The final 2016 United States Presidential Election Thread! Who you got?

Who you got?

  • Total voters
    38
Status
Not open for further replies.
hrudey said:
That last sentence isn't that surprising, and intellectually consistent. For the sake of discussion, let's call the commissioner Mr. Schlongabouttown. He says he can't vote for Mr. Schlongabouttown because he cheated on his wife. He can still vote for Trump becaue he never cheated on Mr. Schlongabouttown's wife. It's probably the same reaction you'd get if you pointed out that the Bush administration deleted up to 22 million emails from a private server they were using that were also related to Congressional investigations, they'll point out Bush didn't delete any of Clinton's emails.
Click to expand...

But Trump also cheated on his first wife. I don't understand his logic of disqualifying one person but voting for another that have the same issue. People don't take time to research who they are voting for. That goes back to my argument that there should be some basic qualification in order to get your voters registration.
 
JinCA said:
Hillary should still win but it pisses me off that so many Democrats voted for her just so they could say "I'm with her" and feel superior rather than trying to elect a "clean" candidate. Sanders and O'Malley would have both done much better against Trump, I doubt he'd even be anywhere near even in national polls had Hillary not been the nominee. I know it sounds like b****ing and I should be over it, it's not that I hate her it's just that risking a Trump Presidency just to say you voted for a woman instead of the right woman is idiotic IMO.
Click to expand...

If this election shows you anything its that Harambe would get 40%+ if he got one of the two major nominations

O'Malley is terrible so I won't even go there but as for Bernie its impossible to know what happens when he is actually attacked and when he is called a Socialist nonstop for 6 months.

And yes Hillary is the right woman and she is the best candidate period.

JinCA said:
Sanders would have had some issues I know, he would have had to get more specific about how he was going to accomplish his goals at some point (not that Trump has either) but he also would have had higher enthusiasm with Democrats in general as well as younger voters, Republicans aren't going to vote for the Democrat so why bother trying to make them feel good about the Dem candidate? HRC is more like a left leaning republican than a true democrat in my book anyway. In reality any other Dem who's without a big scandal would have done much better against Trump than HRC, she just wasn't the right choice. I'm voting for her anyway simply because I want to give her as big of a number over Trump as possible if she wins but truly I want to vote for Jill Stein, it just doesn't make sense to vote for a candidate with no shot at the job right now.
Click to expand...

This is just false. She had a voting record that was more liberal than 70% of the other Democrats in the Senate. She is not as liberal as Bernie (which would not be a positive for him if he was the candidate btw) but if he is the bar than everyone is a Republican

s080_010.gif
 
JinCA said:
O'Malley just couldn't get any coverage by the media, Sanders didn't get much either until the republican nomination was basically decided and they needed a new story to focus on.
Click to expand...

Democrats wanted Clinton to have some opposition so it worked out for Sanders. Still, I think his popularity grew beyong what they expected. It would have worked better for him if it was beyond social media.
 
BettaCall911 said:
But Trump also cheated on his first wife. I don't understand his logic of disqualifying one person but voting for another that have the same issue. People don't take time to research who they are voting for. That goes back to my argument that there should be some basic qualification in order to get your voters registration.
Click to expand...

I had a fairly long reply typed out and because I'm watching the Series I screwed up. The example I posted was mostly making laugh on people who behave as you described.

My opinion as someone who has nothing to do with any of the fields of study that would actually have reason to study this stuff is that the whole phenomenon is a really interesting case study of the perils of indoctrination. The right has had Limbaugh/Hanity/Faux/etc. going back decades constantly inundating their listeners with attacks intended to dehumanize "liberals" or minorities or non-Christians or homosexuals, etc. They combined this approach with building up their own church of the almighty tax cut, where tax cuts and drowning government are the divine instrumentation used to solve all ills. This is of course not a true belief, or at least it wasn't, but instead just the vehicle they used to try to get what they wanted - tax cuts for themselves, and the attacks on the debt (when it's not a Republican in office, at least) or on spending was all to accomplish this.

For a while, it worked. The racists and bigots loved the invictive, and the evangelicals loved the anti-homosexual message, and of course the fiscal conservatives loved the anti-debt, anti-spending slant while the wealthy loved the tax cut platform. But the problem is, it worked - the Tea Party uprising was basically what happened when people who actually believed the tax cut mythology started taking control, and Trump happened when people who actually believed the prejudice and hate started exerting their will. The indoctrination worked too well, and now the GOP is essentially a subidiary of Breitbart rather than Fox.
 
yankeessuck said:
If this election shows you anything its that Harambe would get 40%+ if he got one of the two major nominations

O'Malley is terrible so I won't even go there but as for Bernie its impossible to know what happens when he is actually attacked and when he is called a Socialist nonstop for 6 months.

