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

[Grifis]

The media does treat its audience like idiots. Now that I look at things coming out of Trump's mouth it's not as nonsensical as the standard from the MSM but people see him as an idiot while eating up what's written in the media. Omoshiroi.

Trump won't win electoral votes but he will get popular votes. (Now I still haven't yet figured out if popular votes translate or relate to electoral votes. It's all in good hands.)

[ninjastarforcex]

you will suffer if you wholeheartedly trust a politician. all of them are professional bullshitter and a corrupt liar. why don't you just vote for businessman trump just for the lulz, it won't be any worse than your typical career politician who will pander everything to get vote

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Grifis

Trump won't win electoral votes but he will get popular votes. (Now I still haven't yet figured out if popular votes translate or relate to electoral votes. It's all in good hands.)

Yes, they do, and the relationship between popular and Electoral votes has a very high "swing ratio." A one-percent change in the popular vote moves the Electoral College margin by nearly four percent.



Given the historical relationship, it is theoretically possible to win a majority of the College with only 48.4% of the popular vote.

It would also be possible for Trump to win if he flips just three states that Romney failed to carry in 2012: Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. If Trump wins those states, and all the other states remain the same as they did in 2012, Trump wins a majority of the College.

[Homura7]

Florida and Arizona aren't looking friendly to him, though. Dems have it easier not because of popularity but because they have a solid base of 18 clinched states. Assuming it goes really that way like it has been in the past 20 years, they would just need one more to win.

Originally Posted by Grifis

The media does treat its audience like idiots. Now that I look at things coming out of Trump's mouth it's not as nonsensical as the standard from the MSM but people see him as an idiot while eating up what's written in the media. Omoshiroi.

Trump won't win electoral votes but he will get popular votes. (Now I still haven't yet figured out if popular votes translate or relate to electoral votes. It's all in good hands.)

Media in general likes to treat the audience like idiots. And now we have this wonderful revolutionary tool called Internet, it's even more easy to publish clickbait stuff and all that. Also, media that leans to Dems will always say bad stuff about the other side, and same goes for the Conservative media.

To put it short, sensationalism sells.

[Brother Coa]

Originally Posted by Alpha Knight

Make sure you don't come here crying a river if Hillary wins. I am not american, so I could care less. Just saying who's more qualified based on knowledge about politics and international affairs.

Ok, I respect your opinion. Which is exactly that - your opinion. Just like my opinion is that Trump is more qualified. It's a good thing that elections will be decided by Americans instead of us who are going to vote mainly by popularity vote instead of facts and qualification. xD

Why would I cry at all if Hilary wins? But I admit that I am a little said about all this thing. Americans have choice between so-so successful businessman and corrupted liar to give them their future and their nuclear stockpile. Yeah, it's the rest of the world that should be crying. Not me.

In any case, my money is on Trump. Same like in Brexit case where my money was on leave, which won in the end.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

On the contrary, I have been very objective these whole elections.

Rose-colored glasses? Not only did you have to delete your own thread about the machete incident in Germany because people called you out on spewing racism, you also have repeatedly shown in this thread that you do not read the articles that you link past the populist headline, not to mention having little knowledge about international relations and history in general.

Originally Posted by ImperialKnight

One thing I don't understand with you people is that you somehow expect Trump to actually keep his promises which you guys keep focusing on like the wall and muslims or tearing up NAFTA.

What else does he have? I'll give you the answer: nothing.

Originally Posted by ImperialKnight

For all of Trump's rhetoric's I highly doubt he would even implement half of them simply for the fact that a lot of you people are ignoring. He's a businessman, and a very successful one at that.

He is rich and not even that is his own achievement.

Originally Posted by ImperialKnight

So Hillary lies all the time yet people are praising her as some savior but we know her credibility is pretty poor and she's been involved in the White house for some time so she's got bad blood.

Nobody sees her as the saviour, I don't know how you came up with that. Even the democrats are fully aware of her low popularity.

Originally Posted by ImperialKnight

One thing you can say about Trump is that he's going against the status quo. When the media hates you that much IMO he's doing something right (given how bias the media is towards conservatives in general)

Again, this is a logical fallacy. Being attacked by the media doesn't automatically give you qualities for being president.

