The General American Politics Thread

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

53 minutes ago, Raccoonatic Ogilvie said:

It's less about delivery and more about not fucking everything up at this point, honestly.

I understand that feeling that one is making things better by not participating, but you're really not. You are complicit in making things worse if you choose to forego the ability to avoid making them worse.

This isn't a run of the mill election, where it doesn't really matter who wins. Clinton is simply infinitely more qualified than Trump, and while she's not going to be any sort of marvel, her decades of experience means she is a much better choice. Trump has zero experience in politics, and even if he meant well, he'd probably end up breaking a lot of things by extension. Clinton might not make things much better, but she probably won't make them worse either; she has a stake in the status quo and will at the very least uphold it. Trump might just drive this country off a cliff.

Plus, if you don't trust candidates to deliver, you shouldn't participate in elections ever. Checks and balances do their part to keep a great deal of political platforms from being passed.

And...these two will f*** up.

How am I making things worse? I'm not voting for neither of these two, so how am I making things worse for the country? Why on *earth* should I vote for somebody that I have no belief in that could help improve the country? If that future candidate doesn't improve our country (or make it worse), I'm the idiot here because I voted for that person.

I've seen it in sports, I've seen it in people, I've seen myself as I applied for my job. Just because you have more experience than me, doesn't mean you're better than me. Clinton has more experience on this politician field, but that doesn't mean she automatically better. I'm not defending Trump here, but using "experience" to automatically boot Trump out of the race is a bit ridiculous. Yes I agree, it's a higher risk. Yes, it's a massive gamble. And it can go both ways, it can put our country beyond the s*** OR it can massively improve our country (not that I believe Trump would, otherwise I would have voted for him). Not just in politics, but if we play safe all the time, we are not going to go anywhere. And this country definitely needs improvement.

...what? I voted for Obama twice last two elections. Because I believed in him (even though there were some promises that weren't done). But he made me believe in him that he could. His words, his drive, his campaign...he did it perfectly to make me vote for him. I can't say the same thing to these candidates. Hence, why I can't vote for these.

I treat my vote as MY vote. They have to EARN my vote to vote for them. I'm not just going to hand my vote to Clinton because I hate Trump. I don't work that way. It's up to you how you guys want to vote, but I want my vote to be earned.

[Johnny Boy]

Trump clearly got clobbered last night and yet the number one trend on Twitter is "Trump Won". I'm sorry but what?

[Kuzu]

It is pretty hard to justify voting for either candidate if you feel like neither of them will be any better. Sure, not participating is just as bad but in this case, its a lose-lose situation no matter what you do; you vote for Clinton then congrats, things will likely be the same as ever with her, don't vote and Trump wins? Congrats, you could have prevented this. So damned if you do, damned if you don't. So I say just follow what your gut is telling you and leave everything else to chance.

 

 

As for the debate, its funny that Trump started out pretty reserved but he was getting increasingly frustrated whenever his credibility was called into question and Clinton just capitalized haha. It wasn't even a debate anymore after the first hour, it was a shouting match from the former while the latter remained in control. I still don't care much for Clinton but it was pretty clear who actually knew how to conduct themselves as a politician last night.

[Johnny Boy]

If Trump flies off the handle in future debates then he can pretty much forget about reaching the White House anytime soon.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

It is pretty hard to justify voting for either candidate if you feel like neither of them will be any better. Sure, not participating is just as bad but in this case, its a lose-lose situation no matter what you do; you vote for Clinton then congrats, things will likely be the same as ever with her, don't vote and Trump wins? Congrats, you could have prevented this. So damned if you do, damned if you don't. So I say just follow what your gut is telling you and leave everything else to chance.

But, I still don't get the "If you don't vote, it's a vote for Trump!!" nonsense.

Will they auto register my vote to Trump if I don't vote?

This is purely scaremongering and this comes from most likely pro-Clinton supporters, who are contradicting themselves. If you know Clinton has got this election in the bag, why continue to scare the non-voters to vote for Clinton? It's not as if I'll turn around and vote for Trump.

Clinton "won" the 1st debate right? So as long she remains calm, she got this. No need to sway people like me to force vote.

P.S - Kuzo, I'm not accusing you of being a pro-Clinton supporter. But if you are though, then ignore the PS. =)

[Briraka]

2 hours ago, Ming Ming Kanon said:

But, I still don't get the "If you don't vote, it's a vote for Trump!!" nonsense.

Will they auto register my vote to Trump if I don't vote?

No, but it leaves Trump supporters able to vote him into office. The only reason I'll be voting for Clinton this election is to keep him out of office and I'm going for the candidate that has the best chance of winning should the people vote against Trump.

[Nepenthe]

The winner of any state is decided on by the percentages of votes given. If people don't vote, you increase the percentage of any given candidate's total. So yes, people who don't vote are also partly responsible for the outcome in any election. It's why we tally voter turnout.

