Re: US Presidential Race

by footyfan01 Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:10 am

sportsczy wrote:
footyfan01 wrote:
sportsczy wrote:Bernie Sanders supporters kill me

Love the passion. But this notion that young people will lead this populist revolution in the US is absolute and utter nonsense.

It's basically the hippie movement of our times. It's fashionable and it allows people to get together and sing kumbaya. But it never leads to anything because, frankly, it's mostly ideological/philosophical nonsense.

Pretty ridiculous opinion as Sanders got 46% of overall pledged delegates in a rigged primary.

And he won almost all states votes under 45 & got millions of senior citizen votes. Ans his issues have been supported by the majority of American people across age group n race!

Only registered democrats... that represent maybe 15% of the total United States voting population.

And he won almost none of the big states. Did really well in the small ones.

Untrue.

He actually lost among registered Dems in most states.

He won in landslides among Independents 3 to 1 odd in almost all states.

He also won the Republican votes in almost all states.

He did very well in big states, Washington is a big state, he was competitive in most big states from NY to NJ to PA which he only lost because Clinton got 80-90% of the Black votes who vote for any Dem candidate whatsoever.

This is why for 1 year in Polls he was leading Republicans in landslides in head to head polls whereas Hillary was losing to everyone.

Sanders was a massive MASSIVE winner among independents & no1 was getting anywhere near the amount as him. Also he was increasing Millennial turnout massively who will likely stay home

by DuringTheWar Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:38 pm

Grabbin ass and rippin ballots:

by sportsczy Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:31 pm

That's not true ffs. Each state decides whether they make primaries open or closed... closed primaries only allow registered party participants. Go to the bottom of the attached page that lists each state and whether it was open, semi-open or closed for the democratic primaries in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Roughly 30 million people voted in the democratic primaries, with Clinton getting 17 million votes and Sanders 13 million.

Do you know how many people voted in the 2012 presidential election? 127 million. That represented only 54.2% of eligible voters. They are expecting close to 75% turnout in this one... 175 million voters.

A lot of people only vote for general presidential elections. Aside from the fact that most of the states close the voting (Trump children forgot to register as republicans if you recall and couldn't vote lol).... the other big reason is that people are lazy AND voting = guaranteed request for jury duty.

by Art Morte Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:38 pm

DuringTheWar wrote:Grabbin ass and rippin ballots:

What a cringe worthy video, lol.

I don't even think that Trump's comments about harassing women would necessarily make him a worse leader... but what an embarrassing effort to attack Hillary's campaign staff in an order to make her look bad. So *bleep* desperate.

by Vibe Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:32 pm

Can Trump win, realistically?

by RealGunner Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:35 pm

No. Never had a chance.

by Myesyats Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:05 pm

Hillary has been in this for decades. Do you think she will do stuff now that should could have done throughout all these years and did not?

She will only makes thing worse. She wants to welcome EVERY refugee/exile (*possible terrorist*) and that's an obvious way towards disaster.

I don't endorse Trump but I agree with him on that. This might get some people triggered but I would question welcoming people that are possible walking *ticking* bombs. Not entire prohibition but tight restrictions at least.

by RealGunner Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:17 pm

You do know that Trump U-turned on all of those policies right?

by BarrileteCosmico Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:19 pm

Betty La Fea wrote:
BarrileteCosmico wrote:The US needs to revamp its election process. It's absolutely broken as it currently is.

Nah its working perfectly fine.

A bunch of hicks in middle America won't be able to force their bigot on the rest of us.

The republicans will never win the presidential seat again.

Right... and having a 1 party country is bad for democracy.

If you really stop and think about it if there had been no fraud in 2000 the last 30 years would have been B Clinton - Al Gore - Obama - H Clinton.

The republicans don't have a national strategy, and as more and more people stop identifying with the party (Millenials abandoning in droves), the "fringe" elements become a bigger portion of their base, allowing the xenophobic/nativist/racist element of the republican party to push their candidates even more.

