidence here isn't definitive (it can't be without an official government investigation), but clearly there is illicit activity going on.
I'll also submit into her list of crimes election fraud, specifically in the Democratic Primary versus Bernie Sanders.
There's also the matter of her carelessness in handling her private email server... but I'm uninterested in that so I won't bother linking you to the FBI's official statement.
I think I hit all the major criminal activity that Clinton is responsible for... I could be wrong about that though.
As for Trumps' failure to confront AIPAC for NSA etc... I'm guessing you don't care to have that demonstrated. At any rate I hope we can just agree that Trump is a horrible candidate and set aside any concerns about him for this discussion.
My hope is that I won't have to provide a comprehensive case for every one of these points and that you'll already be satisfied with at least some of them. Let me know if that isn't the case, however.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Also Jill Stein is not anti-science, she's a doctor. She's not anti-vacines, she's not anti-GMOs prima facie and she's not anti-scientific progress. By the way the ACA is fundamentally and economics failure. It's a very basic failure too - the idea that you can have a government opt-in health insurance plan that competes on the market and have it be high quality is disproven at every level of economics education. Government health insurance has to have three characteristics: Obligatory,All-Inclusive, and Monopoly.

Ok mister smart guy. You're at 5 posts now, which means you're allowed to post links. Get some evidence and citations up in here. I'm not gonna defend some meaningless generic "war is bad" charges. Trump has done plenty, you don't have to make shit up to find out that he's a bad person. It speaks poorly of you that you couldn't name a single thing that Trump's actually done, and instead went with some made up superficial shit. As for Trump, he's not a complete moron. He's already pissed off women and minorities. He can't afford to piss off Jewish groups(or the Republicans that support Israel). But ok, let's move on.
You really need to define war crimes. According to any of the charters/treaties/conventions, none of the things on your list applies. Evidence, links, where are you getting your information from? Did you just google Clinton crimes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bo ... tional_law
Read this, and you'll see how none of those count as war crimes.
No, there's no proof that Clinton committed voter fraud, mostly because voter fraud isn't a real thing in the US.
http://www.snopes.com/tag/election-fraud/
We could go on and on with you making up charges but unless you're here to learn from us, then you need to give citations.

Jill Stein being a doctor once in her life doesn't mean shit about science. Plenty of Republicans are well educated, and still profess doubts about climate change, evolution etc etc. They're either purposely ignoring the evidence, or suffering from cognitive dissonance. Stein went out of her way to pander to a 9/11 truther, and then purposely undercut her own support for vaccines by insisting that all the evidence should come in. That's like saying your mother isn't a whore, but let's wait for all the evidence to come in from those half-dressed men leaving her house at night. http://www.jill2016.com/platform
If you're gonna insist she's not anti-science, you should at least read her platform first.
Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe.
Replace NAFTA and other corporate free trade agreements that export American jobs, depress wages, and undermine the sovereign right of Americans and citizens of other countries to control their own economy and political choices. Enact fair trade laws that benefits local workers and communities.
Both of these positions are clearly studied by scientists, and Stein is on the wrong side of them. That's just from her website. If you ever talked to Stein, it becomes clear that she doesn't understand how the Fed works. We can go on, but we should wait to prove you're not just a troll. Go on, post some citations as to why you're in any way right. You brought up a couple points that are fair, so it should be easy.

In short, you can't just throw around war criminal charges because with such loose definitions, you're a war criminal too. That's on top of all those allegations that you're very gullible, and a conspiracy theorist nutter.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:25 pm UTC

Layco wrote:We have Obama's war crimes in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Libya, and Sudan - of which Clinton is most directly complicit in Libya. We have Clintons' war crime not covered by this list: namely the tragedy of the Haitian relief effort.
I'm glad you shared your opinion.
Layco wrote:Next we have her accepting of bribes from dictators in foreign countries (I named Saudi Arabia and DRC).
Ditto.
Layco wrote:I'll also submit into her list of crimes election fraud, specifically in the Democratic Primary versus Bernie Sanders.
Ditto.
Layco wrote:I think I hit all the major criminal activity that Clinton is responsible for... I could be wrong about that though.
Ok, now show me the Bills of Indictment, Warrants for arrest, or other legal documents. The legal system in the US is defined by innocent until proven guilty. Until that happens we are left with what you think you know. She could be guilty of any of those things. But legally she isn't guilty of any of them until a court says so. I don't always care for that, but it is the cost of doing business. It isn't perfect but mostly it works. The court of public opinion will rule November 8. Whatever Jill Stein's merits or demerits, it mostly doesn't matter. She can't win. Better to vote for her than not, it would show that at least you're concerned. But it won't change anything since she has no base of support.

Edit
Real Clear Politics has some polls. I see Stein at about three percent. Versus Hillary at about 40 to 50.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3370
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:01 pm UTC

To move things away from the Jill thing, stroll past Gary and Evan and get back into "where it matters" territory, is Hillary's vow to no longer talk about Donald, to concentrate on issues, possible/helpful?

Also I saw something about Trump saying he "might not win"... Is he worried? He certainly needs to galvanise his supporters, those not haemorrhaged away already, so easing back on the 'natural confidence' might be useful. (Not to say I'm predicting any particular result, myself; a week is a long time in politics, a fortnight more so...)

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5093
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Mon Oct 24, 2016 12:23 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Also I saw something about Trump saying he "might not win"... Is he worried? He certainly needs to galvanise his supporters, those not haemorrhaged away already, so easing back on the 'natural confidence' might be useful. (Not to say I'm predicting any particular result, myself; a week is a long time in politics, a fortnight more so...)
It makes me wonder if he's going to underperform his polling significantly. Telling his voters the process is rigged isn't going to be doing any favors, and beyond that does he have any ground game at all left with the RNC pulling out?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mutex, Yahoo [Bot] and 15 guests