Trump Part VIII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm a Bernie supporter who chose not to vote for Hillary. I voted third party, and I'm not ashamed of that. I never liked Hillary. I didn't like her in 2008, I didn't like her in the 90s either. I never intended to vote for her, even though I hate Trump even more.



She lost by 11,640 votes in my county, and 574,117 statewide, though I have still had people tell me that it's my fault that she lost. That I committed the gravest sin by voting for someone I actually liked, instead of someone I did not like.




What a luxurious thing it must be to vote as if you're the only one who matters.
 
What a luxurious thing it must be to vote as if you're the only one who matters.
If I lived in a swing state, I might actually put more thought into my vote. As it is, I live in a red state that only has a handful of electoral votes. My state's votes have never had any bearing on who actually ends of winning the election. When I go to the polls I tend to be much more interested in the local elections than the national ones, because really, my opinion doesn't mean anything at all in the grand scheme of things.
 
If I lived in a swing state, I might actually put more thought into my vote. As it is, I live in a red state that only has a handful of electoral votes. My state's votes have never had any bearing on who actually ends of winning the election. When I go to the polls I tend to be much more interested in the local elections than the national ones, because really, my opinion doesn't mean anything at all in the grand scheme of things.




I'm sure hundreds of thousands of people in your state feel the same way and don't put much thought into their vote either.
 
I'm sure hundreds of thousands of people in your state feel the same way and don't put much thought into their vote either.
It's been my experience that most of them don't even know that third parties are an option.

Just crunching the numbers though: 92,324 people (myself included) voted for third parties in November. Even if ALL of us had voted for Hillary, we wouldn't have won her the election in my state. She still would have been hundreds of thousands of votes behind Trump.
 
It's been my experience that most of them don't even know that third parties are an option.



Just crunching the numbers though: 92,324 people (myself included) voted for third parties in November. Even if ALL of us had voted for Hillary, we wouldn't have won her the election in my state. She still would have been hundreds of thousands of votes behind Trump.



You're right, Kentucky was going to go red no matter what. And I suppose if your interest is in helping third parties voting for them on a presidential level is a way to support them. But if all those third party votes had gone for Hillary, and the state had been closer, and if the KY Democratic Party becomes stronger and it's not such a lock for the GOP, they get weaker.

But we have an existential threat in the Oval Office. I live in a place that went 93% for Hillary, and I still voted even though my vote wasn't going to make any difference at all. Don't think that 3m popular vote victory doesn't matter. It does.

I just don't think of my vote as something rare and precious, or an expression of my identity. It's a tool.

Fwiw I voted for an independent for mayor last time, and he lost. He had been a Republican. A gay, pro-pot Republican. But he seemed necessary to shake up an ossified political structure in this town, even if he was kind of an asshole.
 
You're right, Kentucky was going to go red no matter what. And I suppose if your interest is in helping third parties voting for them on a presidential level is a way to support them. But if all those third party votes had gone for Hillary, and the state had been closer, and if the KY Democratic Party becomes stronger and it's not such a lock for the GOP, they get weaker.
but this is where your logic is flawed: you're assuming those who voted third party give a damn about strengthening the democratic party.

i voted in tennessee and voted third party and just like chass, i don't have any regrets for the same reason. it's getting tiresome for the internet and the media to constantly blame third party voters for somehow preventing hillary from winning when, especially in the deep south, she still would've lost.

you said you think of your vote as a tool. you don't think most of those voting third party consider their vote to be a tool, too? i can't speak for all third party voters, but i know most of the ones i was in contact with knew jill wasn't going to win, but were hoping to increase her (and the party's) visibility and try to get the party closer to that 5% level. that's certainly using your vote as a tool.

to me it shouldn't be the responsibility of a voter to hold their nose and vote for someone, to dumb themselves down and compromise. it should be the responsibility of the politician to compromise with voters. if anyone's gotta reach across the table to try to appease someone, politicians should be trying to compromise with voters to gain their approval. i'm not saying that's what does happen, but that's how i look at things politically.
 
i can't speak for all third party voters, but i know most of the ones i was in contact with knew jill wasn't going to win, but were hoping to increase her (and the party's) visibility and try to get the party closer to that 5% level. that's certainly using your vote as a tool.

Exactly this.


Also the fact that I'm not actually a democrat, so why should I be obligated to vote for the democratic candidate?
 
I don't have time to respond thoroughly, but it comes down to, 1) do everything you can to prevent Trump regardless of state, which means voting for HRC even in KY or TN, and 2) no, a politician doesn't have to please you and "win" your vote, I find that so cheesey and naive and kind of narcissistic. It's not about you; you have a choice between two candidates. These parties are very different. If you want to participate (and thus complain with any credibility), then you must make a choice.

