2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I want her to be liberal. is that too much to ask?



I get that we want candidates to reflect our values and priorities, but don't we vote for the candidate who "best" reflects them? Voting is a zero-sun game. If you're not voting for Clinton in the fall you're voting for Trump, even if you don't vote at all. I recognize not voting as a form of protest, and that's fine, but don't be under any illusions that you haven't helped some else get elected.

We don't always get exactly what we want. Sometimes we go with the least worst option. A vote is not rare and precious. It's a right, and it's a tool. And that's it.
 
If you're not voting for Clinton in the fall you're voting for Trump, even if you don't vote at all.


I entirely disagree and think this argument is such a logical fallacy. He doesn't have an obligation to vote for a democratic candidate solely based upon the fact that the republican candidate sucks. Nor is he "voting for Donald Trump." This is not a good argument, and undermines someone's right to not vote.

If he doesn't like Hilary Clinton, fine. Explain to him why voting for Clinton is still voting for a lot of what he supports. But don't draw that card... there's several possible outcomes of his vote, one including him actually voting for Trump due to his distaste for Clinton. As a simple form of statistics, he has never supported Clinton and continues not to support Clinton. The only individuals who are a "vote for trump" are the individuals who agree to support Clinton and do not vote.
 
Then you have to throw in the Electoral College. I, for example, live in California which is arguably the hardest state in the union to flip red for Republicans. There's a handful that are more liberal, but their populations are far, far smaller and therefore it would take a lot less time and money to flip, say, a few hundred thousand votes there instead of millions upon millions here. Any scenario where Clinton is within range of losing California to someone like Trump or Cruz means she's already lost the election.
 
It doesn't have to even be that complex. There's nothing fair about saying "you not willing to vote for the candidate that I want to win is the same as you voting for the candidate neither of us want to win." That's just not true.
 
It's now at a point where the Democratic candidacy is more entertaining than the Republican one. I did not think that would happen. It's not because of Hillary or Bernie themselves, it's the fighting between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters. It is hilariously pathetic. Trump must be absolutely laughing himself to sleep.
 
It's now at a point where the Democratic candidacy is more entertaining than the Republican one. I did not think that would happen. It's not because of Hillary or Bernie themselves, it's the fighting between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters. It is hilariously pathetic. Trump must be absolutely laughing himself to sleep.

Fucking seriously.

I now read this thread for comedy.
 
It's now at a point where the Democratic candidacy is more entertaining than the Republican one. I did not think that would happen. It's not because of Hillary or Bernie themselves, it's the fighting between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters. It is hilariously pathetic. Trump must be absolutely laughing himself to sleep.

Fucking seriously.

I now read this thread for comedy.

Really, guys?
 
Really, guys?

Yeah. The flaming Republican trainwreck is what it is, and no new locomotives have smashed into it for a while.

Meanwhile, the excruciating arguments between the Sanders and Clinton fans here continue to deliver on the laughs/cringes.
 
Yeah. The flaming Republican trainwreck is what it is, and no new locomotives have smashed into it for a while.



Meanwhile, the excruciating arguments between the Sanders and Clinton fans here continue to deliver on the laughs/cringes.


Don't you think that series of posts comes off a little... holier than thou?
 
"Bernie or bust" guys are actually funny, because it's fucking pathetic.

Aren't you one of them?

Don't you think that series of posts comes off a little... holier than thou?

I'm sure most of the world's commentary on American politics is a little holier-than-thou.

I'm cool with it.

PS Come on you guys, I've already made one part of your presidential threads. Don't make me make another.
 
Aren't you one of them?

If hillary is nominee for general election, Im fine with her. but in the primary when Bernie has a chance, i want him to fight as hard as possible. it's making no sense but...all I'm getting is, Bernie is clearly is better to me, but if Hillary is the only choice and the republican candidate will be probably way worse than her I think, so there's that.
 
I entirely disagree and think this argument is such a logical fallacy. He doesn't have an obligation to vote for a democratic candidate solely based upon the fact that the republican candidate sucks. Nor is he "voting for Donald Trump." This is not a good argument, and undermines someone's right to not vote.

If he doesn't like Hilary Clinton, fine. Explain to him why voting for Clinton is still voting for a lot of what he supports. But don't draw that card... there's several possible outcomes of his vote, one including him actually voting for Trump due to his distaste for Clinton. As a simple form of statistics, he has never supported Clinton and continues not to support Clinton. The only individuals who are a "vote for trump" are the individuals who agree to support Clinton and do not vote.
He really does. This isn't just about him. Clinton has her issues, but a Republican president with a Republican house gets to whack away at minority rights with impunity. If you neglect to vote for the challenger to the Republican candidate, which will more than likely be Clinton in November, you are supporting the GOP's war on minorities. That's how American politics works, whether you care to admit it or not. This isn't me being a dogmatic Democratic shill; I'm voting for Sanders on Tuesday. But I understand the reality we are in. If you (I am using the royal "you" here) deny what I am saying, I have a hard time believing you really appreciate the seriousness of all of this.
 
