American Politics

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Nooooo

Bitch has absolutely 0 chance against trump why do the democrats think this is a good idea??? She could throw Trump a hundred bones in the election and still not make a dent in her pile of skeletons in her closet.

Spoilers; It's almost impossible mathematically for Trump to get the nomination despite winning.

[Rangeet]

Yep, enjoy your goddamn Clinton vs Kasich.

[Muyotwo]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Bitch has absolutely 0 chance against trump why do the democrats think this is a good idea??? She could throw Trump a hundred bones in the election and still not make a dent in her pile of skeletons in her closet.

I know we're all on the Bernie train here, but she's been ahead of Trump in just about every poll in the head to head. She may not get the base energized and mobilize young voters in a way that makes either the House or the Senate go blue, but I'd give her better than a 75% chance of winning the presidency right now.

[Rangeet]

I mean, if Trump doesn't get the nomination he'll probably end up running 3rd party so...lol

[Doppleganger]

I would give it a 45-55.

To say Clinton is un-popular with the right is an understatement. And without mobilising the youth, Clinton isn't going to get the kind of core Democrat numbers Obama pulled to overwhelm Republican voting.

So she and Trump will basically be fighting over Independents, and that's a huge wild card.

By comparison, Kasich or Rubio should destroy Hillary in a general election. Hillary would beat Cruz because no Independent would vote for him.

[deoxys]

I hate them all.

[Muyotwo]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

By comparison, Kasich or Rubio should destroy Hillary in a general election. Hillary would beat Cruz because no Independent would vote for him.

Democrats always do better in presidential years because their base can be persuaded it's more important than midterms and there are a huge number of voters out there who would vote for Hillary simply to have our first woman president. She wouldn't be my ideal pick for that role (Hello, Elizabeth Warren) but she's in a good position to win with just the usual democrat support, those who will vote to "make history" and, with her massive war chest, she'll be able to plaster the battleground states with ads.

I really do think that a disputed caucus for the Republicans (which will almost certainly not nominate the leading vote and delegate winner) may cause serious voter disenfranchisement with the conservative base- and the "Big tent" philosophy that the GOP has gotten away with so long doesn't do well with undercutting the central pillar. As long as the Democrats have an outright winner, they're going to win the election.

[Talon87]

One of my Republican friends says that if it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton he will abstain from voting. This young man takes pride in the election process, has voted in every election since he turned 18, and has always hounded his friends for sitting on their butts and not voting. It will be the first time in his life that he has had the opportunity to vote for president and elected not to.

I lack the same credentials, but I'm feeling pretty similar at this point. I really, really don't want to vote for Hillary Clinton in taking a "lesser of two evils" approach. If I vote for anyone, it will either be for an official third candidate or else for a write-in candidate.

Clinton vs. any of Kasich, Romney, or Ryan -- none of whom I particularly like -- I would have to give serious consideration to voting for the three Republicans listed. Clinton is just that abhorrent to me. It would be like voting Henry Kissinger for president ...

... and would you speak of the fucking devil, it looks like in a turn of "truth is stranger than fiction" Kissinger was actually brought up during this very presidential election cycle and I missed it: Hillary vs. Bernie on Kissinger's record. I may not agree with everything this journalist writes, but one thing is clear: a vote for Clinton isn't just a vote for Kissinger No.2 in my mind, but in Bernie's mind and in loads of other people's minds. We're not alone on this. There are apparently a lot of liberals who feel the same way I do, that Clinton's record is dripping with blood.

You say that every poll shows Clinton demolishing Trump, but that's only because a) Trump is even more odious (miraculously! ) and b) he hasn't really taken off the gloves yet to attack either of the two Democratic candidates. There've been pot shots here or there, but most of his energies have been focused on branding himself as a Republican and deconstructing his in-house opposition. If/Once he secures the nomination for president, you can bet that Trump would/will start dragging Clinton's history through the mud -- if this isn't simply a "how to git Hilry elected" scheme on the Clintons' and Trump's collaborative part.