I do agree that the EC and the deep red or deep blue states do complicate these things, but I don't think the logic itself is flawed. It just may need to be refined based on location.

However, again, we were faced with Donald fucking Trump. I wish I had gone to PA and knocked on doors. But voting for Hillary, even though my city went 93% for her, was still something I could do because my one vote still adds to the totality of her popular vote margin. And that helps us attack the legitimacy of Trump, and it should embolden Democrats to further stand up to him because the people are on their side.

That was quick, and I'm sure I could be more artful, but I have some delicious Kentucky bought whiskey to attend to.
 
So you're saying I'm a narcissist for not voting for Hillary? Would I be more or less of a narcissist if I had chosen not to vote at all? Do you believe that I shouldn't have the right to abstain?
 
but this is where your logic is flawed: you're assuming those who voted third party give a damn about strengthening the democratic party.



i voted in tennessee and voted third party and just like chass, i don't have any regrets for the same reason. it's getting tiresome for the internet and the media to constantly blame third party voters for somehow preventing hillary from winning when, especially in the deep south, she still would've lost.



you said you think of your vote as a tool. you don't think most of those voting third party consider their vote to be a tool, too? i can't speak for all third party voters, but i know most of the ones i was in contact with knew jill wasn't going to win, but were hoping to increase her (and the party's) visibility and try to get the party closer to that 5% level. that's certainly using your vote as a tool.



to me it shouldn't be the responsibility of a voter to hold their nose and vote for someone, to dumb themselves down and compromise. it should be the responsibility of the politician to compromise with voters. if anyone's gotta reach across the table to try to appease someone, politicians should be trying to compromise with voters to gain their approval. i'm not saying that's what does happen, but that's how i look at things politically.



I completely agree. If this were any other election.

To me this election was not about R, D, or a third party, this was about trying to prevent the worst tragedy my generation has ever seen happen to this country that I love.
 
I completely agree. If this were any other election.

To me this election was not about R, D, or a third party, this was about trying to prevent the worst tragedy my generation has ever seen happen to this country that I love.
This times a million.

Was Hillary my personal most ideal candidate? No. Was I in a lock blue state? Yes.

In years past I've defended the "protest vote" of going third party. I openly plead for a new system that isn't locked into Dems vs Republicans.

In this election, the most important thing to do was to prevent Trump from taking office. Period. Even if you thought Hillary wasn't a good candidate, only a moron, someone who's horribly misinformed, or someone so ideologicaly blind that they might as well be a moron could see her as "the same as Trump."

The third party vote did have a major effect in putting him in office. The percentages bare that out.
 
As much as I'd love to rehash the election for the zillionth time, it appears there is a civil war going on in the administration. The white nationalists are angry about Syria and calling for Kushner to be fired. Check out the #FireKushner topic to see the anti-Semitism at work. The establishment are trending #FireBannon. Frankly I'm team #Firethemall.
 
I just hope that those on the left can come together in a stronger way in the future, and not feel that our candidate is somehow evil if they don't fit exactly every idea we think they should.

I reckon this is a bit simplistic, the 'left' isn't this one mass, many of us ('us' as in those of a similar political persuasion) do not share the same goals as you/the Democrats and we never will. For the same reason, we oppose(d) Clinton not because we deem her 'imperfect' or whatever, but because we're against her full stop. There is an important distinction to be made here. This would be on much the same plane as me opposing Malcolm Turnbull in Australia.
 
Exactly this.


Also the fact that I'm not actually a democrat, so why should I be obligated to vote for the democratic candidate?

well, we do that in France all the time - socialists voted en masse for a conservative in the second round 2002 to keep out the extreme right, and this has been ongoing in regional elections over the years - it's all about the bigger picture

otherwise you're complicit

we have 2 voting rounds here so that helps - you have one, so don't fuck it up (oh too late)

eta: am hearing some French people threatening to do a blank vote in the upcoming elections as a protest, but sadly those votes aren't counted and are pretty much wasted votes when a country is up against a very real threat which would have catastrophic consequences

a French friend told me, "in the first round we vote with our hearts, and in the second round we vote with our heads" - hoping this stays true here this time round too (but clearly, when you only have one round, and things are looking critical, for godssakes vote with your heads)
 
Last edited:
Also, there's the sideshow that Trump and Putin could have conspired to take heat of the election investigation by staging these strikes, the US contacted Russia and told them prior to the strike and it does seem very "staged" etc.