I think if the primaries were to be replaced with a simultaneous, open, preferential vote system this could be fixed, by picking a candidate that is most agreeable to everyone and has a chance at the national stage.

by sportsczy Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:36 pm

Reason things are set up the way they are BC is that the United States is huge. That leads to two problems:
- it's unfeasible for independent candidates to afford the cost of a national election.
- people don't want to waste their vote on someone they don't feel will win in the end.

The way for independent candidates to get traction is through local elections that require reasonable resources. But most independent movements aren't organized enough to put together coherent campaigns around local elections.

There's a reason the US ended up with a two party system... huge territory requires huge resources which led to pooled resources... and two major parties.

The system is open to everyone. But you need to get enough people to sign your candidacy papers for each state to your are presented on the ballot. Here's the state-by-state requirements:

https://ballotpedia.org/Filing_deadlines_and_signature_requirements_for_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016

Heck, you're even allowed to write-in a candidate when you vote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate

But in the end, American people want to vote for a winner. Very few people will waste their vote on lost causes even if they agree with the platform. Just how we are.

by Robespierre Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:29 pm

The USA governed by a warmonger ( Hillary Clinton ) ? So, it is will be a first ? We're survived to Bush , Clinton , the Mr. Clinton , even the celebrated Kennedy was indeed the man to have begun the Vietnam escalation ..... a warmonger one more or less won't change our life.

The USA governed by a xenophobic wacko , ignorant, boor, wonky mentally ( Trump) ? Well, this never saw it and I prefer avoid it. Laughing

And infact no chance for Trump to win this : he doesn't have success on decisive demographic groups : the women, immigrants and 30-40 years ppl decided all the latest elections ( Republicans won just 2 times since '88 )

by Pedram Thu Oct 13, 2016 12:20 am

Trump has a strong base and is too powerful right now, the republican establishment are completely helpless against him. he just threatened republicans who are abandoning him last night and now they're all coming back to him again. rofl

This GOP civil war is quite enjoyable to watch.

by Adit Thu Oct 13, 2016 12:39 am

sportsczy wrote:So Adit is really Donald Trump... now it makes sense

Those comments dude. What is wrong with you.

Nothing wrong with what I said, you could clearly see the male co ordinator giving hard time to Trump with out showing it openly.

While the female went full emotional with questions and showed very biased nature when it comes to handling microphone. Now it is understandable that she has a problem with Trump after what he said ( lol at U.S presidential candidate grabbing women by their genitals, nice people you got to run your country pal) but she really had no business showing it openly.

by CBarca Thu Oct 13, 2016 3:21 am

There will always be two parties with the way the country is set up--the Republicans will evolve and rise again, whether that's as a new Republican party or the rise of some new conservative party (it will be the former), they'll find a way. Trump and hell even Romney exposed how badly the Republicans need to evolve.

Said the same thing a long time ago--Trump did well...much better than I thought he would, but come election day you can't win without women and minorities. If you guys have seen 538 recently (or actually other news agencies reporting it) Trump does win male voters by like 5% or something, but is down 33% compared to Hillary when it comes to women.

Kinda excited to see how the Republicans try and recover from all of this tbh and whether they set a new course or keep crashing their car into the same wall.

@Rwo I haven't forgotten about your question and will respond later tonight Smile

by CBarca Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:51 am

rwo power wrote:@CBarca

Could you please explain to me why the terms "occupying the center left to center right" and "being progressive" are so mutually exclusive that you consider using both for one person would be considered "a lie"?

At least from my perspective (I'm used to German politics and politicians, mind you) this wouldn't be a contradiction at all as IMO the term "being progressive" doesn't really belong to the left-to-right spectrum, but is a separate idea that shows an intent to consider new ideas, too. After all, even conservatives can have progressive ideas, while more progressive people can have conservative ideas, too. There is no real black and white after all IMO.

Or does "progressive" have some other meaning when applied to US politics?

For rwo:

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you on that, I've been very busy Smile

If you're interested in it, the progressive era of the US is actually a really interesting section of American history.

by FennecFox7 Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:31 am

Adit wrote:
sportsczy wrote:So Adit is really Donald Trump... now it makes sense

Those comments dude. What is wrong with you.

Nothing wrong with what I said, you could clearly see the male co ordinator giving hard time to Trump with out showing it openly.

