2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carolina Red said:
It's one thing to idealistically say "everyone vote independent", but in reality, if Jill Stein won the presidency, how many of her policies would be passed by Congress?

The Green Party is running 5 Senate candidates and 26 House candidates, which is down from by 7 and 64 in 2012.

If every Green candidate running were elected, what Green platform positions would actually come to fruition?
Click to expand...

Also, she's a fecking idiot.
 
fishfingers15 said:
False equivalency is rampant nowadays
Click to expand...
It's only a false equivalency if you say that they're as bad as each other in every sense. They're not. But I can understand the root of that feeling, because on some issues there is virtually no difference. Take Israel as an example. One after one, each candidate (Republican and Democrat) cowered themselves in front of the Israeli lobby and promised them that they'd move heaven and earth for Israel if they were elected. That's a genuine perversion of democracy.
 
Carolina Red said:
It's one thing to idealistically say "everyone vote independent", but in reality, if Jill Stein won the presidency, how many of her policies would be passed by Congress?

The Green Party is running 5 Senate candidates and 26 House candidates, which is down from by 7 and 64 in 2012.

If every Green candidate running were elected, what Green platform positions would actually come to fruition?
Click to expand...

Jill Stein and Gary Johnson also benefit significantly from the lack of scrunity on their policies.
 
Raoul said:
Again that's simply not how it works, at least not in the States. You have two parties that are in competition - no one else has a chance to win
Click to expand...
I brought that up in my original response to him... First past the post + winner take all. He's yet to acknowledge it.
 
What's the fecking point in bringing Obama's half-brother? He's not debating Obama. The man is inept at anything. I presume he thinks that will somehow windup Hillary, as if.

So ready for this entire charade to be over. Roll on 9 November.
 
MrMarcello said:
What's the fecking point in bringing Obama's half-brother? He's not debating Obama. The man is inept at anything. I presume he thinks that will somehow windup Hillary, as if.

So ready for this entire charade to be over. Roll on 9 November.
Click to expand...
Trump brings Obama's half-brother. Hillary brings these two...
Meg Whitman, the Hewlett-Packard CEO and former Republican California gubernatorial candidate, and Mark Cuban, the outspoken billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks, will both be Clinton's guests at Wednesday's third and final presidential debate.
Click to expand...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/polit...bate-guests-mark-cuban-meg-whitman/index.html
 
George Owen said:
i have already, but i won't keep repeating myself!

I definitely need to find a different way to reach this kids...
Click to expand...

You haven't addressed the points - you've merely posted a South Park YouTube vid and dismissed people who disagree with you as kids.
 
Raoul said:
You haven't addressed the points - you've merely posted a South Park YouTube vid and dismissed people who disagree with you as kids.
Click to expand...

I already said that a vote for Stein or any other independent candidate, is not a wasted vote. Sure, she/he may not win, but at least you are being truthful to yourself and sending the right message to the establishment. "if you keep destroying this country, we gonna elect someone new soon enough".

if you keep voting for the same people because only they have a chance to win... well... that's pathetic. Fanboyism at its best and clearly the wrong message.

ps. in my country (thanks to uncle Sam lol) elections are also won always by the same 2 big conglomerates. And people here is exactly like in the US, divided by "communists vs fascists". Its surreal almost. Poor people really.
 
George Owen said:
I already said that a vote for Stein or any other independent candidate, is not a wasted vote. Sure, she/he may not win, but at least you are being truthful to yourself and sending the right message to the establishment. "if you keep destroying this country, we gonna elect someone new soon enough".

if you keep voting for the same people because only they have a chance to win... well... that's pathetic. Fanboyism at its best and clearly the wrong message.

ps. in my country (thanks to uncle Sam lol) elections are also won always by the same 2 big conglomerates. And people here is exactly like in the US, divided by "communists vs fascists". Its surreal almost. Poor people really.
Click to expand...
Do you know when the last time a major party emerged in the US out of the political wilderness and displaced an "establishment party was?
 
A better start would be to document the sameness on a point by point basis. Some does exist, but not much. The only clear parallel is that they're all funded by corporate money, but often to widely different ends.