And yes Hillary is the right woman and she is the best candidate period.



This is just false. She had a voting record that was more liberal than 70% of the other Democrats in the Senate. She is not as liberal as Bernie (which would not be a positive for him if he was the candidate btw) but if he is the bar than everyone is a Republican

s080_010.gif
Click to expand...

HRC is always late to the party on social issues, she waits to come around until the polls say it's ok for her to take a position, she's never someone who is already there when everyone else comes around. When it comes to foreign affairs she's just as hawkish as many republicans if not more so. I do not think she is the best person for the job she's just the best out of the two major party nominees, her record is spotty and she is one of the least popular candidates every for a reason. I don't hate her, I used to actually admire her but I've just seen her doing things that seem shady too many times, it's hard to want to reward that kind of behavior.
 
JinCA said:
HRC is always late to the party on social issues, she waits to come around until the polls say it's ok for her to take a position, she's never someone who is already there when everyone else comes around. When it comes to foreign affairs she's just as hawkish as many republicans if not more so. I do not think she is the best person for the job she's just the best out of the two major party nominees, her record is spotty and she is one of the least popular candidates every for a reason. I don't hate her, I used to actually admire her but I've just seen her doing things that seem shady too many times, it's hard to want to reward that kind of behavior.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest about why she's one of the least popular candidates. If you look back 2 years ago and before then, she was extremely well liked. This is only a recent issue and related to increased political polarization. Republicans have been very successful with manufacturing political issues regardless of factual evidence. Just look to dummies here who continue to post debunked stuff. Keep repeating and dumb people will believe it. She's also been under attack for 20 years. In addition, she faces criticism for what her Bill and Obama have done when she had no part of it. There's the obvious issue of misogyny too. Regardless of whomever was the nominee, half of the country will dislike you. This is our political environment. /rant

Outside of gay marriage and drug related issues, what other social issues has she been late to come around on?
 
horns said:
Let's be honest about why she's one of the least popular candidates. If you look back 2 years ago and before then, she was extremely well liked. This is only a recent issue and related to increased political polarization. Republicans have been very successful with manufacturing political issues regardless of factual evidence. Just look to dummies here who continue to post debunked stuff. Keep repeating and dumb people will believe it. She's also been under attack for 20 years. In addition, she faces criticism for what her Bill and Obama have done when she had no part of it. There's the obvious issue of misogyny too. Regardless of whomever was the nominee, half of the country will dislike you. This is our political environment. /rant

Outside of gay marriage and drug related issues, what other social issues has she been late to come around on?
Click to expand...
She's been under attack for nearly 40 years from the right and nearly all of it was unfounded or nothing of her doing. The emails are her issue. It's an issue I think should be insignificant. It was careless, no doubt. It's not as big of a deal as it's made out to be considering people didn't care about it happening with other people with significantly more emails and significantly more sensitive material. Now, it's the end of the world. You still have people who believe things a republican pitch form committee tried to bury her with, Benghazi. They found nothing pointing to her having caused it or had the ability to prevent it. The republicans, who have been after her for 40 years have found nothing. I saw the argument that, 'Well, they wanted to make sure one of their own is president. They don't want Trump in.' Too bad all of this happened before Trump a twinkle in a Trump supporter's eye.
 
horns said:
Republicans have been very successful with manufacturing political issues regardless of factual evidence. Just look to dummies here who continue to post debunked stuff. Keep repeating and dumb people will believe it.
Click to expand...

I was actually on facebook last night during the game because I can't just watch baseball, and someone that my mother is friends with posted some story claiming that Tim Kaine said that the Catholic Church was going to change their stance on gay marriage or HRC would ban them from the country. Sadly, my mother bit and said something to the effect of "this fool needs to learn about our freedoms." le sigh. I linked the snopes teardown of that claim I found within fifteen seconds, but I have no idea if the original poster will read it or care. Based on the sample size we have had in this thread (and its predecessors), I'm confident in calling it a no.
 