There's really nothing suspicious there, and Obama or Clinton would've done the same had they been in the situation of carrying out strikes against Assad's military facilities. Russian troops and advisors are all over the country, so are Iranian. The US isn't going to take the risk of killing a Russian soldier, let alone officer. Since Russia started actively supporting Assad in September 2015, the US and Russia closely coordinated with each other to prevent any air collisions or accidental bombardements of each other's ground forces (American special forces, as well as British, have been deployed in parts of the south and north since 2014).

The more interesting thing in this case was that the Russians quietly moved out of the area, not warning any of their Syrian counterparts at the airfield. That is seen by some analysts as Putin's way of sending a message to Assad, that also he didn't approve of the chemical weapons attack. Which isn't unlikely, seeing as Russia back in 2013, after the initial Sarin gas attacks on the East Ghouta, sort of vouched for Assad giving up all his chemical weapons, which ultimately gave the Obama administration the much welcome excuse not to strike against Assad. It didn't matter that Assad used chlorine gas multiple times, usually adding it to the barrel bombs, because chlorine by itself is not listed as a chemical weapons agent, and only if explicitly used as such it becomes a chemical weapons. But these incidences went largely ignored, even after UN investigations officially concluded culpability on Assad's part. But now Assad apparently used Sarin or a similar agent again, despite claiming he had given up his entire stock.

The investigation into whether Russia aided, or at least condoned, the attack initially will thus prove interesting. It's hard to imagine no Russian soldier took notice of the Syrian MiGs getting fitted with the rockets bearing the chemical agents.
 
Im not sure this is true. Non-voters were the factor. Nothing suggests third party voters had any impact on the results of this election.
Oh. No? We can agree that most Stein or Johnson voters above their normal baseline would otherwise vote Democratic, yea?

Hmm...



Michigan 2012 - 3rd party candidates accounted for 1% of vote

Michigan 2016 - 3rd party candidates accounted for 6% of vote.

Trump wins state by .3%



Wisconsin 2012 - 3rd party candidates account for 1% of vote

Wisconsin 2016 - 3rd party candidates account for 5.3% of vote

Trump wins state by 1%



Pennsylvania 2012 - 3rd party candidates account for 1.5% of vote

Pennsylvania 2016 - 3rd party candidates account for 3.6% of vote

Trump wins state by 1.2%
 
The thing I don't understand about voting third party this election, other than the aforementioned national disaster of a Trump presidency, is that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were, as objectively as I can look at it, terrible candidates. Jill Stein has a clearly demonstrated lack of knowledge of the kinds of things we want presidents to be knowledgeable about, and her level of political experience and skill isn't much higher than Trump's.

Gary Johnson at least has governing experience, but he has certainly had some glaring knowledge gaps and his policy positions didn't stand up to the barest of scrutiny.
 
flynn.jpg
 
Oh. No? We can agree that most Stein or Johnson voters above their normal baseline would otherwise vote Democratic, yea?

I don't think that's true of Johnson voters. Every Libertarian I've ever met (and I've met quite a few of them for reasons I won't go into here) primarily want tax cuts and unrestricted business policies. They are much more likely to lean Republican than Democrat IMO.
 
Oh. No? We can agree that most Stein or Johnson voters above their normal baseline would otherwise vote Democratic, yea?

No, we can't agree on that at all. Stein voters should be blue, 100%, yes. Johnson voters would normally be majority ashamed red voters (probably 80-20) who refuse to vote for the strange social policy of the right. In this election, I could see how maybe it's 50-50, at best. I've met some people who are left leaning libertarian-esque. In fact, the ideology more accurately aligns with the left. But the voter base absolutely does not.

I'm just thinking of some examples here. My roommate for the last two years was a Republican. He was a Florida Gary Johnson vote this year. My Michiganese friend has Republican parents. I've been to his house in Michigan. Met his parents. His dad is a radio show host for a conservative radio channel. He voted Trump. His wife voted Johnson, because she couldn't stomach Trump. My brother-in-law and his whole family are Republicans through and through. Their house was divided this election cycle, Trump-Johnson.

These are just some examples. Not enough to paint a picture of the whole nation. But, I can't think of anyone who was a Democrat voting Libertarian. I can't think of them because the primary purpose for voting Libertarian, should you not actually align with those views, is because you can't find a candidate on the right who is socially acceptable.

Hmm...



Michigan 2012 - 3rd party candidates accounted for 1% of vote

Michigan 2016 - 3rd party candidates accounted for 6% of vote.