[Shuckle]

Trump is WAY more moderate than the media paints him as. Since he has to act Republican for now he's already leaning rightwards, which the media is more than happy to exaggerate, but Trump:

1. Supports strong gun legislation and assault weapons bans
2. Supports single-payer health care systems (he wants to modify Obamacare, but that's everyone)
3. Supports massive tax hikes on the rich and the closing of tax loopholes
4. Has historically not opposed LGBT or women's rights (recent comments have muddled this one)
5. Supports an increase in the strength and outreach of welfare programs, including affirmative action, of which he is a vocal supporter.

Come election time we'll see a lot of democrats get trumpy with it. Which sounds stupid now, but it's definitely true.

[Mercutio]

Well it's not really so much that the media paints him like that (which they do) as it is that he has spent a year deliberately saying extreme things all the time in order to garner attention (which he has). And there's generically Republican and then there is literally inciting racial violence (which he has done) and being wildly misogynistic (which he is).

More importantly, he actually is as inexperienced and unintelligent as the media paints him.

[deoxys]

Talon, I am mostly in the same boat with you and your friend on this. I always hound people about it well, and even if he doesn't vote for the lesser of two evils, it is still worth it to vote third party if only to say you did your duty, to say you tried.

I'm aware that there is almost no chance for Bernie to get the nomination at this point, I'm coming to terms with that. But I did something this cycle I have never done before: I donated to, and actively canvassed door to door for a candidate. And as much time and effort as I put into that, I don't feel it was wasted. I learned a lot, and I've come to learn a lot about how disgusting the American election system is, how utterly rigged it is. And now, I have to make a decision; Come the election cycle, do I vote my conscience and vote for the candidate that I best align with and who represents my values, or do I actually need to vote for the candidate who I find morally despicable simply because she would be the less-terrible alternative?

You have Trump who wants to abolish the EPA and thinks climate change is a hoax started by the Chinese for some reason and believes that vaccines cause autism, and you have all these other Republicans who are anti-LGBT, pro-war, etc. And then you have Hillary, who can't make up her mind about what she believes until someone either hands her the right amount of money or she's in office. She takes money from oil lobbyists; what does that say about her stance on climate change, or how she will combat it? And she was against LGBT rights and marriage until it was politically convenient for her to change her view on that (aka, when it became socially acceptable to the majority). And where does she stand on the TPP, which she campaigned hard for for years as SoS, and then proceeded to claim how bad it is just last year when she started to run for office?

A few of my close friends have told me that when the time comes, I need to vote for her if she is the nominee, because the alternatives are frightening, and to vote third party instead would be selfish. And sure, perhaps that is true to some degree. But then that leaves me with a moral dilemma of my own; I cannot in good conscience vote for this person, who has a record of lies and deceit, who has manipulated so many people and things a multitude of times and pulled strings for her own benefit, who embodies political corruption at its core in today's society, who voted for the war in Iraq and supported NAFTA, the Patriot Act, and NSA surveillance - the list goes on and on and on. But on the other hand, if I don't, I risk having the blame put on me if a Republican wins and proceeds to put a justice or two on the SC that overturns the gay marriage law, or Roe v Wade, or makes abolishes the EPA, or something like that.

So, what the fuck do you do in a situation like this? And I know most of you will probably tell me we need to support Hillary, but I just can't in any good moral conscience do so. She is an absolutely awful person, and I truthfully don't want her to be president, ever, but... the alternatives are even more unstable.

[Doppleganger]

I would vote Trump over Hillary easily.

[Muyotwo]

Originally Posted by deoxys

So, what the fuck do you do in a situation like this? And I know most of you will probably tell me we need to support Hillary, but I just can't in any good moral conscience do so. She is an absolutely awful person, and I truthfully don't want her to be president, ever, but... the alternatives are even more unstable.

I can't presume to tell you what to do, nor is that my place. I will simply say that if you're registered in Ohio your vote is one of the few that actually matters (thanks electoral college), so think long and hard before you make your decision.

God damn we need preferential voting in the US in the worst way.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Muyotwo

I can't presume to tell you what to do, nor is that my place. I will simply say that if you're registered in Ohio your vote is one of the few that actually matters (thanks electoral college), so think long and hard before you make your decision.