While the female went full emotional with questions and showed very biased nature when it comes to handling microphone. Now it is understandable that she has a problem with Trump after what he said ( lol at U.S presidential candidate grabbing women by their genitals, nice people you got to run your country pal) but she really had no business showing it openly.

Yes, she did have business showing it openly, because guess what genius, she's a women.

You take responsibility for what you say. Trump says dumb shit, he's gonna get called out in a presidential debate. It's simple and no ones being "unfair" or "bias".

by FennecFox7 Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:36 am

Sports calling Bernie unrealistic. What, because of his minimum wage plan and his taxing on the very wealthy? Elaborate.

You also forget to mention his progressive policies on Palestine-Israel, his LGBT stance, stance on the war on drugs and legalizing weed, lowering the ridiculous cost of college.. Do I need to go on?

Calling sanders unrealistic for purely his economic policies and calling Hillary realistic despite her obvious corruption and pretty scary war mongering policy.. Yeah, take the L buddy. You're a hypocrite

Hillary is miles better then that dunce trump (who I am convinced is a troll) but sanders is what this country needs.

by FennecFox7 Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:39 am

Myesyats wrote:Hillary has been in this for decades. Do you think she will do stuff now that should could have done throughout all these years and did not?

She will only makes thing worse. She wants to welcome EVERY refugee/exile (*possible terrorist*) and that's an obvious way towards disaster.

I don't endorse Trump but I agree with him on that. This might get some people triggered but I would question welcoming people that are possible walking *ticking* bombs. Not entire prohibition but tight restrictions at least.

Why are posts like these allowed? Just saying, including me, we have a lot of people of Arabic and Muslim descent. I mean have some *bleep* decency and respect us, we're not automatically a terrorist because our name is Ahmed or Karim.

Good god :facepalm:

by sportsczy Thu Oct 13, 2016 9:22 am

There is no money... and never will... for what Sanders proposes. Not a dime.

FennecFox7 wrote:Sports calling Bernie unrealistic. What, because of his minimum wage plan and his taxing on the very wealthy? Elaborate.

You also forget to mention his progressive policies on Palestine-Israel, his LGBT stance, stance on the war on drugs and legalizing weed, lowering the ridiculous cost of college.. Do I need to go on?

Calling sanders unrealistic for purely his economic policies and calling Hillary realistic despite her obvious corruption and pretty scary war mongering policy.. Yeah, take the L buddy. You're a hypocrite

Hillary is miles better then that dunce trump (who I am convinced is a troll) but sanders is what this country needs.

I'm not calling him unrealistic. I'm calling him an ideological fool. My feelings towards his ideas are far more harsh Laughing

Maybe 5% of what he proposes is based in reality or possible reality. The rest is just far left rubbish that 70-80% of American would never support.

Americans vote for the candidate who is in their personal best interest. That's how it works. Sanders' would lead to the collapse of the US economy and would raise taxes for everyone.

"Taxing the rich" is this dumb concept that the French also believe in... and all the entrepreneurs and ambitious French people have left France. So it's hard to tax people who are no longer there, which is exactly what would happen in the US. One big reason that the US attract wealth and enterprise from all over the world is that we don't create laws, taxation or otherwise, that target you negatively as you rise socio-economically. This country encourages people to get wealthy. There's no shame in having a lot of money... it's something to be admired. It's one of the cornerstones of being an American. American predominantly don't believe that government will do better using our money... we prefer people with extra means to consume, to invest and to build businesses that then help grow the economy. Private enterprise is far more efficient and honest than any governmental initiative. It's pretty clearly proven too.

I like the man though. Seems like a decent person.

by McLewis Thu Oct 13, 2016 12:05 pm

FennecFox7 wrote:
Myesyats wrote:Hillary has been in this for decades. Do you think she will do stuff now that should could have done throughout all these years and did not?

She will only makes thing worse. She wants to welcome EVERY refugee/exile (*possible terrorist*) and that's an obvious way towards disaster.

I don't endorse Trump but I agree with him on that. This might get some people triggered but I would question welcoming people that are possible walking *ticking* bombs. Not entire prohibition but tight restrictions at least.