Trump wins state by .3%



Wisconsin 2012 - 3rd party candidates account for 1% of vote

Wisconsin 2016 - 3rd party candidates account for 5.3% of vote

Trump wins state by 1%



Pennsylvania 2012 - 3rd party candidates account for 1.5% of vote

Pennsylvania 2016 - 3rd party candidates account for 3.6% of vote

Trump wins state by 1.2%

Ignoring the fact that Gary Johnson supporters are 50-50, at absolute best (which probably isn't even true), the bottom line is voters, Democrats in specific, failed to show up.


Wisconsin

Wisconsin Total, 2012: 3,068,000
Wisconsin dem, 2012: 1,621,000
Wisconsin 3rd party, 2012: 40,000

Wisconsin Total, 2016: 2,976,000
Wisconsin dem, 2016: 1,382,000
Wisconsin 3rd party, 2016: 100,000

Change in voter turnout: -3%
Dem voters lost: 239,000
3rd party voters gained: 60,000

3% of the Wisconsin voting age population is ~130,000 voters that didn't show up versus the last election. You're shocked at the 60,000 voters that shifted to 3rd parties. Just as a scenario, if all 100,000 voters who went third party voted Democrat, while Clinton would have won, a whopping 139,000 democrat voters are still missing from 2012. Either that, or they voted for Trump. 139,000 is over two times greater than the amount of voters who shifted for a third party. Conclusion? Far more Democrat votes simply stayed home or went Trump than the amount who opted to vote 3rd party. And again, that's the ideal case assuming that every single third party voter was drawn from the Clinton camp. Your theory that 3rd party voters shifted this state's election more non-voters is bad, and the 3rd party stockpile of votes conveniently fills the gap and is a scapegoat argument.


Michigan

Michigan Total, 2012: 4,731,000
Michigan dem, 2012: 2,565,000
Michigan 3rd party, 2012: 51,000

Michigan Total, 2016: 4,799,000
Michigan dem, 2016: 2,269,000
Michigan 3rd party, 2016: 251,000

Change in voter turnout: N/A, estimated to be roughly +/- 0% and around 63-64% overall turnout
Dem voters lost: 296,000
3rd party voters gained: 200,000

Gary Johnson wasn't even on the ballot in 2012. The Republicans gained some 160,000 votes between these two elections, whereas the Democrats lost nearly twice that. Sure, if 'some' third party voters went to the Clinton camp instead of voting for a 3rd party candidate, Clinton would have won. We again can agree on that oversimplification. But when you actually take into consideration that at most you can only split the Gary Johnson camp, to roughly 50-50 red and blue, you're left with some ~196,000 voters that stayed home or voted for Trump, while some 51,000 Jill Stein voters should be ashamed at themselves for not even being the size of the gap in this particular election. Again, conclusion here? Yes, on paper, third party voters represent the gap in volume of votes. In reality, the amount of voters who went blue in 2012 drastically decreased.

In fact, had Michigan's third party voters been distributed evenly across their respective political ideologies, and Jill Stein's voters thrown the election to Clinton... the gap would be roughly 10,000-20,000 votes. That leaves another 96,000 missing votes, or between 5 to 10 times more blue votes that stayed home or voted red. So, these voters had far more of a share in the result than third party voters.

Pennsylvania is a totally different story. I don't know why I even got so into this, but I hardly wish to re-dissect Pennsylvania. There was a surge in angry red voters, in pair with the same story as Wisconsin and Michigan. If you look into the numbers there, it's easy to say that either Dem voters stayed home, or they abandoned ship for Trump. Probably the latter.
 
Yeah the Libertarians I know tend to vote conservative in the alternative.

Green voters are more of an enigma. The Green platform is actually quite conservative fiscally but liberal socially. My guess is a lot of them wouldn't vote at all.
 
Yeah the Libertarians I know tend to vote conservative in the alternative.


I think it's worth noting as well that, although theoretical libertarianism has both right-leaning (economics) and left-leaning (social issues) components, US libertarianism and the Libertarian Party here tends to emphasize the right-leaning part and be closer to the GOP. There was actually a bit of a battle in the Libertarian Party last year, I believe, because Johnson was basically seen as a pot-smoking Republican by some.

That's part of why, despite some of my libertarian-leaning characteristics (I'm pretty centrist on economics, maybe a tad right of center), I'd have a hard time voting for a Libertarian over a Democrat in pretty much any election (not just presidential, where the choice to choose Clinton to try to beat the buffoon was obvious).
 
Last edited:
Airbase in Syria reopened less than 24 hours after bombings.

That's $60 million dollars well spent right there.

We apparently destroyed a cafeteria, some planes that were already broken, and a classroom.

The runways were left in tact though, as they're easy to fix, or so our dope in chief said on Twitter
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom