2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

[Irvine511]

I don't know if it "damaged" it. Bush/Cheney pissed a lot of people off, so in some sense what deep is saying is true. It led to Obama.

I suppose my main point is better illustrated like this: individuals who have the right to vote aren't the issue. The issue is the leaders. If Gore were a better candidate, people wouldn't have voted for Nader. If Clinton were a better candidate, people wouldn't vote for Stein. If Stein were as compromising of a leader as you are, she wouldn't run.

Blame Stein. Blame Nader. Blame republicans. But your tragedy of the commons argument isn't going to satisfy anyone who doesn't want either of the two candidates. Right now, Sanders isn't a problem. And he won't be unless he runs for president. And if he does, he's a dick. Not the people who vote for him.

Do you think we get the candidates we deserve?

 

[BVS]

All about this. He gets a few SC justices put on the court, and all of those abortion rights, minority rights, and the corporate "rights" go back a century.

The damage, in my opinion, would never be undone.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Oh and our schools will be full of guns. America will be great


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Do you think we get the candidates we deserve?

Why does it matter what I think? We are a population, not individual people. If 100,000 people in Florida voted for Nader it's not because they're stubborn. It's because the ticket and platform wasn't optimal.

 

[Irvine511]

Why does it matter what I think? We are a population, not individual people. If 100,000 people in Florida voted for Nader it's not because they're stubborn. It's because the ticket and platform wasn't optimal.

I might say it's because they're selfish.

 

[BVS]

It's because of Chad


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

If Trump bringing his business acumen to the White House would involve the actual US going bankrupt and a whole slew of sponsorship deals to get other countries to call themselves the United States. We'd also have a reality TV show where we get a bunch of third world countries to compete against each other for the right to be democracies. Because Trump.

The biggest joke of all is how he's been able to convince old white peop...errr i mean his base that he's this real estate mogul business genius.

I give him this, he's a marketing genius. But he hasn't been a relevant developer in Manhattan in 20 years. His casinos went bankrupt. Nobody goes to his hotel in Vegas. And most of his world wide properties he didn't even develop. He's a scam artist. A good one, but a scam artist none the less.

He's a great businessman only in the eyes of an idiot.

Where are his tax returns? There's only three reasons why he's withholding them... 1) he's either using incredible tax loopholes to avoid paying income tax, which would go against his everyman bullshit thing he's going after... 2) he's worth a shit load less than what he says he's worth... or the most likely answer, 3) both.

He is historically unqualified to be the leader of this country. Just look at the AirEgypt crash. Knee jerk, tell it like it is reaction... and here we are with still no claim of responsibility, and a high chance that it was an electrical fire.

He has no idea what he's doing, he would alienate even our closest allies, and turn us into an absolute joke. Probably even get us into a war or two for no reason. And not like an unnecessary war like Iraq, where shit at least they tried to convince everyone of the dangers. Like an unnecessary war based on a knee jerk reaction to something that may or may not have actually happened the way he says it did.

The riots in the streets will continue for weeks if he's elected. And I shudder to think of how he'd handle a situation like Ferguson or Baltimore.

He will be an absolute disaster, and that's before we even bring up the Supreme Court.

 

[Irvine511]

If Trump bringing his business acumen to the White House would involve the actual US going bankrupt and a whole slew of sponsorship deals to get other countries to call themselves the United States. We'd also have a reality TV show where we get a bunch of third world countries to compete against each other for the right to be democracies. Because Trump.

The biggest joke of all is how he's been able to convince old white peop...errr i mean his base that he's this real estate mogul business genius.

I give him this, he's a marketing genius. But he hasn't been a relevant developer in Manhattan in 20 years. His casinos went bankrupt. Nobody goes to his hotel in Vegas. And most of his world wide properties he didn't even develop. He's a scam artist. A good one, but a scam artist none the less.

He's a great businessman only in the eyes of an idiot.

Where are his tax returns? There's only three reasons why he's withholding them... 1) he's either using incredible tax loopholes to avoid paying income tax, which would go against his everyman bullshit thing he's going after... 2) he's worth a shit load less than what he says he's worth... or the most likely answer, 3) both.

He is historically unqualified to be the leader of this country. Just look at the AirEgypt crash. Knee jerk, tell it like it is reaction... and here we are with still no claim of responsibility, and a high chance that it was an electrical fire.

He has no idea what he's doing, he would alienate even our closest allies, and turn us into an absolute joke. Probably even get us into a war or two for no reason. And not like an unnecessary war like Iraq, where shit at least they tried to convince everyone of the dangers. Like an unnecessary war based on a knee jerk reaction to something that may or may not have actually happened the way he says it did.