hrudey said:
I was actually on facebook last night during the game because I can't just watch baseball, and someone that my mother is friends with posted some story claiming that Tim Kaine said that the Catholic Church was going to change their stance on gay marriage or HRC would ban them from the country. Sadly, my mother bit and said something to the effect of "this fool needs to learn about our freedoms." le sigh. I linked the snopes teardown of that claim I found within fifteen seconds, but I have no idea if the original poster will read it or care. Based on the sample size we have had in this thread (and its predecessors), I'm confident in calling it a no.
Click to expand...
I had a 30 response, or so, discussion with someone who claimed the Trump rape lawsuit was never filed and what we see online are fabricated photocopies and it's all a hoax by the "mainstream media" and I should listen to real news sources. We both agreed that this election has created a plethora of uninformed voters. At the end of the 'discussion', when I posted the court filings, he said, 'Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it when I can.' My jaw dropped. This person went on for many replies talking about how uninformed people are and they need to get the facts before they spread more lies. This same person went on for many replies having been guilty of exactly what he was claiming he was against. He never read the filing. He believed some Facebook share or alt right news source and ran with it.
 
Plainview said:
She's been under attack for nearly 40 years from the right and nearly all of it was unfounded or nothing of her doing. The emails are her issue. It's an issue I think should be insignificant. It was careless, no doubt. It's not as big of a deal as it's made out to be considering people didn't care about it happening with other people with significantly more emails and significantly more sensitive material. Now, it's the end of the world. You still have people who believe things a republican pitch form committee tried to bury her with, Benghazi. They found nothing pointing to her having caused it or had the ability to prevent it. The republicans, who have been after her for 40 years have found nothing. I saw the argument that, 'Well, they wanted to make sure one of their own is president. They don't want Trump in.' Too bad all of this happened before Trump a twinkle in a Trump supporter's eye.
Click to expand...

I agree that she should be dinged for the emails. It was foolish, but it's really a non issue in the scheme of things. Benghazi is my measure for how informed people are.

hrudey said:
I was actually on facebook last night during the game because I can't just watch baseball, and someone that my mother is friends with posted some story claiming that Tim Kaine said that the Catholic Church was going to change their stance on gay marriage or HRC would ban them from the country. Sadly, my mother bit and said something to the effect of "this fool needs to learn about our freedoms." le sigh. I linked the snopes teardown of that claim I found within fifteen seconds, but I have no idea if the original poster will read it or care. Based on the sample size we have had in this thread (and its predecessors), I'm confident in calling it a no.
Click to expand...

As I'm sure I've said before, I'm no longer included on my wife's family email chains. I've called them out too many times. I've outright called people out and said only an idiot would believe what they're saying. I spent too many years in college and the research industry to waste my time on stupidity. If you're an adult, you're capable of understanding fact from fiction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plainview
I noticed that the only person admitting that they will vote for Trump is IdleHands. That reminds me when he said...

IdleHands said:
Lastly, I'm still on the fence if I'm going to vote at all but the more I'm called a "racist" or "islamophobe" by small minded, lefty bleeding hearts I put a dollar in a jar, if that jar gets full I'm going to vote trump and give ALL of that money to Milo Yiannopoulos' college scholarship for white cis-genered males.
Click to expand...

I guess he filled that jar up.
 
JinCA said:
HRC is always late to the party on social issues, she waits to come around until the polls say it's ok for her to take a position, she's never someone who is already there when everyone else comes around. When it comes to foreign affairs she's just as hawkish as many republicans if not more so. I do not think she is the best person for the job she's just the best out of the two major party nominees, her record is spotty and she is one of the least popular candidates every for a reason. I don't hate her, I used to actually admire her but I've just seen her doing things that seem shady too many times, it's hard to want to reward that kind of behavior.
Click to expand...

She definitely isn't late to the party. She goes left as the party went left and the country went left. Which might not be a great thing but it certainly doesn't make her a Republican. You can't just cherry pick issues and pretend they are the only issues.

If she is a Republican then so is Obama and Biden is a hardcore Republican. This is a bit of an odd discussion though because you said you didn't want candidates having to go too far to the left or right and yet its a knock on her to not being insanely far to the left?

Do you think Jill Stein would be a better President?
 
Plainview said:
I had a 30 response, or so, discussion with someone who claimed the Trump rape lawsuit was never filed and what we see online are fabricated photocopies and it's all a hoax by the "mainstream media" and I should listen to real news sources. We both agreed that this election has created a plethora of uninformed voters. At the end of the 'discussion', when I posted the court filings, he said, 'Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it when I can.' My jaw dropped. This person went on for many replies talking about how uninformed people are and they need to get the facts before they spread more lies. This same person went on for many replies having been guilty of exactly what he was claiming he was against. He never read the filing. He believed some Facebook share or alt right news source and ran with it.
Click to expand...

