US Elections 2016 Part I: The Debates & Primaries/Caucus

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Hillary's main issue is that she is a Republican.

Stop talking nonsense. Do you actually know what she did, what policies and plans she advocated for and helped pass, when she worked with Bill in Arkansas and in the Oval Office? What she voted for as the Senator from New York? What she is now putting in her platform?

Or are you just acting out your disillusionment like a child throwing tantrum?

The "both sides are bad" cliché is morally cowardly and I am sad you fall for it. I am not going to stand back and be like, eh she's corporate right wing maybe but Trump worse blah blah blah, because A) that's not true B) that's how so many people are pretending they can stop fulfilling their civic duties being all fucking smug about it. Real lives are impacted by real policy, real action, and real policy differences exist. Enough of this cowardly "they're all so bad" bullshit.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

^ High information voters would be classified as someone who follows multiple news sources and have made an informed opinion. In this case HRC has made a number well documented "mistakes" that no sane and reasonable voter with a little understanding of the bigger picture in politics would love to vote for her.

I think you are full of it.

as someone who also follows multiply news sources i think Hillary is the best person for the job, she is smart, capable, experience and the ultimate survivor. She is not perfect or saint but at least during the primary campaign she isn't trying to sell me snake oil.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Stop talking nonsense. Do you actually know what she did, what policies and plans she advocated for and helped pass, when she worked with Bill in Arkansas and in the Oval Office? What she voted for as the Senator from New York? What she is now putting in her platform?

Or are you just acting out your disillusionment like a child throwing tantrum?

She follows the Republican platform of Tax cuts, more war, and directly stated that she would never allow Single Player healthcare to happen on her watch.

I didn't say she is bad, I say she is Republican. The fact that you think I am throwing a tantrum is interesting, because it seems you think being called a Republican is suddenly a grave insult. She leans Right, that is all. I have misgivings about how she acted in her campaign, but I was being specific in pointing out that she was following Obama's policies, and Obama had ruled as a central right Republican no matter what the GOP calls him.

I fail to see why you think I believe both sides are equally bad. I merely state that Democrats have a Right leaning candidate on their ticket in opposition to the GOP, who's candidate is the insane choice. I didn't say they were equal, just that Clinton is just a bad choice that would end up winning despite herself.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

She follows the Republican platform of Tax cuts, more war, and directly stated that she would never allow Single Player healthcare to happen on her watch.

she never said that. She said that Sing Payer is political dead because the republican control congress would never pass it. Which is she would do small fix on the current health care law.

Bernie still smoking that tim leary lsd thinks having people march outside McConnell office would get McConnell to pass it.

[yulinard]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

^ High information voters would be classified as someone who follows multiple news sources and have made an informed opinion. In this case HRC has made a number well documented "mistakes" that no sane and reasonable voter with a little understanding of the bigger picture in politics would love to vote for her.

Eh? No. If you watch secular talk or The Young Turds you are pretty much a self hating regressive.

Voting is like buying something that you must buy under penalty of death but the content of what you are buying will be the one you hate the least.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

she never said that. She said that Sing Payer is political dead because the republican control congress would never pass it. Which is she would do small fix on the current health care law.

Bernie still smoking that tim leary lsd thinks having people march outside McConnell office would get McConnell to pass it.

If Clinton would only support policies that Republican approve, then what difference does it makes that she is technically a Democrat? She would end up just giving Republicans everything they want, and they would still call her a socialist.

Republicans have gone pretty far trying to ban abortion, because they actually TRY. And just because they could never remove RomneyCare doesn't stop them from trying every month. I think they are crazy, but at least I know what they are standing for. Clinton just wants to enact Republican policies, that isn't what being a Democrat is about.

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by yulinard

Eh? No. If you watch secular talk or The Young Turds you are pretty much a self hating regressive.

Voting is like buying something that you must buy under penalty of death but the content of what you are buying will be the one you hate the least.

As compared to the new sources you follow which are?

Voting is civic duty you choose to follow or not,the death penalty? What kind of fascism are you promoting?

[yulinard]

Originally Posted by sasoras

As compared to the new sources you follow which are?

Voting is civic duty you choose to follow or not,the death penalty? What kind of fascism are you promoting?

I dont know, maybe response video to those videos. The Young Turds have alot response video.

I said "BUYING SOMETHING THAT YOU MUST BUY UNDER DEATH PENALTY". Oh well forget it.

And I dont think if you get death penalty if not voting automatically fascist. Since you can argue that not voting also a vote.

[Ithekro]

Australia has compulsorily voting, does it not? I wonder how that would work in the United States? It sort of force the government to give out ID cards to be sure you can vote and do vote. Citizens only of course.