The riots in the streets will continue for weeks if he's elected. And I shudder to think of how he'd handle a situation like Ferguson or Baltimore.

He will be an absolute disaster, and that's before we even bring up the Supreme Court.

Just like Hillary. I can't even tell the difference between the parties anymore.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I might say it's because they're selfish.

Because you're applying your own belief to everyone else. Call the candidate selfish. That's fair. I fail to see how people are selfish because they have different views from you.

 

[BVS]

If Trump bringing his business acumen to the White House would involve the actual US going bankrupt and a whole slew of sponsorship deals to get other countries to call themselves the United States. We'd also have a reality TV show where we get a bunch of third world countries to compete against each other for the right to be democracies. Because Trump.

The biggest joke of all is how he's been able to convince old white peop...errr i mean his base that he's this real estate mogul business genius.

I give him this, he's a marketing genius. But he hasn't been a relevant developer in Manhattan in 20 years. His casinos went bankrupt. Nobody goes to his hotel in Vegas. And most of his world wide properties he didn't even develop. He's a scam artist. A good one, but a scam artist none the less.

He's a great businessman only in the eyes of an idiot.

Where are his tax returns? There's only three reasons why he's withholding them... 1) he's either using incredible tax loopholes to avoid paying income tax, which would go against his everyman bullshit thing he's going after... 2) he's worth a shit load less than what he says he's worth... or the most likely answer, 3) both.

He is historically unqualified to be the leader of this country. Just look at the AirEgypt crash. Knee jerk, tell it like it is reaction... and here we are with still no claim of responsibility, and a high chance that it was an electrical fire.

He has no idea what he's doing, he would alienate even our closest allies, and turn us into an absolute joke. Probably even get us into a war or two for no reason. And not like an unnecessary war like Iraq, where shit at least they tried to convince everyone of the dangers. Like an unnecessary war based on a knee jerk reaction to something that may or may not have actually happened the way he says it did.

The riots in the streets will continue for weeks if he's elected. And I shudder to think of how he'd handle a situation like Ferguson or Baltimore.

He will be an absolute disaster, and that's before we even bring up the Supreme Court.

Anti-establishment as fuck


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

There's only three reasons why he's withholding them... 1) he's either using incredible tax loopholes to avoid paying income tax, which would go against his everyman bullshit thing he's going after...

Yeah, I'd love to see the GOP try and defend that, considering their attitude that people who are underemployed or looking for work, and therefore unable to pay taxes as a result, are nothing more than "lazy bums and moochers".

He has no idea what he's doing, he would alienate even our closest allies, and turn us into an absolute joke. Probably even get us into a war or two for no reason. And not like an unnecessary war like Iraq, where shit at least they tried to convince everyone of the dangers. Like an unnecessary war based on a knee jerk reaction to something that may or may not have actually happened the way he says it did.

Yep. Some leader called him a name and suddenly it's an all out brawl.

But hey, he "tells it like it is", so who cares, right?

 

[corianderstem]

Wait, why the hell does Washington have a caucus and a primary?

it's our state's greatest mystery, second only to Sasquatch.

 

[Hewson]

The Christian imagery in the lyrics might turn off Lucifer. He may prefer Creed's Canadian bastard offspring 'Nickelback'

Nickelback actually makes me nostalgic for Creed. The devolution of alternative rock bloodline.

 

[Hewson]

It's because of Chad

 

[Oregoropa]

Now that's a punchable face

 

[Hewson]

I might say it's because they're selfish.

Aren't the vast majority of votes cast for the candidate who the voter thinks suits their best interest and therefore selfish by definition?

 

[Irvine511]

Because you're applying your own belief to everyone else. Call the candidate selfish. That's fair. I fail to see how people are selfish because they have different views from you.

It's not having different views, it's making a choice to throw away the tool they've been given to make any sort of difference.

There's an entitlement to "well the candidates suck" that I can't get behind.

 

[Irvine511]

Aren't the vast majority of votes cast for the candidate who the voter thinks suits their best interest and therefore selfish by definition?

I think it's our responsibility to choose between the two candidates who *best represents* our priorities and values.

Yes, this could mean a third party.

BUT

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.

 

[cobl04]

Skipping back a bit, but I'm going to take a tack that is not often seen on Interference and side with LN7. I think "if you don't vote for Hillary you're voting for Trump" is overly simplistic and idealistic. Perhaps it's idealistic that a vote for Jill Stein or whoever is a vote hoping to inspire change in the future, but if you don't try to make change according to your own values at some point in your life you might as well just give up entirely and become a Democratic shill.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It's not having different views, it's making a choice to throw away the tool they've been given to make any sort of difference.