Also, people saying that Clinton will be the same (recovering), or will (somehow) make things worse, or that she's notably untrustworthy (hope you didn't like Obama, because he lied about the same as she did), or that her experience is useless (what) are laughable at this point. We just had a circus where she partly outlined one of the most progressive platforms in the Dem's history, in part codified by Bernie Sanders, and the ways she would implement some policies, and people are still on the fence because she's not a once-in-a-lifetime inspirational figure they can have a beer with. She's doing an extended interview for an actual job, not auditioning for the role of a fucking Gurren Lagann character.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

But, I still don't get the "If you don't vote, it's a vote for Trump!!" nonsense.

Will they auto register my vote to Trump if I don't vote?

No, but it leaves Trump supporters able to vote him into office. The only reason I'll be voting for Clinton this election is to keep him out of office and I'm going for the candidate that has the best chance of winning should the people vote against Trump.

These "Trump Supporters" are a minority right?

Also your vote won't stop Trump Supporters from voting so I don't understand that.

But it's good that you're voting. +1 for Clinton. You have your way on how you vote, I have mine.

[Nepenthe]

It doesn't matter if they're a minority. All that matters is who gets the most votes out of the votes given. If there's ten progressives and four conservatives, but all four conservatives vote for the same candidate, while the ten progressives give just three votes to his direct opponent while splitting the other seven among third and fringe parties without actually getting a majority, the conservative wins the election.

[Raijin]

5 hours ago, Ming Ming Kanon said:

But, I still don't get the "If you don't vote, it's a vote for Trump!!" nonsense.

Will they auto register my vote to Trump if I don't vote?

This is purely scaremongering and this comes from most likely pro-Clinton supporters, who are contradicting themselves. If you know Clinton has got this election in the bag, why continue to scare the non-voters to vote for Clinton? It's not as if I'll turn around and vote for Trump.

The election is probably going to be really close. Clinton is really unpopular and if it wasn't for Trump I think the Republicans would actually win the election (Trump has similarly low approval ratings from the public which throws a wrench in a bit).

I'd vote for Clinton if I was an American, not because I like her (I really don't) but because she's a hell of a lot better than Trump. It's a really close call, there's no point in risking by not voting.

[Patticus]

Yeah, if the Republicans had fielded a ticket with someone like Kasich at the top, Clinton would be in a much worse position today. Then again though, if she were up against someone more normal, she probably would have plumped for Warren as her VP pick, rather than the down-to-earth Kaine. It'd still be a close run thing.

[Raijin]

3 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Yeah, if the Republicans had fielded a ticket with someone like Kasich at the top, Clinton would be in a much worse position today. Then again though, if she were up against someone more normal, she probably would have plumped for Warren as her VP pick, rather than the down-to-earth Kaine. It'd still be a close run thing.

The Democrats really should have supported Sanders more, he consistently polls better against Trump than Clinton.

Sanders is also the better candidate, so there's that!

[Patticus]

5 minutes ago, Raijin said:

The Democrats really should have supported Sanders more, he consistently polls better against Trump than Clinton.

Sanders is also the better candidate, so there's that!

Warren is a long-standing member of the Democratic party and has some great things like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on her resume. Sanders is a fantastic guy and a wonderful candidate in his own right, easily the most sincere politician I've ever seen. However, as a lifelong independent without the kinds of wins Warren has had, and given the often testy primary contest, he would probably never be Clinton's first choice for a VP pick in a race against a less insane Republican challenger.

That said, maybe he'd be the guy she goes to to head up whatever comittee or task force is set up regarding the minimum wage or college tuition?

[Raijin]

Just now, Patticus said:

Warren is a long-standing member of the Democratic party and has some great things like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on her resume. Sanders is a fantastic guy and a wonderful candidate in his own right, easily the most sincere politician I've ever seen. However, as a lifelong independent without the kinds of wins Warren has had, and given the often testy primary contest, he would never be Clinton's VP pick. That said, maybe he'd be the guy she goes to to head up whatever comittee or task force is set up regarding the minimum wage or college tuition?

Oh sorry, I was more meaning that the Democratic party should have supported Sanders over Clinton.

I wasn't comparing Sanders and Warren, I don't know much about Warren. How would you sum Warren up?

[Patticus]

4 minutes ago, Raijin said:

Oh sorry, I was more meaning that the Democratic party should have supported Sanders over Clinton.

The Democratic Party never felt any allegiance or loyalty toward Sanders, who has often had a bit of a tense relationship with them. Clinton was their go-to candidate from the beginning, but the DNC's treatment of Sanders was incredibly disrespectful and rightly lead to Debbie Wasserman-Shutlz' resignation from her post as DNC chair.
 