[Homura7]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Rose-colored glasses? Not only did you have to delete your own thread about the machete incident in Germany because people called you out on spewing racism, you also have repeatedly shown in this thread that you do not read the articles that you link past the populist headline, not to mention having little knowledge about international relations and history in general.

Best exemplified in the last article he just linked to.

What else does he have? I'll give you the answer: nothing.

Pretty much. The only reason he's got this far is by promising things he knows he isn't going to do, nor they would allow him to in first place.

He is rich and not even that is his own achievement.

But I heard he's actually broken now.

Nobody sees her as the saviour, I don't know how you came up with that. Even the democrats are fully aware of her low popularity.

This has been repeated too many times already. BOTH are bad.

Again, this is a logical fallacy. Being attacked by the media doesn't automatically give you qualities for being president.

John Mccain also tried the same strategy. You already know how well that went for him.

Anyway, I think it was you who put it up best, right? We're looking at only 4 years. But after that I hope americans will start voting for better alternatives.

[Brother Coa]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Rose-colored glasses? Not only did you have to delete your own thread about the machete incident in Germany because people called you out on spewing racism, you also have repeatedly shown in this thread that you do not read the articles that you link past the populist headline, not to mention having little knowledge about international relations and history in general.

I am not guilty for people failing to see the point I was trying to make ( calling me a racist when I talked about nations, shows how much they paid attention or bothered to understand my points ), in the end it was better to delete it than to leave it to go out of control. It also has nothing to do with this thread in particular, it has to do with me arguing with people every 15 minutes. So better safe than sorry.

Furthermore everything I posted was with some point and if you look closely every article indeed has external sources that leads to thing mentioned in the headline. I am not to blaim if people are too lazy to click a mouse once to see it.

And I do have quite good knowledge of world history and international relationships. Problem is hat some people prefer to have their own versions based on the area they live rather than looking at whole situation. Good example are Americans who only bother with US politics and that's pretty much it. I remember when one journalist conducted a test during Ukraine crisis asking random citizens if they would approve US invasion of Ukraine. 95% said yes only because 'Ukrainians are the bad guys and they have to get them first'. Same goes for many other countries, rarely few will look at the entire thing and deduct objectively, and most who do get there usually become conspiracy theorists.

As for history... it is mostly written by the victor. That alone makes 80% what we know today wrong is some perspective. Never-mind certain other nations who literally argue with other nations over historical identity. So let's just leave it at that.

That's enough for me sidetracking in this thread. In the end, as far as these elections goes I said what I think and I will stick for it until the end. But giving all that has happened in the post 2 weeks this should be much more interesting rides than primaries ever were.

[Slayerx]

Originally Posted by ImperialKnight

One thing you can say about Trump is that he's going against the status quo. When the media hates you that much IMO he's doing something right (given how bias the media is towards conservatives in general)

No, no he's not. Trump is a man who benefitted heavily from the status quo. he built is fortune by taking advatnage of all the flaws that exist in the status quo. Buying politicians, off-shoring labor, using illegal immigrants for cheap labor, keeping wages low, fighting against unionization of workers, exploiting tax loopholes, cheating customers... really you name something wrong with the status quo and you can find a time when Trump exploited it to make a quick buck. Heck he was stated that he thought American wages were too high (really sounds like he wants to compete with china by getting rid of minimum wage and allowing slave-like low wages). You really believe he's gonna dismantle the very systems he's been using for years?

As mentioned in the thread, to have corrupt politicians you need to have corruptors; those individuals outside the government who corrupt politicians in order to get what they want done. Trump is one of those people. All electing Trump does is cut out the middle man, allowing the corruptor to control things directly. Trump is every bit the corrupt liar as Clinton, if not more so... he's just not as smart and has no idea what he's doing. Heck the man doesn't even seem to even understand the consequences of his own statements and actions; the man and constantly contradicts himself or walk back statements

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

Ok, I respect your opinion. Which is exactly that - your opinion. Just like my opinion is that Trump is more qualified. It's a good thing that elections will be decided by Americans instead of us who are going to vote mainly by popularity vote instead of facts and qualification. xD

Why would I cry at all if Hilary wins? But I admit that I am a little said about all this thing. Americans have choice between so-so successful businessman and corrupted liar to give them their future and their nuclear stockpile. Yeah, it's the rest of the world that should be crying. Not me.