Last edited:
If I were a US citizen, I would vote for Hillary Clinton in November to prevent a Republican presidency. Extremely, extremely, extremely reluctantly. I don't blame people who've got a problem with it.
 
He really does. This isn't just about him. Clinton has her issues, but a Republican president with a Republican house gets to whack away at minority rights with impunity. If you neglect to vote for the challenger to the Republican candidate, which will more than likely be Clinton in November, you are supporting the GOP's war on minorities. That's how American politics works, whether you care to admit it or not. This isn't me being a dogmatic Democratic shill; I'm voting for Sanders on Tuesday. But I understand the reality we are in. If you (I am using the royal "you" here) deny what I am saying, I have a hard time believing you really appreciate the seriousness of all of this.


Obviously we've disagreed on this topic, dating years back.

We haven't gotten any closer, on the topic, either. All I'm reading here is that in your eyes, the individual doesn't matter, and he owes some sort of credit to what you perceive to be the greater good.

If this were the case, voting would be mandatory. You have zero power when you simply eat whatever food is placed in front of you. You've a terrible misconception that he and you share the same tastes and distastes, simply because you're both voting for the same candidate.
 
Obviously we've disagreed on this topic, dating years back.

We haven't gotten any closer, on the topic, either. All I'm reading here is that in your eyes, the individual doesn't matter, and he owes some sort of credit to what you perceive to be the greater good.

If this were the case, voting would be mandatory. You have zero power when you simply eat whatever food is placed in front of you. You've a terrible misconception that he and you share the same tastes and distastes, simply because you're both voting for the same candidate.
It's his right to not care if the GOP can attack women and minorities. Planned Parenthood continuing to be attacked for no reason to hurt women's healthcare. All of the progress on LGBT issues stopping and in some cases regressing. If that's all cool with people, they don't have to vote for Hillary Clinton. But let's not pretend that's it's not an extremely privileged place to be in to be able to cast aside those most vulnerable in the case of a GOP presidency because Hillary Clinton doesn't make us feel good.
 
Compulsory voting seems to be a complete non-sequitur here.


It was just to illustrate a point. Nobody is obliged to vote. And most CERTAINLY nobody is obliged to align themselves with one of the two major parties for the general election. That very logic is the reason we are stuck where we are. If neither offers the product you want, you're not obliged to do pick the lesser of two evils.

Personally, I think this particular election is justified logic in saying "anybody but Trump/Cruz." The last election, I forget who it was, was blasting it as "the most important election of my lifetime." As if. Every election earns that accolade, as it's happening. It's just a swath of hysteria, and the notion that you're somehow doing a disservice by abstaining from voting is utter garbage. The very act of not voting is in itself a vote for wanting something else.
 
It's his right to not care if the GOP can attack women and minorities. Planned Parenthood continuing to be attacked for no reason to hurt women's healthcare. All of the progress on LGBT issues stopping and in some cases regressing. If that's all cool with people, they don't have to vote for Hillary Clinton. But let's not pretend that's it's not an extremely privileged place to be in to be able to cast aside those most vulnerable in the case of a GOP presidency because Hillary Clinton doesn't make us feel good.


You're applying your own personal beliefs and specific opinions into a one size fits all critique. You're so stuck on the narrative. You need to back up, and view it from a broader perspective. The fabric of the democracy that we live in. Polarizing red and blue with an obligation to be on board one of those ships is not what it's about.
 
The very act of not voting is in itself a vote for wanting something else.

Well, this is a tangent - and we should be using the new thread anyway, or if we're going to discuss compulsory voting maybe a separate thread entirely - but from an Australian perspective this is not a valid argument.

The High Court unanimously ruled that:

However much the elector may say he has no personal preference for any candidate, that none of them will suit him, he is not asked that question nor required to express by his vote that opinion. He is asked to express a preference amongst those who are available for election. That is to state which of them, if he must have one or more of them as Parliamentary representatives, as he must, to mark down his vote in an order of preference of them.

This is a judgement with which I personally concur in broad terms. I was somewhat surprised when Obama praised our compulsory voting system recently. It would certainly transform American politics.

Of course this doesn't get at the issue of voting for candidates who have no realistic prospect of victory under a first-past-the-post system, which was another theme of the discussion and one which I will leave for another time on account of the fact I should be asleep.
 
Back
Top Bottom