I love that we live in a country where people are entitled to their own views on matters of opinion, politics, and religion. I hate that we live in a country where people overwhelmingly believe they are entitled to their own views of matters of fact.

I am always amazed at the power of people to project. The people who scream the loudest about the liberal media breeding a herd of sheeple are usually either saying that because random.RightWing.Media voice has been telling that for decades, or because they are random.RightWing.Media themselves. I think more than anything, the Internet has made it even easier to be able to bathe oneself in the comforting tide of propaganda that fits your viewpoint being passed off as 'news', even beyond what the Faux News Corporation has been successful at doing.
 
horns said:
I agree that she should be dinged for the emails. It was foolish, but it's really a non issue in the scheme of things. Benghazi is my measure for how informed people are.
Click to expand...

"We're going to hunt down Ben Ghazi, and we're going to bring him to justice." (read this with your best W impersonation. We all have one.)

I think the emails are a perfect litmus test.

A: If you believe that Clinton should be incarcerated/executed and don't care one whit about the Bush Administration "losing" potentially 20 million+ emails, you probably view facts as something that you'll cite or avoid as convenient to advance a Republican/Conversative agenda.
B: If you believe the Clinton emails are no big deal and the Bush ones are, by golly, change Republican/Conservative to Democraticl/Liberal.
C: If you think they're both wrong (or both no big deal), congratulations!

The sad truth, though, is that we've had much more of a todo about the relatively small number of people killed by Mr. Ghazi than we did about 9/11 or about the fact that the war in Iraq was sold to us with intelligence that turned out to be false.
 
Plainview said:
538 has Trump up to nearly 35% chance to win. If Clinton loses a single strong hold, there's gonna be problems.
Click to expand...

When I've checked it recently, it has made me a bit nervous. I think the race tightening could help Clinton though. Only a few weeks ago, it seemed like Clinton was a sure win. There were concerns that turnout might be lower because Clinton supporters would assume they wouldn't have to even bother to show up on election day. Now that it's a closer race, that mentality is less likely.

Dark Helmet said:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lections/election_2016/white_house_watch_nov3
Click to expand...

The same pollster said Romney was leading by 2 or 3 points a week before the 2012 election.

You never answered my question from a few weeks ago. You said you were not a Trump supporter, but you didn't say if you were or were not voting for him.
 
I still think there will be a huge majority of moderate and abandoned Republicans that will vote for Hillary due to what Trump had done. Trump had now split the Republicans into so many pieces, the Democrats, not so much. Yes, you can argue that poll was taken before Comey decided he has to act like a good little Republican that he is by trying to affect Hillary and bring her down. But the problem is, Dems don't care about her emails anymore and all this is doing is drumming up support for Trump from his supporters, nothing more, nothing less. Unless Trump can peel off independents and Dem voters, especially in states like Michigan, Wis, and Penn.....He is still pretty much shot!
 
The local bookies have Trump at 3:1, and Hillary at 1.34:1.

Has anyone ever won an election on write-ins? Our vote is void if we write anything on our slip here.

One thing that I hope happens with the current spate of elections around the world, is that it lights a fire cracker under the areas of young voters. If you want change, you have to fight for it.

Old conservatives aren't just going to hand change or reform to you on a platter. Not only that, people will only be held accountable, if you force them to be.

With more and more sexual scandals involving politicians around the world, it's pretty apparent that more women are needed in politics, but just by exposing it in a public forum can be enough to alienate young minds from considering the thought.

Ages ago here, there was a "Women in politics" event, taking 16 year old girls through parliament. Two MP's were caught sniff the seats of the girls after they had left... that's pretty f***ed up.
 
yankeessuck said:
She definitely isn't late to the party. She goes left as the party went left and the country went left. Which might not be a great thing but it certainly doesn't make her a Republican. You can't just cherry pick issues and pretend they are the only issues.

If she is a Republican then so is Obama and Biden is a hardcore Republican. This is a bit of an odd discussion though because you said you didn't want candidates having to go too far to the left or right and yet its a knock on her to not being insanely far to the left?

Do you think Jill Stein would be a better President?
Click to expand...