In what way is Trump "more qualified"? The man doesn't know the first thing about running any kind of government. Heck he seemed to imply that he would actually have his VP run everything since he clearly knows nothing. Heck he's not even that good of businessman when you look at how many times he failed; multiple bankruptcies, plenty of failed/idiotic business ventures (he seriously thought it was a good idea to sell steaks at a furniture store), and outright cheating customers (see: Trump university). Really he's not some self-made man like Bill gates; he was born rich, and he stayed rich by exploiting everything wrong in our economy and government.

[Grifis]

There were candidates in the past with no qualifications but that didn't stop them from becoming the potus. They only need to graduate from some Ivy League school.

I kind of understand Trump's appeal. Sure he has nothing but it just means people have to choose between bad experience (Clinton) and no experience (Trump.) It was the same way with Bush vs. Obama. The difference is that Obama had the media's support and they painted him like he was the best thing sent from heaven. Obama said the things voters wanted to hear. Trump says the politically incorrect things people may want to say but dare not say. With Clinton, voters probably have a good idea how things may turn out. With Trump, no one knows how things will end up and in many ways going toward the unknown has its appeal. Americans are open minded people after all. After seeing the same cookie cutter politicians, they may want something different and unpredictable like crazy Trump. He takes advantage of this appeal fully.

But that's not to say he will win. The voting process is very much controlled and not necessary reflects the will of the people. That's the purpose of the electoral votes.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Grifis

It was the same way with Bush vs. Obama.

That was never a thing.

[Marcus H.]

Just wondering. Which between Trump and Hillary would be the most vulnerable to Congress intervention? Considering Trump's lack of political experience, would the Congressional Dems be able to put a rein on him as with Congressional Reps towards Obama?

Or is this fair game somehow?

[IceHism]

Originally Posted by Marcus H.

Just wondering. Which between Trump and Hillary would be the most vulnerable to Congress intervention? Considering Trump's lack of political experience, would the Congressional Dems be able to put a rein on him as with Congressional Reps towards Obama?

Or is this fair game somehow?

Republicans have a majority in both house and senate so Hillary is most vulnerable to intervention.

[Eisdrache]

TL;DR…

@Brother Coa

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

As for the topic take a look at Newt Gingrich's recent ...feelings:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/xnhJWusyj4I

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[KiraYamatoFan]

I stopped taking Newt Gingrich's views seriously a looooong time ago. How does this guy still get a job as a political pundit?

[Grifis]

Originally Posted by GDB

That was never a thing.

Not in term of election but I remember they were brought up for comparisons. In term of election, the Bush effect influenced the following Republican candidate's fate and possibly got Obama in office.

[Ithekro]

As I remind people locally, there are alternatives to Trump and Clinton. In California we have more than just the two parties running plus there is always the write-in vote. I know people that aren't going to vote because they either believe their vote won't count or they don't believe in either Trump or Clinton. But I say they should still vote. Even if that vote amounts to almost nothing. Your vote was counted, and tells them you are not of the body, and that those not of the body will not reward them for serving such terrible people as candidates for President of the United States of America. Your vote probably won't change the outcome...but at least you said something and did not let this pass without a word.

Do I know who I will vote for? Not yet. Do I know who I will not vote for? Yes. I will not vote for Trump nor Clinton. But I will vote.

[Harbinger]

You know, we should have the following option when voting:

Non-confidence in ALL major parties

I'm sure that during some elections, the non-confidence option could legitimately have more votes than candidate of either major party...

[KiraYamatoFan]

I came across the long list of speeches of this last day at the DNC. We can talk a lot about what politicians or celebrities said, but the speech that moved me the most came from a normal citizen who represents all immigrants who work hard and are an important part in building a better society in their new country, whatever that welcoming country is.

Ladies and gentlemen, Khizr Khan:

@SeijiSensei: I would like to have your input on that speech. It was a tear-jerker, I won't lie about it.

[Sheba]

I did that poll thingie I got 78% for Hillary and 66% for Trump. I mostly sided her on the question about Science (I reason that supporting them will eventually bring up the need for new technologies, therefore industry and more potential employment). As a Frenchman and seeing the shit my country have gottne through since Jan2015, I voted for measures that supposedly help increase security. That's just saying.