2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX - Page 23 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-26-2016, 03:33 AM   #331
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,341
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzledbylight View Post
Well that's why Nader voters should have only voted for him in safe States, so he could keep some influence.

At some points in this thread, we've been individualizing groups of people unnecessarily. This is sort of the opposite, though. Nader supporters aren't/weren't just a set of numbers that you can allocate. This is what I was calling "ideal." In a perfect world, you could balance everything everywhere and Nader could get all of his votes happily.

I made a point about this in totally unbalanced states -- why don't the 100,000 Nader voters in Florida play ball and trade their votes with Texas democrats, who apparently have no responsibility whatsoever? Let all 100,000 Florida voters vote for Gore in place of the Texas Democrats that would've, and they can vote Nader!

The above scenario I describe actually was attempted. Nader's Traders! A ridiculous idea that undermines the electoral college entirely. Got a lot of states mad for what was essentially attempts at crowd organized election fixing.

I honestly think that this argument will just keep circling around and around though. There's a fundamental disagreement. I don't agree with denying the antecedent. Those responsible for electing Bush were the republicans who voted for him. Inadvertently, Ralph Nader's decision to run aided in Bush's victory. More importantly, Al Gore's inability to be a good enough candidate for those voters lost him their vote. Most importantly, Florida's balloting was effectively made to fuck Al Gore, likely thanks to the Republican Party of Florida.
__________________

__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 05-26-2016, 04:00 AM   #332
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,020
Local Time: 06:51 AM
I read an article on FiveThirtyEight that said Johnson was getting around 10% of the vote in some polls.
__________________

__________________
cobl04 is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 04:19 AM   #333
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,341
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Well that probably won't hold up, but right now it makes sense. People are "moving to Canada" with their vote, so to say. I'm sure when the debates kick up, a lot of people will start to "pick the lesser of two evils." But I wouldn't be surprised if those third party candidates stand a chance to get their voter threshold that they need to expand (~5%).
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 05-26-2016, 04:43 AM   #334
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Mack_Again's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: definitely Osaka
Posts: 6,617
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You guys just don't understand math.

Trump: 2+2 = whatever you want it to be, we just print more.

Sanders: 2+2 = millions, the messiah could feed the nation with just one fish and one piece of bread.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
wait i thought 2+2=5
__________________
Mack_Again is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 09:08 AM   #335
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
In a close election like 2000, your throwaway vote could have made a difference and we would have been spared the horrors of the Bush presidency. You can't sit back and pretend like you have no responsibilities here whatsoever for said vote because the parties have failed to cater to you and "earn" your precious vote.

I'm not going to pat you on the back and applaud your dignity and purity.
In fairness to Nader voters, it's not as if 9/11 and what followed in terms of the Bush presidency was foreseeable. Yes, you could have thought at the time that he'd be a worse president than Gore because of certain of his policies and the way he used the religious right at the polls, but nobody could have predicted the depth of his administration's incompetence.

Today you have the benefit of hindsight, but back then, and I do remember that election very well, it simply was not as if you had a great Obama-type candidate running against Sarah Palin. It simply was not seen or perceived that way, and a lot of it had to do with the fact that the original Bush president wasn't great but wasn't a disaster either and the family was generally viewed as fairly intelligent, professional, etc.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 05-26-2016, 10:36 AM   #336
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,860
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack_Again View Post
wait i thought 2+2=5
Thanks.
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 05-26-2016, 11:55 AM   #337
Blue Crack Addict
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 26,468
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Is everyone here who blames Nader for W also unhappy with Ross Perot for preventing HW from being re-elected?
__________________
Hewson is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 12:08 PM   #338
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
In fairness to Nader voters, it's not as if 9/11 and what followed in terms of the Bush presidency was foreseeable. Yes, you could have thought at the time that he'd be a worse president than Gore because of certain of his policies and the way he used the religious right at the polls, but nobody could have predicted the depth of his administration's incompetence.

Today you have the benefit of hindsight, but back then, and I do remember that election very well, it simply was not as if you had a great Obama-type candidate running against Sarah Palin. It simply was not seen or perceived that way, and a lot of it had to do with the fact that the original Bush president wasn't great but wasn't a disaster either and the family was generally viewed as fairly intelligent, professional, etc.



I don't remember it that way at all. Yes, Bush said things like he wasn't into nation building, and the scope of his vision for domestic policy was a tax cut for the wealthy, but I was also living and working in Europe at the time and fielding questions from drunk, distressed Europeans about the possibility of a Bush presidency. I shared many of their concerns. I remember the born-again thing as being dangerous, as well as the eagerness to start small wars. The GOP had taken a dangerous turn during the 1990s, with Buchanan and his 1992 convention speech that still makes my blood run cold, and Bush was seen as the idiot puppet through which various groups representing bad interests (guns, oil, environmental destruction, fundamentalist social policy) had found their socially acceptable voice.

I agree, no one thought it would get quite so bad, but there were clear differences, and warnin signs.

And it underscores the silliness of dismissing the two parties of being the same.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 12:13 PM   #339
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,648
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewson View Post
Is everyone here who blames Nader for W also unhappy with Ross Perot for preventing HW from being re-elected?