I think Stein would have better starting points for negotiation yes as would Bernie, and I do think Obama has been too conservative. He should have pushed for a public option in Obamacare for one but he backed off of that right away even when he had 60 votes in the senate and had the house. That's just one example I know but he caves in too quickly to the right at times. I think it's more that he's just a bad negotiator and starts off where he wants to end up and has to give things up that he shouldn't all while the other side starts at the far right so they can give up stupid things that nobody wants and end up getting their own way. The way HRC talks she'll be the same way, hopefully she'll be better at it but I don't have any confidence that she will be.
 
horns said:
Let's be honest about why she's one of the least popular candidates. If you look back 2 years ago and before then, she was extremely well liked. This is only a recent issue and related to increased political polarization. Republicans have been very successful with manufacturing political issues regardless of factual evidence. Just look to dummies here who continue to post debunked stuff. Keep repeating and dumb people will believe it. She's also been under attack for 20 years. In addition, she faces criticism for what her Bill and Obama have done when she had no part of it. There's the obvious issue of misogyny too. Regardless of whomever was the nominee, half of the country will dislike you. This is our political environment. /rant

Outside of gay marriage and drug related issues, what other social issues has she been late to come around on?
Click to expand...
Those are the most prominent ones that have come around since she was actually able to try to do something about them, I won't hold her responsible for what happened during years where she didn't hold office and I find it silly that people act like she could have done anything when she wasn't a senator. Her email issue is a problem, not because of the classified stuff but the fact that we know she knew better yet went through the trouble of having a private server set up in her home, once again she did something that gives the impression that she's trying to be sneaky even if she wasn't. There are some things that do look a bit shady when it comes to dealings between their charitable foundation and getting access to her. She is her own worst enemy, whenever something comes up she always seems to make the cover up worse than the crime, if she had just said at the beginning what she said during the debate about there being no excuses for it and it was wrong I think people would have respected that but she started off with all kinds of misdirection and it made her look worse
 
Both are utter garbage, but one is a life long politician with a truck load of red flags and a known ideology I do not support. It makes the decision easier than I feel comfortable with.

The Irony of someone so wealthy and completely in-grained in the power structure and ruling class with heavy ties to the the Media and Wall Street being supported by people that say they are constantly shat on by the "man" is mind-boggling. The level of corruption implicated in continuing releases of information should stay any thinking person's hand. She has too many connections with governing agencies, and obviously see's herself as above the law. If you've ever had to deal with any classified information, you'd understand why she can't be trusted with valuable information. The corruption being hinted at through the Clinton foundation via selling access is equally troubling. Don't get me started on Benghazi. She is the poster-child for Washington Elite. The Media will not challenge her.

The other is a flip-flopping inarticulate blow-hard with no definable record on where he stands on just about any issue, but at least he won't know the in-and-outs of the government so his manipulation can be more easily caught/ fought/ regulated. The Media will be on his ass 24/7 and will actually do their job for the duration of his presidency. He already butts heads with congress so there is that as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Z A C K
Frozpot said:
Both are utter garbage, but one is a life long politician with a truck load of red flags and a known ideology I do not support. It makes the decision easier than I feel comfortable with.
Click to expand...

One is a lifelong politician who has for her entire adult life done things in service to the country to try to improve the lives of young people, and the other is a lifelong scam artist who promises the moon, takes the money, and leaves everyone else holding the bag, and then of course writes off the lost money as a personal tax loss so he doesn't pay taxes. One has a foundation that's accused of doing some shady things, and the other has a foundation that he's used as a personal slush fund and tax dodge.

Donald Trump has never, in his life, done something for the benefit of society or anyone whose last name doesn't end in Trump, but he makes up for it by being a disgusting human being who is unwilling to admit he said things that he is on tape saying, over and over, and that is all giving him the benefit of the doubt on all the sexual assault claims.

In the end, I don't care for Hillary as a candidate, though I appreciate what she's done for children during her career (especially given the details I've posted earlier in this thread or the predecessors). Trump essentially *is* a petulant child, and I wouldn't tolerate the way he treats people from my sons, let alone call it acceptable, let alone reward it, let alone put them in a position of being a role model, let alone put them in a position to have the authority to act on that. Here's a man who openly despises the first Amendment, calling for religious tests, calling to curtail the freedom of the press, and trying to make it easier to punish people for daring to speak negatively against him by loosening libel laws. He's openly defied the notion that the election is the will of the people and as such is to be respected. What scares me the most isn't a flawed candidate that can be impeached or voted out after four years, but a dictatorial, petulant man-child who might well decide if he gets in office that he's not going to leave it, elections or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back