• Donald Trump now beats Hillary Clinton one suspect poll
    102 replies, posted
RIP America
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50245557]I really don't believe so many individuals, groups, and institutions would have invested so much money into a candidate who was going to be "inevitably" indicted.[/QUOTE] And giant banks saw the recession coming but continued to pile money into the same things that would cause the 2008 recession so clearly moneyed minds can and do make large mistakes.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50245519]You can indict a ham sandwich, and she's been investigated for months I doubt that they'll have nothing to show after that long.[/QUOTE] They've done an excellent job at not letting it be known where the investigation is or what has been found so far, however it's been said that much of the FBI including many of those in higher positions plan on straight up leaving if they bring an indictment forward and for political reasons it ends up falling on deaf ears without a trial even being had.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50245519]You can indict a ham sandwich,[/QUOTE] I got to know if this ever happened.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50245257]Hillary though doesn't help her case, what with brushing off Bernie supporters, corruption, terrible judgement, and now accusations of money laundering. Lest we forget that she could get indicted the second the general rolls around, and probably will.[/QUOTE] "Probably" is a bit optimistic lol
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50245757]And giant banks saw the recession coming but continued to pile money into the same things that would cause the 2008 recession so clearly moneyed minds can and do make large mistakes.[/QUOTE] It's sort of worse than that, some of the banks saw it coming and tried to buy up the credit default swaps so they could insure themselves, some of the banks didn't see it coming and failed, some saw it far off and didn't care because they already knew they would get a bailout The big short is really great, they actually say which parts were exaggerated Now have the regulations that Hillary is so fond of touting kept these banks from doing shady shit? Lol no, they took their bailouts and 0 interest loans and went on a spending binge, buying up whatever they could and now they're even bigger and only maybe more stable
Hilary has way too much sludge to be a president. Either trump or cruz will exploit her on all fronts when it comes to her past. She does not stand a chance against the biggest shit talkers in the campaign trail All the GOP has on sanders is really his democratic socialist stance and bring some red communist fear rhetoric but unfortunely it's looking less and less in his favour
[QUOTE=Vitalogy;50246283]They've done an excellent job at not letting it be known where the investigation is or what has been found so far, however it's been said that much of the FBI including many of those in higher positions plan on straight up leaving if they bring an indictment forward and for political reasons it ends up falling on deaf ears without a trial even being had.[/QUOTE] Wait, why is this?
sometimes i wonder, well what's fascinating is that if you hate clinton and trump, then instead of voting trump to spite hillary because sanders lost, why not vote for one of the green parties, libertarians, socialists (or pretty much anyone who isnt a republicrat) instead? you know, the ones that actually might represent your views a lot better than either clinton or trump?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50247390]sometimes i wonder, well what's fascinating is that if you hate clinton and trump, then instead of voting trump to spite hillary because sanders lost, why not vote for one of the green parties, libertarians, socialists (or pretty much anyone who isnt a republicrat) instead? you know, the ones that actually might represent your views a lot better than either clinton or trump?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70"]"Go ahead, throw your vote away!"[/URL]
[QUOTE=Reshy;50243970]See, that's the thing. Bernie brings it up as politely as he can, Trump will blare it 24/7 and all the news sites will report on it simply because it's Donald Trump. Hillary hasn't really gone up against someone with a similar amount of media exposure, much less someone with more of it.[/QUOTE] This was probably Bernie's downfall TBH You can't be a good person in politics.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50247390]sometimes i wonder, well what's fascinating is that if you hate clinton and trump, then instead of voting trump to spite hillary because sanders lost, why not vote for one of the green parties, libertarians, socialists (or pretty much anyone who isnt a republicrat) instead? you know, the ones that actually might represent your views a lot better than either clinton or trump?[/QUOTE]I can understand to some extent that the particulars of the US voting system, and the overwhelmingly strong rhetoric, of a third-party vote being a wasted one make it an unappealing choice; particularly if one wishes to ensure the candidate they hate the least gets elected. That being said, third-party candidate viability is never going to improve in the US unless people pull out of this self-defeating cycle, even if it means for a few elections their votes are seen as "wasted".
Democrat turnout is shit this election season, along with democrats being a historically fickle group of voters (if its raining, Democrats are much less likely to turnout to vote), and many are disillusioned with the campaign process. The Republican party is rallying after eight years of a democratic presidency, Trump is a vicious attacker likely against a complete dirty and scummy Clinton, and Trump gets people mobilized. That's the problem and why Trump is likely to take this.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50247558]Democrat turnout is shit this election season, along with democrats being a historically fickle group of voters (if its raining, Democrats are much less likely to turnout to vote), and many are disillusioned with the campaign process. The Republican party is rallying after eight years of a democratic presidency, Trump is a vicious attacker likely against a complete dirty and scummy Clinton, and Trump gets people mobilized. That's the problem and why Trump is likely to take this.[/QUOTE] [url=http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/]Primary turnout has little correlation with general election turnout.[/url]
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50247558]Democrat turnout is shit this election season, along with democrats being a historically fickle group of voters (if its raining, Democrats are much less likely to turnout to vote), and many are disillusioned with the campaign process. The Republican party is rallying after eight years of a democratic presidency, Trump is a vicious attacker likely against a complete dirty and scummy Clinton, and Trump gets people mobilized. That's the problem and why Trump is likely to take this.[/QUOTE] I only have my anicdotal evidence, but seeing as how Trump is looking to be the nominee, I can garentee a lot of the mildly to moderate conservatives who were responsible for gw bush will stay home. They won't vote Clinton, but they also won't vote Trump. All I'm saying is that I'm seeing very bad apathy on the Republican side, and I think Trump's favorability rating reflects that, while Clinton's is substantially higher, I think Trump's unfavorability on the right will also drive the left to come out even if they don't all like Clinton either
Favorability doesn't matter, its about mobility of voters. Republicans are notoriously more inclined to vote than Democrats. Assuming an even split of the population for both parties, if 75% of the democrats favor Clinton but only 50% vote, where as of Republicans 50% favor Trump but 80% of those vote, Trump has more votes. People keep going back to "Favorability" but it doesn't actually mean anything.
[QUOTE=winsanity;50243697]And Trump has? If Trump is representative of the average american, Bernie never stood a chance.[/QUOTE] more representative of the average american than a career politician with no grasp of economics or american culture who constantly harps on little things and refuses to see the big picture.
[QUOTE=butre;50248004]more representative of the average american than a career politician with no grasp of economics or american culture who constantly harps on little things and refuses to see the big picture.[/QUOTE] Lmao, did you have a freudian slip halfway through that post or something and start describing Trump?
*in one poll by a polling company with large Republican bias
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;50247548]I can understand to some extent that the particulars of the US voting system, and the overwhelmingly strong rhetoric, of a third-party vote being a wasted one make it an unappealing choice; particularly if one wishes to ensure the candidate they hate the least gets elected. That being said, third-party candidate viability is never going to improve in the US unless people pull out of this self-defeating cycle, even if it means for a few elections their votes are seen as "wasted".[/QUOTE] Historically, the system we have in the US has always led to a two-party system, and periods where more than two parties have been popular have been extremely short. It's a vicious cycle where anytime a third party starts to gain significant favor with the public, it is often perceived to have contributed to the loss of the more popular, similar candidate and it quickly falls out of favor again because people who voted for it before don't want to make the same mistake and split the vote again. The two parties in power haven't really changed since before the Civil War. The notable exception being when Theodore Roosevelt won second place in 1912 with his Progressive Party, which began to disintegrate after the election. The unfortunate reality is that this mindset the system creates where nobody wants to support alternative parties may very well be undefeatable. The inherit risk in having the "greater of two evils" elected is enough to keep third-party support to a minimum, and it's unreasonable to expect one side to just grin and bear it for a few elections to break the cycle. The eventual outcome of, say, the liberal vote being split among the Democrats and the Green Party is that one will eventually have to come on top because two major liberal parties existing concurrently with one conservative party gives the conservatives a massive advantage and will likely sweep every election until one liberal party absorbs the other because, otherwise, they just cannibalize each other's votes and nobody in either party gets anything they want. Even if it ends up with the more progressive Green Party taking over, it still defaults to a two-party system in the end. In the event of a four-way split, the twelfth amendment of the Constitution dictates that if no candidate receives the [I]majority[/I] (more than 50%) of electoral votes, then the U.S. House of Representatives gets to elect the President themselves, creating an even more undemocratic situation. A four-way split with Trump, Cruz, Sanders, and Clinton running at the same time isn't very likely anyway, because Sanders has said that he won't run if he isn't nominated for fear of splitting the vote. In the future, it may be possible for a four-party system to emerge if one right-wing and one left-wing party gain huge amounts of popularity at the same time, but such a system would be volatile, and likely result in House-decided elections. It would only be a matter of time before such a system would crumble because people are going to start jumping ship in order to gain numbers against their ideological opposites and it's impossible to prevent people from doing this. The system sucks and I don't like not being able to vote for who I would [I]really[/I] want to win, but it's just not logically feasible for three- or four-party systems to exist. They're unstable, like those fancy elements all the way at the end of the periodic table, and vanish quickly. The better message to send, rather than "Vote Third-Party!" would be to [I]change the system[/I]. I guarantee that capitalizing on the frustrations of Americans with the voting system in order to start a movement to change the system itself would be a more fruitful effort with more long-lasting consequences than trying to get people to vote Libertarian or something. [editline]I'm literally just putting this in here to make the post easier to read[/editline] The amount of Sanders supporters on this site who wouldn't vote for Clinton if she was nominated is troubling. It's an unusually high amount. A vote for a third-party candidate if Clinton wins the nomination would be in vain. The reasoning that you can't justify voting for her because she doesn't meet all of your wants or needs as a candidate, or you would be ashamed to vote for her, or you can only take pride in voting for the candidate most similar to you, is, well, vain. If you are a Bernie Sanders supporter, and you think, after reviewing each candidate's policies, history, and character, that Clinton would be any better than Trump or Cruz, then there is very little reason to vote third-party or write him in, for the reasons I and numerous others on this forum have outlined. Voting third-party in spite of this just because you want to say you voted for someone who represents you is only a prideful move that puts the country and what you believe in at risk, especially if you live in a swing state. If, for whatever reason, you truly think all of them are equally bad (which [I]really[/I] raises my eyebrows if you support Sanders) then go ahead and do whatever. I'm not saying you have to like Clinton, or any of them. But also don't expect it to make the impact you're hoping it will. And even if you know that we can't have more than two parties running at a time for very long, and just want to replace a current party with yours, afaik there is nothing going on right now that tells us that any specific party has an actual shot at gaining serious momentum. The most that might happen is a small, but noticeable chunk of the vote might get labelled "Other". If that time ever comes where some party gets a real chance at winning, even I might take advantage of that opportunity. But until then it's just not a good use of your vote. [editline]This is also fake[/editline] Something I've seen here a few times is people say something like, "You just want to manipulate me into voting for [I]your[/I] candidate!" when someone points out why the system doesn't support more than two parties. That's not what I'm trying to do here. I'm trying to get you to use your vote in a way that best serves your wants and needs, rather than throw it away. If you really [I]hate[/I] Clinton, and would rather have anyone else, or vote for Donald Trump, then so be it. (and again, if you like Sanders and are this kind of person i really recommend that you take the time to [I]really[/I] evaluate why you like or dislike certain candidates and where your priorities are, but that's just me) But right now I just really want to warn you guys that this three-party dreamland isn't gonna happen with this system and you might accidentally find that you were partly responsible for getting your [I]least[/I] favorite candidate elected. Which would be bad. If this happens to be a pride-thing for you, I would feel much more ashamed of that than voting for one of the mainstream nominees, personally. Anyway, I hope I was able to explain this in a way that makes sense.
[QUOTE]The system sucks and I don't like not being able to vote for who I would really want to win[/QUOTE] You know the system isn't going to change as long you keep voting in the two parties who benefit from the status quo? If you want things to change, you will have to vote in third party.
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50249341]You know the system isn't going to change as long you keep voting in the two parties who benefit from the status quo. If you want things to change, you will have to vote in third party.[/QUOTE] This may be true, but until there exists another party that can actually play ball with the Democrats and Republicans there's not much that can be done with just your vote. It takes so much more than just a following of a minority of independents who refuse to vote strategically. As it stands right now, it takes serious amounts of dough to win national campaigns like this. Bernie Sanders has demonstrated that you don't necessarily need to sell out to the ultra-rich to run a campaign that makes money, but he wouldn't be getting the money he has now if people didn't actually campaign for him and spread his message and get people to donate to him. Actually, I partially rescind my earlier statement about not sending the message to vote third-party. If you want to actually try campaigning for one, that would probably be great. It's likely that the only way one would even gain traction in the first place is by getting people who actually care to get other people to care and donate money. You need to instill confidence in people that you [I]can[/I] win, and like, actually be able to win. Or else you've just split the vote again and start from square one because people don't want to vote for you anymore. That's the really tricky part. But the thing is, putting in your vote on election day when no such progress has been made, and just going, "[I]Huh, I sure hope 70 million other people got fed up and decided to vote Green too,[/I]" is not how it's gonna happen.
[QUOTE=Katska;50249474]This may be true, but until there exists another party that can actually play ball with the Democrats and Republicans there's not much that can be done with just your vote. It takes so much more than just a following of a minority of independents who refuse to vote strategically. As it stands right now, it takes serious amounts of dough to win national campaigns like this. Bernie Sanders has demonstrated that you don't necessarily need to sell out to the ultra-rich to run a campaign that makes money, but he wouldn't be getting the money he has now if people didn't actually campaign for him and spread his message and get people to donate to him. Actually, I partially rescind my earlier statement about not sending the message to vote third-party. If you want to actually try campaigning for one, that would probably be great. It's likely that the only way one would even gain traction in the first place is by getting people who actually care to get other people to care and donate money. You need to instill confidence in people that you [I]can[/I] win, and like, actually be able to win. Or else you've just split the vote again and start from square one because people don't want to vote for you anymore. That's the really tricky part. But the thing is, putting in your vote on election day when no such progress has been made, and just going, "[I]Huh, I sure hope 70 million other people got fed up and decided to vote Green too,[/I]" is not how it's gonna happen.[/QUOTE] Your circular and self defeating logic both confuses and astounds me. The only way to change the system is vote third party.Yet you do not want third party. Yet you want change. Makes no sense to me.
Yes America, instead of voting for a witch with a forked tongue, let's vote for the guy who's literally Mussolini because he's "honest" and "speaks his mind".
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50248146]Lmao, did you have a freudian slip halfway through that post or something and start describing Trump?[/QUOTE] Woah dude trump is a career politician???? I totally forgot his years of work in the Senate Trump is bad but he's not a career politician. [editline]3rd May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Smug Bastard;50250355]Yes America, instead of voting for a witch with a forked tongue, let's vote for the guy who's literally Mussolini because he's "honest" and "speaks his mind".[/QUOTE] Trump is also not literally Mussolini Jesus guys trump isn't good but making up shit about him is a fucking great way to give the other side ammunition
Fukuyama described him as an American Berlusconi, which I think is more accurate
[QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50250309]Your circular and self defeating logic both confuses and astounds me. Take a look at affirmative action. They lost a few rounds but eventually they got what they wanted. In a war, you got to realize you win some, you lose some. Change takes a long time to occur in the US, but once initiated, it eventually gets done. If you lose, then you have to figure out how to change that loss into a victory or in your favor. Maybe learning to be flexible should be more of a priority over whatever else going on with your faulty reasoning.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what this really has to do with anything. This is kind of a vague pep-talk that doesn't explain how you plan on pulling a third-party presidency out of thin air. I described a process by which a third-party could [I]maybe[/I] win and have power just long enough to spark change in the electoral system. (Which would likely also require overwhelming Congressional support and that's another huge, uphill battle.) I never said it was impossible for a third-party to gain power for a short time, but it's much, much easier said than done. I just don't think you really understand that, looking at the history of party support in this country, third-parties don't really gradually grow into something from nothing over time. The Progressive Party came about when Roosevelt decided to run without the support of the Republican Party. The Republican Party came about after the Whig Party broke apart. That's pretty much it. You'd probably need something huge happening like a fracturing of the current parties in order to have a reasonable chance at it. Alternative parties in these systems can only grow so large before they start encroaching on another party's voter base and it starts losing support. People tend to vote strategically in order to avoid an outcome where they lose out completely by handing the election to the people furthest from them ideologically, and will accept a half-win when they understand that winning it all is impossible. Especially when they know that many other people will be thinking the same thing. You can't convince tens of millions of people to accept total loss like that over and over again because things [i]might[/i] get better. There's far too much immediately at stake for that. Also, winning a war and popularizing an idea like affirmative action are not at all the same thing as winning an election. The reasons I've given for why the system is the way it is don't really apply to those things, as far as I know. [editline]3rd May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Daysofwinter;50250309]The only way to change the system is vote third party.Yet you do not want third party. Yet you want change. Makes no sense to me.[/QUOTE] I will vote third-party when: -It's a party I like with a candidate I like -There is reason to believe that, come Election Day, they have a good chance of winning I believe it would be foolish to vote third-party if either of those things are untrue. If the second point is untrue, then I do not believe change would be enacted if I voted for them anyway, nor would it result in a third-party presidency.