There's an entitlement to "well the candidates suck" that I can't get behind.

It IS having different views. You view it as throwing a vote away. They don't always view it that way.

By this standard I could make the argument that every democrat in Texas is throwing their vote away because their vote could be used to support third parties. How selfish of them.

Or, every republican who is part of the margin of victory in Texas is also wasting their vote for the exact same reason. Selfish that they don't want to give us an additional party, given that many agree with libertarian views and a substantial amount of the votes needed for major party recognition is available in Texas.

 

[dazzledbylight]

you may not like it, but -- and i will qualify my statement with the following -- if you live in a state where your vote matters it is your civic responsibility to vote for the major party candidate who best represents your values. if you can't figure out who that is, it's your job to figure it out and make peace with it, down to the state and to the Congressional race. if you choose not to use it productively, you do own the result. if you believe that blowing up the American way is genuinely better than leveraging the current system in order to change it, you probably have limited experience with actual revolutions.

Tend to agree with this
I hope to convince at least a few very disaffected Bernie voters (those say they won't ever vote for Hillary) before the General Election.

 

[dazzledbylight]

What you own is not doing everything you could to keep a crazy person out of power. We've been given a lesson in how strategically one must vote in the parliamentary system, strategy exists here too, and it's not so much that one is entitled to a vote, but one loses much credibility, say, to criticize the Iraq War if one voted for Nader in Florida in 2000, fully aware of how close it was and how critical that state was well before Election Day.

People are free to choose purity over practicality all they want. They just own a measure of responsibility when they don't use the tool that they have in the most advantageous way possible to keep the crazy from power. It's not that it's my vote, it's that you are responsible for it and all its repercussions. It doesn't work to say "I voted for Nader but it's Gore's fault for losing to Bush."

Yup.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Skipping back a bit, but I'm going to take a tack that is not often seen on Interference and side with LN7. I think "if you don't vote for Hillary you're voting for Trump" is overly simplistic and idealistic. Perhaps it's idealistic that a vote for Jill Stein or whoever is a vote hoping to inspire change in the future, but if you don't try to make change according to your own values at some point in your life you might as well just give up entirely and become a Democratic shill.

It is silly, in the same way that I couldn't tell if people are having a laugh when they say it was Nader's fault that Bush got elected.

It's ridiculously simplistic and only reaffirms my opinions on liberals.

 

[cobl04]

I mean I totally I get the argument, but I think it is pretty offensive to demonise people for voting for the person who most closely aligns with your values. A political vote is a very personal thing, and if no one starts small, how will anything ever change?

 

[Axver]

Skipping back a bit, but I'm going to take a tack that is not often seen on Interference and side with LN7. I think "if you don't vote for Hillary you're voting for Trump" is overly simplistic and idealistic. Perhaps it's idealistic that a vote for Jill Stein or whoever is a vote hoping to inspire change in the future, but if you don't try to make change according to your own values at some point in your life you might as well just give up entirely and become a Democratic shill.

It is silly, in the same way that I couldn't tell if people are having a laugh when they say it was Nader's fault that Bush got elected.

It's ridiculously simplistic and only reaffirms my opinions on liberals.

Without addressing the 2000 election specifically, in a system as firmly two-party and first-past-the-post as the US presidential election, it's not simplistic - it's pragmatism.

A third party run can be successful if it starts from a sufficiently popular base and does not simply cannibalise from one side of politics without eating enough to overtake both opponents. The whole reason Australia introduced preferential voting is because FPTP three-cornered contests can and do lead to the victory of the least popular candidate.

Look, what do you prefer? Clinton to beat Trump in a pure two party contest, or for some random minor parties to cannibalise enough of the left-wing anti-Trump vote that Trump scrapes to victory? You can't be idealistic in FPTP systems. You just can't, or you hand victory to your most hated option.

This is why I hate FPTP so much and advocate for preferential systems wherever possible. In Australia I can satisfy my Green, social democrat, and democratic socialist inclinations quite merrily without worrying that I will contribute to a Coalition victory in a tight race. In New Zealand I don't have that luxury for my local member, so I hold my nose and vote Labour because fuck the Tories. Likewise, if I voted in the US, much as I would rather vote for Jill Stein, I would hold my nose and vote Democrat because fuck the Republicans. My vote in that situation goes where it is most useful: the party most likely to keep the right out.

PS Vlad, your derogatory use of the word "liberal" is strange when you clearly hold liberal positions on social policy.