I'm unhappy with Perot for not running more, he gave us some of the best Carvey SNL.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 05-26-2016, 01:47 PM   #340
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
And that's some white privilege.
Ugh. Just stop. Everybody on the left would suffer under Trump. It's also ironic that you keep bringing up this line when the situation for black Americans both economically and socially has become worse for them since Obama took office.

I also don't see how Trump would be even remotely as bad as Bush. Not only would he not being taken seriously by members of his own party, but he has a lot of weird populist and pseudo-leftist beliefs and proposals which automatically make him to the left of practically everybody that ran for the Republican nomination. I could honestly give a fuck that he's a racist because

1) So are the other Republicans. They just use more subtle forms of dog whistling. I find it ironic when people post angry missives about Trump on Facebook and ignore the fact that he's merely going along with the same tactics the party has used for decades...a Trump Presidency is less right-wing than Ted Cruz, Rubio, etc. so they shouldn't have been actively hoping that Trump would fail in his quest for the nomination, especially when polling showed Trump to be the worst candidate for the general election.

2) And it's not like Trump can on his own just enact some anti-Civil Rights laws, and even if he got his own party to go along with it, the Supreme Court would rule against practically all of it as discriminatory for obvious reasons, even with their right-leaning slant. Therefore, most of his opinions are just that, opinions. Frankly, I don't mind it if I were to live with neighbors that were closeted racists but caused no problems and kept their home exteriors clean, etc. since it's not like most people have much of a relationship with people they live near. At the end of the day, all that matters are the actions and Trump can't really act on half that shit.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 01:53 PM   #341
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Turnout in the 2000 general election was a meager 51.2%. Go blame the millions upon millions of Democrats that didn't bother voting for that loss, not a much smaller amount of Nader voters, most of whom said they weren't even going to vote if he wasn't in the race.

If we just do an even Republican/Democratic split for those remaining voters (which is even under-counting left leaners given Democrats having a huge registration advantage even then and tending to vote less in general), that means there were 50 million voting age potential Gore voters that didn't bother voting at all. That's a lot more than Nader's 2.9 million, eh?
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 02:27 PM   #342
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 02:51 PM
2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Ugh. Just stop. Everybody on the left would suffer under Trump. It's also ironic that you keep bringing up this line when the situation for black Americans both economically and socially has become worse for them since Obama took office.

I also don't see how Trump would be even remotely as bad as Bush. Not only would he not being taken seriously by members of his own party, but he has a lot of weird populist and pseudo-leftist beliefs and proposals which automatically make him to the left of practically everybody that ran for the Republican nomination. I could honestly give a fuck that he's a racist because

1) So are the other Republicans. They just use more subtle forms of dog whistling. I find it ironic when people post angry missives about Trump on Facebook and ignore the fact that he's merely going along with the same tactics the party has used for decades...a Trump Presidency is less right-wing than Ted Cruz, Rubio, etc. so they shouldn't have been actively hoping that Trump would fail in his quest for the nomination, especially when polling showed Trump to be the worst candidate for the general election.

2) And it's not like Trump can on his own just enact some anti-Civil Rights laws, and even if he got his own party to go along with it, the Supreme Court would rule against practically all of it as discriminatory for obvious reasons, even with their right-leaning slant. Therefore, most of his opinions are just that, opinions. Frankly, I don't mind it if I were to live with neighbors that were closeted racists but caused no problems and kept their home exteriors clean, etc. since it's not like most people have much of a relationship with people they live near. At the end of the day, all that matters are the actions and Trump can't really act on half that shit.


You can say things out loud but it doesn't make them true.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-26-2016, 03:36 PM   #343
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I don't remember it that way at all. Yes, Bush said things like he wasn't into nation building, and the scope of his vision for domestic policy was a tax cut for the wealthy, but I was also living and working in Europe at the time and fielding questions from drunk, distressed Europeans about the possibility of a Bush presidency. I shared many of their concerns. I remember the born-again thing as being dangerous, as well as the eagerness to start small wars. The GOP had taken a dangerous turn during the 1990s, with Buchanan and his 1992 convention speech that still makes my blood run cold, and Bush was seen as the idiot puppet through which various groups representing bad interests (guns, oil, environmental destruction, fundamentalist social policy) had found their socially acceptable voice.

I agree, no one thought it would get quite so bad, but there were clear differences, and warnin signs.

And it underscores the silliness of dismissing the two parties of being the same.
That's funny because I also spent considerable time in Europe around then (UK and continental) and have a very different recollection - mostly that people just weren't that into the election, basically reflecting the low turnout in the US. Neither candidate was seen as particularly exciting.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 05-26-2016, 04:15 PM   #344
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,703
Local Time: 11:51 AM
My reason for voting for Hillary is because of the Supreme Court Justices.
__________________
corianderstem is online now  
Old 05-26-2016, 05:04 PM   #345
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 02:51 PM
So, is the Sanders vs. Trump debate actually going to happen? They've both said yes.

Upon doing more research, Trump's team is actually talking to networks about it. It would be a pretty easy thing to do for charity since they could just demand that the networks donate a certain share of advertising revenue over to the charities that Trump/Sanders support.

It will be great to have a debate between the platforms that a majority of Democrats and Republicans respectively support, rather than confusing things by having some corporatist try and argue that she's on both sides of the aisle.
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com