Carolina Red said:
Do you know when the last time a major party emerged in the US out of the political wilderness and displaced an "establishment party was?
Click to expand...
Whig?
 
Carolina Red said:
Do you know when the last time a major party emerged in the US out of the political wilderness and displaced an "establishment party was?
Click to expand...

No idea. I know the last great people's president was assassinated.

Anyway, there is always a first time for everything. If Bernie Sanders would have been truthful to his ideals, and had ran as an independent, he could very well just edge it in the end. (he probably didn't wanted to end like JFK though, the old coward)

I don't think is far from happening if things keep going the way they are. We need more positive thinking instead of playing into the hands of the establishment.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Whig?
Click to expand...
You got it.
George Owen said:
No idea. I know the last great people's president was assassinated.

Anyway, there is always a first time for everything. If Bernie Sanders would have been truthful to his ideals, and had ran as an independent, he could very well just edge it in the end. (he probably didn't wanted to end like JFK though, the old coward)

I don't think is far from happening if things keep going the way they are. We need more positive thinking instead of playing into the hands of the establishment.
Click to expand...
The answer, as you see above, is when the Whig Party disintegrated over the issue of slavery and was replaced by the Republican Party... This was 1856-1860.

The only thing that will bring about the emergence of a new party right now is if the GOP splinters over Trump/TEA Party/Mainline Republican quarrels.

And if that did happen, we would still be left with a 2 party "establishment" system, because that's what first past the post, winner take all leads to. It is inevitable.
 
Carolina Red said:
You got it.

The answer, as you see above, is when the Whig Party disintegrated over the issue of slavery and was replaced by the Republican Party... This was 1856-1860.

The only thing that will bring about the emergence of a new party right now is if the GOP splinters over Trump/TEA Party/Mainline Republican quarrels.

And if that did happen, we would still be left with a 2 party "establishment" system, because that's what first past the post, winner take all leads to. It is inevitable.
Click to expand...

Obviously a party conformed by ex republicans or ex democrats is the same thing. A change of name means nothing.

That's a classic tactic. Whenever the credibility of the party goes to zero, adsijfidjs, change of name, change of corporate colors, and good to go again. People is fast to forget.

But I'm talking about the new small parties born outside of the establishment hatchery. If only 1 of 3 Americans voted independent... for you sound impossible, but we'll see. People is fast becoming more aware of the reality... 4-8 years from now... who knows.

If by the end of Hillary's term, inequality levels keep rising and jobs keeps getting worse, please promise me you will vote independent and try to convince your friends and family to do the same.
 
George Owen said:
No idea. I know the last great people's president was assassinated.

Anyway, there is always a first time for everything. If Bernie Sanders would have been truthful to his ideals, and had ran as an independent, he could very well just edge it in the end. (he probably didn't wanted to end like JFK though, the old coward)

I don't think is far from happening if things keep going the way they are. We need more positive thinking instead of playing into the hands of the establishment.
Click to expand...

What do you think made JFK the people's President?
 
George Owen said:
Obviously a party conformed by ex republicans or ex democrats is the same thing. A change of name means nothing.

That's a classic tactic. Whenever the credibility of the party goes to zero, adsijfidjs, change of name, change of corporate colors, and good to go again. People is fast to forget.

But I'm talking about the new small parties born outside of the establishment hatchery. If only 1 of 3 Americans voted independent... for you sound impossible, but we'll see. People is fast becoming more aware of the reality... 4-8 years from now... who knows.

If by the end of Hillary's term, inequality levels keep rising and jobs keeps getting worse, please promise me you will vote independent and try to convince your friends and family to do the same.
Click to expand...

Its already been addressed. Voting for a third party only puts a Republican in office. The correct approach is to get involved with Dem party politics and to push you preferred policy positions, just as Bernie Sanders did.
 
George Owen said:
Obviously a party conformed by ex republicans or ex democrats is the same thing. A change of name means nothing.

That's a classic tactic. Whenever the credibility of the party goes to zero, adsijfidjs, change of name, change of corporate colors, and good to go again. People is fast to forget.