Why are posts like these allowed? Just saying, including me, we have a lot of people of Arabic and Muslim descent. I mean have some *bleep* decency and respect us, we're not automatically a terrorist because our name is Ahmed or Karim.

Good god

This is a political discussion. There are going to be opposing views. While I personally don't agree with his sentiment and I certainly don't agree with Trump's, we're not going to start censoring people because they hold views that others don't agree with. We've never done that before and we're not going to start now. Instead of expressing outrage and calling for censorship, perhaps you need to address those comments with actual dialogue and counter points. Have a debate, not an argument.

We're all adults here (well most of us anyway). Let's keep it civil. If it gets out of hand, we'll take the appropriate action. As of now, it hasn't.

by iftikhar Thu Oct 13, 2016 4:02 pm

RealGunner wrote:No. Never had a chance.

Worse things have happened. I have a really bad feeling about this.

by rwo power Thu Oct 13, 2016 4:55 pm

@BC

Thanks for your exhaustive reply! I shall read it ASAP as I am a bit busy myself atm) and will reply to you properly in due time.

by Myesyats Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:38 pm

FennecFox7 wrote:
Myesyats wrote:Hillary has been in this for decades. Do you think she will do stuff now that should could have done throughout all these years and did not?

She will only makes thing worse. She wants to welcome EVERY refugee/exile (*possible terrorist*) and that's an obvious way towards disaster.

I don't endorse Trump but I agree with him on that. This might get some people triggered but I would question welcoming people that are possible walking *ticking* bombs. Not entire prohibition but tight restrictions at least.

Why are posts like these allowed? Just saying, including me, we have a lot of people of Arabic and Muslim descent. I mean have some *bleep* decency and respect us, we're not automatically a terrorist because our name is Ahmed or Karim.

Good god

I don't allow feelings to cloud my judgement. I base my opinion on facts and that is what a politician should be doing for the sake of the country.

Posts like these are allowed because they are not wrong. You don't have the right to be triggered, because the situations is clear and the convergence of names and individuals is not coincidental.

People throwing rocks and attacking others in Calais for instance- these are not civilized people. That's only one example of many, you can't argue with that.

You cannot be letting those people in. That's why you need restrictions. You, Fennec, are surely a decent human being, I have nothing against you. But facts are facts and you can't just ignore them. We all know ISIS, you can not pretend where they are from.

The world went through tougher times than this. You act like I would want to do a Hitler all over again and exterminate Muslims from planet earth... and that's clearly not the case here.

My country is not allowing "those" people in, the borders are tightened with the use of military forces- and that makes me feel safe... can't say that about the rest of Europe besides a few other Eastern countries.

People don't have to agree with me, I respect that. I hold nothing against Muslims (I don't judge anyone by their beliefs because I'm not a religious person myself). Most of them are certainly great people even though I met only 2 Muslims in my entire life. Not all Muslims are terrorists but it just so happens to be that all (or most of them) terrorists are Muslim. I can't ignore that and so can't you.

I don't want to get further into this topic and this is also not the appropriate thread for it so that's my last post on this matter. I should have probably placed a trigger warning sign at the beginning. hmm

by sportsczy Thu Oct 13, 2016 5:56 pm

The United States constitution does not allow the American public institutions to discriminate based on gender, race or religious affiliation. These are described in the 14th and 5th amendments. So what Trump is proposing and what you are advocating is, in fact, unconstitutional in the US.

You cannot deport or tag US citizens and/or residents based on their religion/race and you cannot deny people immigration if they qualify based on their religion/race.

This policy has helped the US greatly from the start and even recently. A lot of the immigrants that are coming from Syria into the US are doctors, architects, engineers, etc. Very qualified people. Of course, there are some who aren't as educated. As long as they are vetted and cleared, they can immigrate to the US once approved.