Having everyone vote might change things a bit. Might even give those third parties a chance all those people that don't vote because they don't think their vote will matter actually have to vote.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Australia has compulsorily voting, does it not? I wonder how that would work in the United States? It sort of force the government to give out ID cards to be sure you can vote and do vote. Citizens only of course.

Having everyone vote might change things a bit. Might even give those third parties a chance all those people that don't vote because they don't think their vote will matter actually have to vote.

There is actually a loophole in compulsory voting. Or a weakness depending on your POV. In Australia, voting is dependent on you having an actual address. This makes sense in that your address determine which district you actually get to vote in, and you obviously can only vote for one district.

The problems comes that it means citizens who are truly homeless, who have no address at all, cannot vote. People who are genuinely Australians but simply don't have a home, have no voting rights because they don't have a registered address. This is a known problem but with no easy solutions. The actual number of people that is affected by this is small so it is not an issue that is on anyone's priority list. It is just another downside from being homeless and living on the streets.

[DemonOfWrath]

Actually you can vote here in Australia without needing any ID what-so-ever. They just ask if you've already voted that election, and cross your name off a giant list. Having ID just means you don't need to spell your name out to them.

What it would do over in the US would probably be to change the political discourse away from just getting people to actually vote, as turnout alone has major effects between elections (look at the last few midterm elections, or brexit). Oh, it would also mean you'd probably have election days on a weekend like we do.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by DemonOfWrath

Actually you can vote here in Australia without needing any ID what-so-ever. They just ask if you've already voted that election, and cross your name off a giant list. Having ID just means you don't need to spell your name out to them.

Since voting is compulsory, there is no real risk of someone ever trying to vote under someone else's name anyway. The name owner would have showed up to vote and found out his name was already ticked off. Compulsory voting means voting is made easier because the assumption is that no one would be missed.

Personally I voted two weeks in advance. Much easier to go to an early polling place than to line up on a weekend for hours.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Since voting is compulsory, there is no real risk of someone ever trying to vote under someone else's name anyway. The name owner would have showed up to vote and found out his name was already ticked off.

So what if he does? The vote's already been cast and stolen. (Not a very good way to steal an election, I know.)

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

The "both sides are bad" cliché is morally cowardly and I am sad you fall for it. I am not going to stand back and be like, eh she's corporate right wing maybe but Trump worse blah blah blah, because A) that's not true B) that's how so many people are pretending they can stop fulfilling their civic duties being all fucking smug about it. Real lives are impacted by real policy, real action, and real policy differences exist. Enough of this cowardly "they're all so bad" bullshit.

QFT. Too many people out there do this.

It frustrates me to no end that people always draw a false equivalency in this country. Democrats sure as hell aren't anywhere near perfect, and Hilary Clinton is a more economically moderate candidate than many Democrats in the last century, but her policies are completely different from Republicans (Especially today).

Just because she doesn't think (Rightly so) that tuition free college is reasonably affordable, doesn't mean she is not a progressive...

My biggest gripes with Hilary actually tend to be that she aligns too closely with the part of the Democratic base that pushes identity politics too hard. I want criminal justice reform. I believe there's ample evidence and history to suggest African Americans are systemically disadvantaged in this country and there are ways to fix it (Some more productive than others being suggested). However, I really wish people wouldn't go around so much calling everyone racist and sexist for the most petty things imaginable. I don't need an Anita Sarkeesian at the head of the Democratic party.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

I think you are full of it.

as someone who also follows multiply news sources i think Hillary is the best person for the job, she is smart, capable, experience and the ultimate survivor. She is not perfect or saint but at least during the primary campaign she isn't trying to sell me snake oil.

Ok, lets try some logic, what's the issue that is mobilizing a very large block of the voters in this country? The establishment is corrupt. I assume you agree with this basic premise. If so then what is the main reason why the government is corrupt? Logically it is because of money in politics. Surely, you agree with me on this point as well. Now ask yourself, does Hillary take money from special interest? As you already know she indeed does. If she takes money from special interest does it mean that those donors have influence over her decisions? Of course. If she is influenced by big money then does this mean that she is corrupt? Of course.