But I'm talking about the new small parties born outside of the establishment hatchery. If only 1 of 3 Americans voted independent... for you sound impossible, but we'll see. People is fast becoming more aware of the reality... 4-8 years from now... who knows.

If by the end of Hillary's term, inequality levels keep rising and jobs keeps getting worse, please promise me you will vote independent and try to convince your friends and family to do the same.
Click to expand...
1) Your characterization of the birth of the GOP leaves out the fact that it was formed out of an amalgamation of Free Soil Party, "Conscious" Whig Party, "Free" Democratic Party, and Know Nothing Party supporters. You're right though, some do seem to forget.

2) I voted for Bernie Sanders. He lost. Therefore I am voting for the party that has adopted many of the policy positions that drove me to vote for Sanders in the first place. Why? Because that's how policy comes to fruition in a country whose model of voting guarantees a two party system.

Raoul said:
The correct approach is to get involved with Dem party politics and to push you preferred policy positions, just as Bernie Sanders did.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Grinner said:
What do you think made JFK the people's President?
Click to expand...

well, he wanted to end the Vietnam war and bring home all those soldiers that now are fecked up and with PTSD.

that's quite pro people, pro peace, and quite anti-establishment.

Raoul said:
Its already been addressed. Voting for a third party only puts a Republican in office. The correct approach is to get involved with Dem party politics and to push you preferred policy positions, just as Bernie Sanders did.
Click to expand...

maybe!!! but that is just as bad as a democrat in power... that's why i say, maybe in 8 years....

in 4 years, clearly the democrats will loose (unless Hillary pulls a miracle, not happening), so yeah, Maybe the republicans wins the next one...

but what about the next one? After failed democrats and a failed republican period, maybe maybe, people will be a little bit more intelligent and go for the Independent. Its a long shot, but its possible.
 
George Owen said:
well, he wanted to end the Vietnam war and bring home all those soldiers that now are fecked up and with PTSD.
Click to expand...
This is a fallacy that is often repeated. JFK wanted victory in Vietnam -- if the ending the war meant victory... well, just fast forward to Nixon to see how costly that strategy proved for two successive presidents and thousands of soldiers.

And millions of civilians, of course. Also, JFK pretty much started the conflict in its actual form.
 
George Owen said:
well, he wanted to end the Vietnam war and bring home all those soldiers that now are fecked up and with PTSD.

that's quite pro people, pro peace, and quite anti-establishment.



maybe!!! but that is just as bad as a democrat in power... that's why i say, maybe in 8 years....

in 4 years, clearly the democrats will loose (unless Hillary pulls a miracle, not happening), so yeah, Maybe the republicans wins the next one...

but what about the next one? After failed democrats and a failed republican period, maybe maybe, people will be a little bit more intelligent and go for the Independent. Its a long shot, but its possible.
Click to expand...

Please, it's not even close.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
This is a fallacy that is often repeated. JFK wanted victory in Vietnam -- if the ending the war meant victory... well, just fast forward to Nixon to see how costly that strategy proved for two successive presidents and thousands of soldiers.

And millions of civilians, of course. Also, JFK pretty much started the conflict in its actual form.
Click to expand...

I'd direct you to a great book by James Douglass called JFK and the Unspeakable, which convincingly argues that your belief is incorrect.

Vietnam began in the post-war era with the French and Eisenhower.
 
fishfingers15 said:
Please, it's not even close.
Click to expand...

i don't know about that. Did you really feel a difference between the bush administration, the Bill Clinton one, Obama's????

Is people happier now after 8 years of Obama? did mental illness levels go down with Obama? Social inequality did go down with Obama? is the USA not fighting any wars for bullshit reasons under Obama? have they stopped dealing with the Israel genocides? Is black people being less targeted this days?

you talk about differences, but i don't see them.
 
Grinner said:
I'd direct you to a great book by James Douglass called JFK and the Unspeakable, which convincingly argues that your belief is incorrect.

Vietnam began in the post-war era with the French and Eisenhower.
Click to expand...
Definitely, it did (the genesis was post-war and French withdrawal). But JFK escalated the conflict (covert ops, sending troops in). That's a matter of historical record.
 