God damn we need preferential voting in the US in the worst way.

I'm registered in Kentucky, so even though my vote matters (and it would be stupid to say it doesn't), let's face it.... it's Kentucky.

[Muyotwo]

Originally Posted by deoxys

I'm registered in Kentucky, so even though my vote matters (and it would be stupid to say it doesn't), let's face it.... it's Kentucky.

Kentucky's voted for a Clinton before though and it was a considered a slight lean to Hillary in 2008 before Obama got the nomination. It's not quite Ohio or Florida, but it's still important.

My absentee vote will be filed in Texas, which means... yeah, it would be easier and cheaper to just not bother. But I still intend to be part of the process!

[Rangeet]

It's borderline stupidity to lose hope now. Bernie can still quite easily take this race to the convention, and can still win it. Sanders has been fighting for progressives for over 30 years; you can fight another two months.

Oh, and in the general election even if Bernie doesn't make it, Jill Stein exists.

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper

It's borderline stupidity to lose hope now. Bernie can still quite easily take this race to the convention, and can still win it. Sanders has been fighting for progressives for over 30 years; you can fight another two months.

Oh, and in the general election even if Bernie doesn't make it, Jill Stein exists.

Look. I love optimism. But Bernie just lost New York by 20%. There are slightly less delegates left to be distributed than Hillary already has, and delegates are distributed proportionally, not winner take all. The only way Bernie can win at this point is if he wins pretty much every single state that remains and does so by like, a 10% margin.

Obviously it would be stupid to stop supporting him or for him to drop out, but we need to be realistic.

And the bit about voting for Jill was essentially what my whole post was about.

[Rangeet]

Yes, but the point is that it's still going to be close enough that Bernie can take it to the convention, where he can quite easily win.

[deoxys]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-g...throoms-222257

"There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate," Trump said. "There has been so little trouble. And the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic -- I mean, the economic punishment that they're taking."

Matt Lauer then asked whether Trump has any transgender people working for his company.

"I really don't know. I probably do. I really don't know," Trump said, answering that he would allow, say, transgender celebrity Caitlyn Jenner to use whatever bathroom she wanted at Trump Tower.

He added, "You know, there's a big move to create new bathrooms. Problem with that is for transgender, that would be—first of all, I think that would be discriminatory in a certain way. That would be unbelievably expensive for businesses in the country. Leave it the way it is."

Holy shit.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-g...le-east-222255

"One of the things that -- running for office is interesting. They'll ask you questions like that," Trump said during a town-hall discussion on NBC's "Today." "I said that from the beginning. They never did it. Then they started it, on a limited basis. Libya, right now, as you know, has fantastic oil, some of the finest oil in the world. Who has the oil? ISIS has the oil. Do we blockade it, bomb it, do anything? No. ISIS is making a fortune now in Libya."

Trump called the widening chaos in Libya "a Hillary Clinton deal," referring to her push for the intervention as secretary of state.

"For what reason? Look, he was a bad guy. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. They had one thing in common. They killed terrorists, OK?" Trump said. "We would have been better off if we never looked at the Middle East for the last 15 years."

What the fuck is happening.

[Ironthunder]

Did... Did Trump just make sense?

[Snorby]

Fucking hell Trump really might beat Hillary if he acts like this for the general

[Shuckle]

Is it rude for me to say "I told you so" now? Because. I definitely did.

[Emi]

I'm still not even close to convinced.

I pretty much agree with Kush. *shock horror*

[deoxys]

Originally Posted by Shuckle

Is it rude for me to say "I told you so" now? Because. I definitely did.

Not really considering Trump still changes his stances on a dime and it's very easily argued he is trying to move toward the center to get some appeal from Bernie'should fans (Trump has even essentially acknowledged as much)

Also it doesn't make him any more wrong about basically everything else. I should probably point out that right before he said his statement about transgender rights he said "I'm a big fan of waterboarding, I love it."

[Doppleganger]

I dunno what to think of Trump's comments.

Someone digest it for me and I'll swallow the chyme.