 

[Axver]

A political vote is a very personal thing

I would suggest public office is the exact opposite of personal.

if no one starts small, how will anything ever change?

If it's an FPTP system, start small and build your platform through other means, then enter the race when you have a critical mass to pass the two established parties.

Anybody who expects the US party system to shift to include a powerful third party needs to seriously reassess their expectations, given the current two-party system (for all the ideological shifts of the parties themselves) has endured at every election since 1860. No Westminster system can claim that. Cannibalising a small part of the far left Democrat vote in the name of ideological purity doesn't seem to be achieving a lot except slightly lowering the "post" the Republicans must pass for victory.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Except votes for Nader kept a movement alive. Votes for Gary Johnson keep a movement alive. They open the door for these political parties to go somewhere. Whether that's for a seat in congress or for spreading their beliefs.

If you're not endorsing a two party system, who should vote for these third parties? Isn't it ridiculous that we call them "third" parties, if we aren't in a two party system?

Well that's why Nader voters should have only voted for him in safe States, so he could keep some influence.

There's a progressive radio host name Thom Hartman (rip Air America Radio) who is the Brunch with Bernie radio host lHe was telling progressive people back in the mid 00's to go join their local Dem party and go up the ladder over years to change it from within

Really, that"s what the right wing Republicans started to do after their decimation of their party in LBJ v Goldwater.
I was 11 when that happened, so the history was something I learned decades later.
They set up the long game to take over State legislatures that then also would appoint the State's Secretary of State who controls certain voting issues (it's very late here ).
In Fla 2000 I think it was Katherine Harris (Republican).

And they also draw the District Lines . it may be true that they took that to ridiculous new heights to thrawt Dem voters

 

[dazzledbylight]

It is silly, in the same way that I couldn't tell if people are having a laugh when they say it was Nader's fault that Bush got elected.

It's ridiculously simplistic and only reaffirms my opinions on liberals.

It's at least partly Nader's fault W got elected.

 

[deep]

Explain

 

[Vlad n U 2]

This is why I hate FPTP so much and advocate for preferential systems wherever possible. In Australia I can satisfy my Green, social democrat, and democratic socialist inclinations quite merrily without worrying that I will contribute to a Coalition victory in a tight race. In New Zealand I don't have that luxury for my local member, so I hold my nose and vote Labour because fuck the Tories. Likewise, if I voted in the US, much as I would rather vote for Jill Stein, I would hold my nose and vote Democrat because fuck the Republicans. My vote in that situation goes where it is most useful: the party most likely to keep the right out.

You know, I still get stumped by these two titles. I can't tell if they're meant to be the same thing or there are differences between the two.

PS Vlad, your derogatory use of the word "liberal" is strange when you clearly hold liberal positions on social policy.

Not sure why it's "strange", it's very common among leftists. And I'm fairly sure you understand that 'liberal' entails more than just being progressive socially.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm going to take a tack that is not often seen on Interference and side with LN7.

I don't know if this is supposed to make me feel better or worse ?

Look, what do you prefer? Clinton to beat Trump in a pure two party contest, or for some random minor parties to cannibalise enough of the left-wing anti-Trump vote that Trump scrapes to victory? You can't be idealistic in FPTP systems. You just can't, or you hand victory to your most hated option.



This is why I hate FPTP so much and advocate for preferential systems wherever possible. In Australia I can satisfy my Green, social democrat, and democratic socialist inclinations quite merrily without worrying that I will contribute to a Coalition victory in a tight race. In New Zealand I don't have that luxury for my local member, so I hold my nose and vote Labour because fuck the Tories. Likewise, if I voted in the US, much as I would rather vote for Jill Stein, I would hold my nose and vote Democrat because fuck the Republicans. My vote in that situation goes where it is most useful: the party most likely to keep the right out.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that if a third party candidate chooses not to run, it could be beneficial to whichever side they might be taking votes away from (I also think it's silly to single out the left; this election's big third party candidate, Gary Johnson, will be taking mostly from the right).

I'm disagreeing with the idea that "if it's close enough" to your views, you owe an obligation to to vote against what's not your views.

Though not the likeliest of scenarios, I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson and Stein pull just shy of 10% of the vote. We are facing the two most disliked candidates in modern history. Look at it from the reverse side... if a republican absolutely cannot stand Hillary Clinton, is he or she obliged to vote for Donald Trump? Someone that simply doesn't stand for what they stand for. Why wouldn't they just vote for Gary Johnson and push for major party status and equal ballot access for the libertarian party? That's a very realistic goal, for this election.