George Owen said:
Voting for her is not a wasted vote ffs.Voting for her means you are tired and sick of the establishment. Means you want change.

the more people vote independent, the more people gonna follow the next time around.

I'm tired of repeating myself...

If the democrats and Republicans keep getting all the votes, it means (for them), that they are doing a good job. it means they are being rectified as the political forces chosen by the American people to bring them forward (or backwards). Its such a dangerous thing.

All that people voting for Trump or Hillary, just to prevent the other to win, are doing a huge damage to democracy in the USA. Such a wrong reason to vote.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. If Democrats and Republicans keep getting all the votes of the electorate, regardless of the job they are doing when in office, what is the need for them to govern well? They know they'll anyway get the votes of the people, since it's a two party system. The Republicans and Democrats will continue to be dictated by the special interests, lobbyists and big corporations. The lobbyists and special interests want it to remain a two party system as it's easier to control the congressmen, political parties and the bills that get discussed and passed in Congress. They do not want a multi party system at all, as that will lead to more ideas and inability to have a very strong influence on the political process.

Also, a parliamentary multi party form of democracy like the UK leads to coalitions to form the government. More than one political party being in government leads to lesser influence by vested interests. Voting for the Democrats and Republicans, even if they are doing a bad job, is dangerous and legitimizes the work they are doing. If more and more people vote third party, it will cause the two main parties to buck up and listen to the needs of the people. It is with a clear conscience that I will be voting for Jill Stein. She is the progressive voice that the people need.
 
Last edited:
Nikhil said:
I agree with you 100%. If Democrats and Republicans keep getting all the votes of the electorate, regardless of the job they are doing when in office, what is the need for them to govern well? They know they'll anyway get the votes of the people, since it's a two party system. The Republicans and Democrats will continue to be dictated by the special interests, lobbyists and big corporations. The lobbyists and special interests want it to remain a two party system as it's easier to control the congressmen, political parties and the bills that get discussed and passed in Congress. They do not want a multi party system at all, as that will lead to more ideas and inability to have a very strong influence on the political process.

Also, a parliamentary multi party form of democracy like the UK leads to coalition to form the government. More than one political party being in government leads to lesser influence by vested interests. Voting for the Democrats and Republicans, even if they are doing a bad job, is dangerous and legitimizes the work they are doing. If more and more people vote third party, it will cause the two main parties to buck up and listen to the needs of the people. It is with a clear conscious that I will be voting for Jill Stein. She is the progressive voice that the people need.
Click to expand...

Because not governing well will result in the opposition getting elected ?

Stein is an irrelevant non-issue. She will disappear after the election, never to be seen or heard from again.
 
Nikhil said:
I agree with you 100%. If Democrats and Republicans keep getting all the votes of the electorate, regardless of the job they are doing when in office, what is the need for them to govern well? They know they'll anyway get the votes of the people, since it's a two party system. The Republicans and Democrats will continue to be dictated by the special interests, lobbyists and big corporations. The lobbyists and special interests want it to remain a two party system as it's easier to control the congressmen, political parties and the bills that get discussed and passed in Congress. They do not want a multi party system at all, as that will lead to more ideas and inability to have a very strong influence on the political process.

Also, a parliamentary multi party form of democracy like the UK leads to coalition to form the government. More than one political party being in government leads to lesser influence by vested interests. Voting for the Democrats and Republicans, even if they are doing a bad job, is dangerous and legitimizes the work they are doing. If more and more people vote third party, it will cause the two main parties to buck up and listen to the needs of the people. It is with a clear conscious that I will be voting for Jill Stein. She is the progressive voice that the people need.
Click to expand...

Can you vote in the US? I definitely can't.
 
Nikhil said:
a parliamentary multi party form of democracy like the UK leads to coalition to form the government. More than one political party being in government leads to lesser influence by vested interests
Click to expand...
But we don't have that type of system and it would take massive constitutional changes to affect that.

There are obviously better systems than first past the post/winner take all, but we don't have that in this country.

The system was created for government without parties at all. As it stands, it can support 2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.