Hillary Clinton is absolutely correct in stating that the US cannot bend its laws for the sake of convenience... much less the constitution. We are not at war with these people. Only against people whom we have officially declared war can we then apply wartime procedures and limitations as the law allows. She's a lawyer and a constitutional lawyer at that by training... she's simply stating fact. Why? Trump is spewing nonsense and needs to be checked.

by FennecFox7 Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:18 pm

sportsczy wrote:There is no money... and never will... for what Sanders proposes. Not a dime.
FennecFox7 wrote:Sports calling Bernie unrealistic. What, because of his minimum wage plan and his taxing on the very wealthy? Elaborate.

You also forget to mention his progressive policies on Palestine-Israel, his LGBT stance, stance on the war on drugs and legalizing weed, lowering the ridiculous cost of college.. Do I need to go on?

Calling sanders unrealistic for purely his economic policies and calling Hillary realistic despite her obvious corruption and pretty scary war mongering policy.. Yeah, take the L buddy. You're a hypocrite

Hillary is miles better then that dunce trump (who I am convinced is a troll) but sanders is what this country needs.
I'm not calling him unrealistic. I'm calling him an ideological fool. My feelings towards his ideas are far more harsh Maybe 5% of what he proposes is based in reality or possible reality. The rest is just far left rubbish that 70-80% of American would never support.

Americans vote for the candidate who is in their personal best interest. That's how it works. Sanders' would lead to the collapse of the US economy and would raise taxes for everyone.

"Taxing the rich" is this dumb concept that the French also believe in... and all the entrepreneurs and ambitious French people have left France. So it's hard to tax people who are no longer there, which is exactly what would happen in the US. One big reason that the US attract wealth and enterprise from all over the world is that we don't create laws, taxation or otherwise, that target you negatively as you rise socio-economically. This country encourages people to get wealthy. There's no shame in having a lot of money... it's something to be admired. It's one of the cornerstones of being an American. American predominantly don't believe that government will do better using our money... we prefer people with extra means to consume, to invest and to build businesses that then help grow the economy. Private enterprise is far more efficient and honest than any governmental initiative. It's pretty clearly proven too.

I like the man though. Seems like a decent person.

You still haven't answered my question regarding his policies besides economics. No, the us won't collapse and the rich don't even pay taxes in the first place

Please tell me how hoarding money to the Swiss and the Cayman Islands is helping our economy? So trying to close tax loopholes in wallstreet is unrealistic? Really?

Agreed with your reply to Mye. There's no "facts" he's talking, it's just racism but whatever, it's just adult discussion. Right. Our constitution will never allow that sort of discrimination to happen, and for good reason

The only facts is that almost all Muslims/Arabs who come to the USA are some of the most successful people around, but hey keep hating. Keep calling us terrorists and we'll keep being successful and making money (;

Anyways, my vote is going to Hillary. She's shady, but she's experienced and I do think she'll implement progressive policies as well as having the temperament to be in office. (Yes, she is center in my opinion but because of sanders she did move to the left, and I trust her to at least keep some of those promises)

by BarrileteCosmico Thu Oct 13, 2016 7:29 pm

sportsczy wrote:Reason things are set up the way they are BC is that the United States is huge. That leads to two problems:
- it's unfeasible for independent candidates to afford the cost of a national election.
- people don't want to waste their vote on someone they don't feel will win in the end.

The way for independent candidates to get traction is through local elections that require reasonable resources. But most independent movements aren't organized enough to put together coherent campaigns around local elections.

There's a reason the US ended up with a two party system... huge territory requires huge resources which led to pooled resources... and two major parties.

The system is open to everyone. But you need to get enough people to sign your candidacy papers for each state to your are presented on the ballot. Here's the state-by-state requirements:

https://ballotpedia.org/Filing_deadlines_and_signature_requirements_for_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016

Heck, you're even allowed to write-in a candidate when you vote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate

But in the end, American people want to vote for a winner. Very few people will waste their vote on lost causes even if they agree with the platform. Just how we are.

The issue is not size but the first past the post system. This causes people to vote against a candidate rather than for one. This has the effect of cementing support into 2 parties, as people vote for the least worst option rather than their true preference, it's called duverger's law.

One way to fix this is preferential voting, like in Australia and soon Canada. Another would be immediate runoff elections.

But the system will never change because it's against the interest of the 2 parties.

by Sponsored content