2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Make voting obligatory and fine people if they don't? That's what happens in Belgium (not a great example though I admit!)

It's discriminatory towards the most vulnerable, especially in a country as big as the US.

Compelling people to vote when they have odd jobs, are old/disabled, trouble accessing polling location or vote early etc etc...

Automatic voter registration upon turning 18 and online voting is the way to go.
 
It's discriminatory towards the most vulnerable, especially in a country as big as the US.

Compelling people to vote when they have odd jobs, are old/disabled, trouble accessing polling location or vote early etc etc...

That's handled here by being able to allow someone else to vote for you. (It's a form you can get/download and hand to whomever you want voting for you.)
 
That's handled here by being able to allow someone else to vote for you. (It's a form you can get/download and hand to whomever you want voting for you.)

It's also the case here in Australia and works just fine but with the polarized nature of US politics can be grossly abused.
 
And y'all think the GOP cries foul now in regards to voter fraud. They'd be beside themselves with someone registering and voting online or having a form they can give someone to vote by proxy.
 
Extended voting would help a lot. Like 7 days worth. At the very least including 2 weekdays and both weekend days. Too many in low income jobs lose pay or are fearful of losing a job.

Not a fan of online voting. That will never be secure enough. Also, I'd be concerned about the possibility of people's votes been driven by other house members.
 
Tbf, I'd take the 19th century Republican Party over the current one.

At least they weren't driven by white nationalism.
This is true. Late 19th/early 20th progressive movement. TR is my favorite president.

I see this GOP's lineage as not going back to Lincoln, but going back to the Southern Democrats of old.
 
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/07/republican-trump-says-70-percent-of-federal-regulations-can-go.html
U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said as many as 70 percent of federal agency regulations could be eliminated if he is elected in November, just hours after an adviser said the candidate would seek to cut 10 percent.


Trump, who blamed regulations for stifling business, told a crowd at a town hall event in New Hampshire on Thursday night that regulations for the environment and safety would remain.

"We are cutting the regulation at a tremendous clip. I would say 70 percent of regulations can go," Trump said. "It's just stopping businesses from growing."

Earlier in the day during an online discussion with Reuters, Trump campaign adviser Anthony Scaramucci, a Wall Street financier who has raised campaign money for Trump, said Trump would eliminate 10 percent of regulations.

"We need regulation but immediately every agency will be asked to rate the importance of their regulations and we will push to remove 10 percent of the least important," he said.

Another Trump campaign adviser reached by Reuters confirmed the 10 percent regulatory cut was part of their economic plan.

:nervous:
 
He's certainly taking advise from that muppet Nigel. Lie about everything and people will believe it because people are stupid.
This is unfortunately so very true. People can be so damned gullible. It's an old trick to play as well, as evidenced by Goebbels...
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"
 
Where can I place a bet on there not being a third debate? :lol:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-town-hall-debate-prep-229267
The format was nothing like what Trump will face in St Louis, when half the questions will be posed by uncommitted voters, and the candidates will have two minutes to respond to each question as Martha Raddatz of ABC and Anderson Cooper of CNN serve as moderators.

On Thursday night, Howie Carr, a conservative radio host and Trump booster, played the role of moderator, and the crowd was hand-picked by his campaign. The audience didn’t even ask Trump their questions. Carr did so on their behalf. Before the event, Carr had said Trump would take 20 questions. He stayed for about a dozen.

And while Sunday’s debate will stretch for 90 minutes without a bathroom break, Trump bolted from his town hall in Sandown after barely more than one-third of that time.

Trump’s campaign did place a two-minute countdown clock in front of their candidate on Thursday. He repeatedly blew past that time limit anyway.7
 
Havent we seen enough election surprises in recent years to pretty much disregard the polls? For me its not over till its over.

No we haven't actually. Election surprises are pretty rare, especially when statistics are used to analyze who will win.
 
Ha!!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/07/donald-trump-website-gun-policy-platform-nra

Large majorities of both Republicans and Democrats support expanded background checks on private gun sales, including sales at gun shows, Donald Trump boasts on his campaign website.

It’s an odd statistic to find as part of Trump’s second amendment policy platform, since Trump himself opposes expanded background checks on gun sales.

It’s not clear why Trump’s website would tout the broad bipartisan support for a policy he and the National Rifle Association both oppose.

But the inclusion of a pro-gun control talking point in Trump’s policy platform once again raises the question of how well a candidate who once supported an assault weapon banand has fluctuated on almost all of his major policy positions – will deliver on his promised defense of gun rights if he is elected.

On his website, Trump’s “Constitution and Second Amendment” platform notes, regarding background checks, that “we need to fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.”

Then, a little further down the same page, Trump’s platform cites and links toPew Research survey results that found that “85% of the public – including large majorities of both Republicans (79%) and Democrats (88%) – favored making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks. There was also bipartisan support for laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns.”

These statistics would seem like a better fit for the policy platform of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, who actually supports expanding federal background check laws to cover private gun sales, including private sales at gun shows and online.

A campaign spokeswoman did not immediately respond to requests for comment
 
The vast quantities of money about to be poured into ad campaigns in the final stretch. Hillary has $5 million per day at the campaign's disposal for the run-in.

I think it's fair to say that Clinton's ad/video game has been better than Trumps, and if it weren't for the vast army of "deplorables" he has on twitter and reddit, she'd be winning the social media battle outright.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-ad-blitz-battleground-states-229252
 
It's discriminatory towards the most vulnerable, especially in a country as big as the US.

Compelling people to vote when they have odd jobs, are old/disabled, trouble accessing polling location or vote early etc etc...

Automatic voter registration upon turning 18 and online voting is the way to go.

I think Oregon had something like this (automatic registration, predominantly mail-in ballots) in the primaries. I do remember r/S4P was singing its praises since it neutralised her old-people turnout/mail-in advantage and automatic registration+open primary meant there was no imagined fraud (changed registrations/stricken lists) either.


So in reality, 70 is closer than 20 is to 10! He's a Genius. Cap G intentional! Not sad!!!

Nah man, he's the smartest businessman, give him his due. It's a log scale.
log(70)=4.2 and log(20)=3 it's obvious which is closer to 10. He can't reveal this calculation publicly because the IRS is auditing the same calculation in his returns.
 
Maybe. The pollsters were miles off in the last two UK elections and the EU referendum. So Ill take what they say about this one with a pinch of salt.

That's why stats are used to create a probability. An 85% chance of Hillary winning if the election was held today doesn't mean there's a 100% chance she will win - but probabilistically, there's a very high chance she will.
 
Nah man, he's the smartest businessman, give him his due. It's a log scale.
log(70)=4.2 and log(20)=3 it's obvious which is closer to 10. He can't reveal this calculation publicly because the IRS is auditing the same calculation in his returns.

It's (a)sympto(te)matic of his campaign.




Ugh. I hate myself for that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.