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;50247349]Wait, why is this?[/QUOTE] Well it's possible they're genuinely not bad people with strong morals who want to do their job, and if political corruption prevents them from doing so, they might not want any part of a corrupt system. I'd be surprised if they did though, as much as I like to think the people running the FBI are well intentioned, it's hard to believe anyone with power in DC has noble goals.
To quote another facepunch user: if trump is elected I won't leave the country because it will be too embarrassing to call myself an american [editline]3rd May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;50247548]I can understand to some extent that the particulars of the US voting system, and the overwhelmingly strong rhetoric, of a third-party vote being a wasted one make it an unappealing choice; particularly if one wishes to ensure the candidate they hate the least gets elected. That being said, third-party candidate viability is never going to improve in the US unless people pull out of this self-defeating cycle, even if it means for a few elections their votes are seen as "wasted".[/QUOTE] Third party candidates will never be viable because a left wing candidate simply takes votes from democrats and right wing candidates take votes from republicans. In america you need a 51% majority of delegates to win, so third party candidates mathematically can't win, and if they do, then they simply change one of the two parties to their message
[QUOTE=Katska;50250749]I'm not sure what this really has to do with anything. This is kind of a vague pep-talk that doesn't explain how you plan on pulling a third-party presidency out of thin air. I described a process by which a third-party could [I]maybe[/I] win and have power just long enough to spark change in the electoral system. (Which would likely also require overwhelming Congressional support and that's another huge, uphill battle.) I never said it was impossible for a third-party to gain power for a short time, but it's much, much easier said than done. I just don't think you really understand that, looking at the history of party support in this country, third-parties don't really gradually grow into something from nothing over time. The Progressive Party came about when Roosevelt decided to run without the support of the Republican Party. The Republican Party came about after the Whig Party broke apart. That's pretty much it. [B]You'd probably need something huge happening like a fracturing of the current parties in order to have a reasonable chance at it.[/B] Alternative parties in these systems can only grow so large before they start encroaching on another party's voter base and it starts losing support. People tend to vote strategically in order to avoid an outcome where they lose out completely by handing the election to the people furthest from them ideologically, and will accept a half-win when they understand that winning it all is impossible. Especially when they know that many other people will be thinking the same thing. You can't convince tens of millions of people to accept total loss like that over and over again because things [i]might[/i] get better. There's far too much immediately at stake for that. Also, winning a war and popularizing an idea like affirmative action are not at all the same thing as winning an election. The reasons I've given for why the system is the way it is don't really apply to those things, as far as I know.[/quote] How about historic wealth inequality? How about both political parties being highly (and visibly) corrupt? Both candidates will fuck us in the end, just the person fucking us will wear a different color of jersey. So no, we don't "win" regardless of who we vote for. That's why we need to vote third party so that we [B]can[/B] win, instead of accepting an automatic defeat because we're scared of a slightly worse defeat instead. [QUOTE=Katska;50250749] I will vote third-party when: -It's a party I like with a candidate I like -There is reason to believe that, come Election Day, they have a good chance of winning I believe it would be foolish to vote third-party if either of those things are untrue. If the second point is untrue, then I do not believe change would be enacted if I voted for them anyway, nor would it result in a third-party presidency.[/QUOTE] Under that logic you will only ever vote third party when they become the first party. Such stellar logic there. You know how a third party becomes viable? [B]People actually voting.[/B] Your defeatist attitude ensures that you'll get nothing but fucked by the two highly corrupt political institutions. By voting for said corrupt political institutions not only do you not help change the political landscape but [B]actively work against it[/B].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.