Quote

I wasn't comparing Sanders and Warren, I don't know much about Warren. How would you sum Warren up?

Warren is the Democrats' equivalent of Sanders, essentially. Their positions are very similar in a number of areas, but with her party connections, she has been able to do more than he.

[Blue Swallow]

Hillary lost the debate, Trump, Lester Holt REALLY lost the debate, but most of all, the American people lost the debate. It was very sad, as I knew it would be. I really wish it was Bernie up on that podium, he would've ran circles around Trump, and looked poised and presidential doing it.

If I had to pick a winner, it would be Hillary, though I think it would be more apt to say Trump was the bigger loser. Breaking it down more, Trump won the first third, but Hillary won the last two thirds. But they both lied a lot and had terrible policies and ideas, so I still say they're both losers. 

They did both shock me a little, Trump wasn't too much of a bully this time, and Hillary was very calm throughout the whole thing. It also surprised me that she didn't do much name dropping , in fact Trump did most of it, I think he even brought up Obama more than she did. And speaking of Hillary, She wasn't near as hard on Trump as she was on Bernie, and I agree with David Siorta that it was telling.

Trump's answers on race and criminal justice were terrible, I mean, praising Gulianni and stop & frisk, and then black on black crime, those were some of the worst answers he could've given. It made Hillary look competent on race. They both absolutely suck on Foreign policy, either way we're getting WWIII, so there's not much to say there. 

 

The two biggest laughs of the night, were Trump saying that him getting Obama to show his birth certificate helped the country, and Hillary saying she's a "great believer in democracy."

 

Oh, I almost forgot to say that, Hillary wearing red, and Trump wearing a blue tie, was very apropos.

 

[Dizcrybe]

Gotta say, this whole "oh the country's going to hell, this election is pointless, nothing matters, gloom and doom" angle I'm seeing a lot lately is really bloody annoying.

27 minutes ago, Blue Swallow said:

Hillary lost the debate, Trump, Lester Holt REALLY lost the debate, but most of all, the American people lost the debate. It was very sad, as I knew it would be. I really wish it was Bernie up on that podium, he would've ran circles around Trump, and looked poised and presidential doing it.

Yeah, well, it wasn't. Move on.

27 minutes ago, Blue Swallow said:

They both absolutely suck on Foreign policy, either way we're getting WWIII, so there's not much to say there.

Yeah but probably no. I dunno what things future holds, but a third World War is likely not one of them.

Gotta say, this whole "oh the country's going to hell, this election is pointless, nothing matters, gloom and doom" angle I'm seeing a lot lately is really bloody annoying. Like, every time these people talk, Linkin Park's "Crawling" should just start blasting out of nowhere. Failing that, sad violins.

If we're talking about the possibilities of a Trump presidency, then their claims would have a little more weight, but the worst thing I expect out of a Clinton presidency is four years of staying the course. Seriously, people really overexaggerate her worst qualities. I mean, I'm no fan of her either, but I fail to see what makes her the daughter of Beelzebub as so much of the internet has decided.

But yeah, I am so over this "both candidates suck, we're doomed either way, we're all going to die, boo hoo hoo" bullcrap. It creates an extremely tiring atmosphere to be in.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Dizcrybe

[-Robin-]

Hillary and Trump didn't do and act like you thought they would?

 

It's almost as if preconceived notions made about them derived from propaganda clouded your judgement on the candidates, and you thought the two would be 1:1 shots of these caricatures.

 

Golly gee, what an amazing development. Get the scientists on this to explain this phenomenon 

[Blue Swallow]

12 minutes ago, -Robin- said:

Hillary and Trump didn't do and act like you thought they would?

 

It's almost as if preconceived notions made about them derived from propaganda clouded your judgement on the candidates, and you thought the two would be 1:1 shots of these caricatures.

 

Golly gee, what an amazing development. Get the scientists on this to explain this phenomenon 

Preconceived notions? I'm talking about how they behaved in their primary debates, which is different than how they behaved last night. I'm not saying it's such a huge difference that's it's like they're completely different people, I'm just saying it was different enough to notice.

2 hours ago, Dizcrybe said:

Yeah but probably no. I dunno what things future holds, but a third World War is likely not one of them.

 

Well If Hillary is elected, we'll be going to war with Syria (which we're already involved in), and Russia, because of the no fly zone in Syria Hillary is going to enact. And the democratic establishment and the mainstream media have been drumming up Cold War tactics, blaming Putin for hacking the dnc with zero evidence. And blaming both Trump and Jill Stein as being Putin's agents.

 

And if Trump wins, we'll be going to war with Iran, the republicans have been salivating for a war with Iran, and Trump has shown throughout his campaign, including the debates last night, that he'll do just that. Not to mention saying that China should disappear Kim Jong Un, and wondering why we're not using nuclear weapons.

[Nepenthe]

Clinton didn't really "lie a lot" (in this context, I'm talking about statements that are objectively false any way you slice it versus statements lacking context, because the post would be longer otherwise, although not necessarily damaging to my point.) At most, she was dead wrong about her initial statements on the TPP (the "gold standard" quote) and said Trump hasn't paid any taxes at all (he paid three years in the 70s, despite also admitting on live TV that tax evasion makes him smart).

Trump outright lied ten times: on Obama not disclosing the amount paid to Iran in a claim, that he never said climate change is a hoax, that Clinton started birtherism, that he only filed for bankruptcy four times, that he got a "small loan" from his dad versus the $14 million he was given, that we have a trade deficit of $800 million a year, that he can't release his tax returns because of the audit, that Clinton approved NAFTA and it's been the worst thing ever, that the Obama administration is fully responsible for the power vacuum that ISIL took over, and that ISIL has oil everywhere.

Compared to the 9th debate with Sanders, Clinton once again outright lied twice: that she supported a $15 minimum wage (at the time, it was $12 w/ other raises being dependent upon the state), and that Sanders was the first to say she was outright unqualified to be President. In return, Sanders also lied twice: that 43 oil lobbyists donated to Clinton (that was the total of all lobbyists, not oil lobbyists), and that the Clinton Foundation wasn't disclosing their donations. 

For further comparison, in Obama's last debate with Romney Obama lied four times: that Romney's statement on going into Pakistan to capture terrorists was to "ask for permission," that Romney didn't agree with leaving troops in Iraq, that Romney opposed federal assistance for troubled automakers, and that Romney said the greatest geopolitical threat was Russia. Romney lied five times: that our Navy was the smallest it's ever been, that Obama took an apology tour, that he was responsible for Massachusetts grade schoolers scoring high on standardized tests, that our federal debt is $16 trillion, and that terrorism wasn't mentioned in the 2000 presidential debate.

So can we stop drinking the conservative Kool-Aid and acting like Hillary is some notable pathological liar in politics?

[Tani Coyote]

One really can't blame folks for thinking some form of sexism is at play this election. Clinton's being made out as the mother of all lies, when she seems relatively average in her tendency to either lie or stretch the truth. It's rather akin to how Obama's relatively moderate, but he was made out as some massive Communist for simply wanting a government-run insurance corporation and a modest tax increase; this is to say nothing of the historical obstruction he's had to deal with, which begs the question of "why him?"

I find it hard to assume this is all purely coincidence. I can't help but feel the "Hillary's a massive liar" angle that gets touted is basically her version of the "He's secretly a Muslim Kenyan!" nonsense Obama had to deal with.

Of course, lies and half-truths spread very well among the right wing. Consider how many (not racist at all) conservatives are hooked on the "72% of black children are born out of wedlock!" talking point. It turns out this is true. But where the half-truth lies is in the assumption that "out of wedlock" equates to "absentee fathers." In actuality, black fathers are the most involved in their children's lives, even the ones who don't live with the mother. If anything, it seems to me that black Americans realized many marriages (especially in absence of financial stability) end in divorce anyway, so chose to simply forego the whole practice. Sadly conservatives proceeded to latch onto this statistic as damning evidence that all problems facing black Americans are internal, though really this is betraying the disdain for alternative family structures.

[Kuzu]

Politicians lie? Next you'll tell me the sky is blue.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

This election just really brings out the entitled bastards, doesn't it?

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

I still want America to decide, I just can't take part in this election. I wish I living in a different country for this election.

Not a Clinton fan, certainly NOT a Trump fan - and still annoyed with the broken promises. And I know both of these candidates will break most/all of their promises.

Clinton isn't just likeable for me at the moment. By me voting for her, will leave a mark on my record that I supported her to run the country. And I do not.

The first debate to me, was a tie. Or a Clinton win, but that's because silly Trump put the victory on the plate to her. She did really nothing to convince me. Which is a shame.

Two more debates to go, let's see what she'll do and say. And if Clinton wins the polls, since the polls were never wrong since the 1950's, I don't have to vote because most likely Clinton will win.

[Dizcrybe]

3 hours ago, Ming Ming Kanon said:

I still want America to decide, I just can't take part in this election. I wish I living in a different country for this election.

Not a Clinton fan, certainly NOT a Trump fan - and still annoyed with the broken promises. And I know both of these candidates will break most/all of their promises.

Clinton isn't just likeable for me at the moment. By me voting for her, will leave a mark on my record that I supported her to run the country. And I do not.

The first debate to me, was a tie. Or a Clinton win, but that's because silly Trump put the victory on the plate to her. She did really nothing to convince me. Which is a shame.

Two more debates to go, let's see what she'll do and say. And if Clinton wins the polls, since the polls were never wrong since the 1950's, I don't have to vote because most likely Clinton will win.

And what if Trump wins?