I know you are well aware of her situation, but it is important that I emphasize it. This is the main reason why she is unpopular with the informed voters.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

I got a joke(?) for you guys:

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a bar. Donald leans over, and With A smile on his face, says, "The media is really tearing you apart for That Scandal."
Hillary: "You mean my lying about Benghazi?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the massive voter fraud?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Using my secret private server with classified material to Hide my Activities?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything Else?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Using the Clinton Foundation as a cover for tax evasion, Hiring Cronies, And taking bribes from foreign countries?
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean the drones being operated in our own country without The Benefit of the law?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million, and right afterward it Declared Bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean arming the Muslim Brotherhood and hiring them in the White House?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Whitewater, Watergate committee, Vince Foster, commodity Deals?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "The funding of neoNazis in the Ukraine that led to the toppling of the democratically elected president and to the biggest crisis that country has had since WWII ?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Turning Libya into chaos?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Being the mastermind of the so-called “Arab Spring” that only brought chaos, death and destruction to the Middle East and North Africa ?
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Leaving four Americans to die in Benghazi and go to sleep?
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Trashing Mubarak, one of our few Muslim friends?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Encouraging and supporting the murders of Palestinians and the destruction of their homes, towns and villages by Israel ?"
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "The funding and arming of terrorists in Syria, the destruction and destabilization of that nation, giving the order to our lapdogs in Turkey and Saudi Arabia to give sarin gas to the "moderate" terrorists in Syria that they eventually used on civilians, and framed Assad, and had it not been for the Russians and Putin, we would have used that as a pretext to invade Syria, put a puppet in power, steal their natural resources, and leave that country in total chaos, just like we did with Libya?
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "The creation of the biggest refugees crisis since WWII
Trump: "No the other one:"
Hillary: "Leaving Iraq in chaos? "
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The DOJ spying on the press?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "You mean HHS Secretary Sibelius shaking down health insurance Executives?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Giving our cronies in SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 Months Later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The NSA monitoring citizens' ?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General Investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Me, The IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "Threats to all of Bill's former mistresses to keep them quiet"
Trump: "No, the other one."
Hillary: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I've got it! When I stole the White House furniture, silverware, when Bill left Office?"
Trump: "THAT'S IT! I almost forgot about that one".

~Quoted from Steven Kratky on Facebook.

Perfect post in my opinion.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

If Clinton would only support policies that Republican approve, then what difference does it makes that she is technically a Democrat? She would end up just giving Republicans everything they want, and they would still call her a socialist.

That's not how it works, just because someone points out the reality that a progressive policy is not going to pass the GOP-led Congress does not mean that person suddenly only supports GOP policies.

I could've told you on day one that there's not a snowball's chance in hell that Bernie's policies would've passed Congress, that doesn't mean I support Trump's policies, it just means I'm not some naive kid viewing the world through a reality distortion field.

Republicans have gone pretty far trying to ban abortion, because they actually TRY. And just because they could never remove RomneyCare doesn't stop them from trying every month. I think they are crazy, but at least I know what they are standing for. Clinton just wants to enact Republican policies, that isn't what being a Democrat is about.

No, they've gotten pretty far because they've been trying in the RIGHT PLACE - aka at the local and state level, where democrats never seems to show up to vote. On the Federal level? not so much success there.

[Key Board]

the theme of this US election is "lesser evil"

You could argue that it has always been that way, but it especially pronounced this time.

[Psyco Diver]

Originally Posted by Key Board

the theme of this US election is "lesser evil"

You could argue that it has always been that way, but it especially pronounced this time.

It been like that for the last few elections, its why I'm pushing so hard for a third party choice, any third party because then I would hope it would force them to start giving us worthy candidates instead of the most corrupt

[Urzu 7]

For me, I choose Hillary over Trump. It is really about the lesser of two evils this election, more so than any other maybe. Hillary is bad, Trump is bad. One is a scumbag, one is a douchebag. Crooked Hillary? Yeah, and Trump is crooked too. Hillary is a liar? Yeah, and Trump lies a whole lot, too.

But Hillary knows politics. And she is presidential material. At least, more so than Trump. Trump is very unlearned in politics. Which is why it is crazy this guy is going to the general election. How will he be a leader of America and be a leader on the world stage when he doesn't know jack about being the president of the U.S. and doesn't know jack about dealing with international relations? The thing is, he'd be a very bad leader, I'm sure. And he sure ain't presidential material. Childish, rude, crude...mocking a disabled person, having thin skin, throwing tantrums...God, how sad it is that this absolute buffoon is going to the general election. All he had to do is say all sorts of things that the loonies on the political right love to hear and market his slogan of "Make America Great Again".

How so many believe he'll actually "fix a lot of our issues" is baffling. They really believe he'll 'make America great again' because he says he will and that is his slogan. People really can be absolutely stupid. And Trump would not make America great again. He'll definitely make things worse for America and the world. I'm absolutely sure about that. Is it possible that if he became president, he wouldn't actually be terrible and his presidency might not be a disaster? I suppose it is possible, but I absolutely don't want to take such a gamble. Chances are he'll mess things up real good.