[QUOTE=EcksDee;49991272]Lmao, so huge turnout everywhere means 70% less turnout in AZ.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/lvTFyNg.png[/img][/QUOTE]
At the time, I believe it helped that John McCain was running because of him being an AZ senator and all.
[url]http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/2202158719[/url]
I don't think my positions are very common... At least it proved my point about Clinton being the least bad candidate. Especially if you're a hawk like me.
I said earlier sanders lost but i was going off info in the thread before my post that he got a stupid low amount, turns out i was wrong unless rcp is failing me he got something like 67 and she got 51, thats actually better than i thought.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;49991281]At the time, I believe it helped that John McCain was running because of him being an AZ senator and all.[/QUOTE]
2004 and 2000 still had around 20% voter turnout each [I]edit: for election day voting, not early voting[/I], according to Maricopa public record.
McCain ran in 2000 too, but not in 2004, so his influence there wasn't THAT huge
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49990988]I don't know why everyone brings up her FBI investigation, it's only for the misuse of emails.
It's not as if she's a murder suspect, but a lot of you are acting like it.[/QUOTE]
Actually she had dozens of people close to the clintons murdered
[QUOTE=cody8295;49991446]Actually she had dozens of people close to the clintons murdered[/QUOTE]
Uhm, source?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49991492]Uhm, source?[/QUOTE]
i think that was a joke
[QUOTE=cody8295;49991446]Actually she had dozens of people close to the clintons murdered[/QUOTE]
Hey, we're talking about the Clintons, not the Kennedys :v:
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49990680]yes
a minority of idiots are definitely the problem with american politics
that is in no way an enormous exaggeration[/QUOTE]
The problem is more that the only political groups outside of the two establishment parties have a significant number among them who want leftwing policies, and so they decide to elect a far right demagogue.
Why? It speaks to me of a voter who lacks principles and is swayed more by rhetoric. Anybody who votes for Trump out of spite for sanders losing is literally doing the opposite of what he'd want and they should be called out for the thickheaded louts they are.
[editline]23rd March 2016[/editline]
Imagine if Jeremy corbyn lost the labour party elections, and as a result people decided to vote for the BNP out of spite
[editline]23rd March 2016[/editline]
Unless you're retarded, if sanders loses then vote for the greens or democrats or whatever party which shares a lot of common views. People who instead decide to vote for Trump are clueless retards who lack any kind of perspective
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49991545]Unless you're retarded, if sanders loses then vote for the greens or democrats or whatever party which shares a lot of common views.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Even if you hate Hillary it makes more sense to vote for someone like Jill Stein rather than having Trump be your backup option to Bernie.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49991545]The problem is more that the only political groups outside of the two establishment parties have a significant number among them who want leftwing policies, and so they decide to elect a far right demagogue.
Why? It speaks to me of a voter who lacks principles and is swayed more by rhetoric. Anybody who votes for Trump out of spite for sanders losing is literally doing the opposite of what he'd want and they should be called out for the thickheaded louts they are.
[editline]23rd March 2016[/editline]
Imagine if Jeremy corbyn lost the labour party elections, and as a result people decided to vote for the BNP out of spite
[editline]23rd March 2016[/editline]
Unless you're retarded, if sanders loses then vote for the greens or democrats or whatever party which shares a lot of common views. People who instead decide to vote for Trump are clueless retards who lack any kind of perspective[/QUOTE]
maybe the problem is the fact that left wing politics is not only sorely lacking, but demonized in america, not voters that get annoyed about their candidate losing
i can see why people would be disgruntled when people see bernie as a breath of fresh air that is getting stamped down by yet another generic democrat politician
sure, calling them clouts but you were literally questioning their right to vote
if you're one of the people that is OK with people voting independent, then sure you're right - if sanders loses they should vote for the candidate that next represents their views
Been reading up on the whole Arizona situation. Something's royally fucked there. At best this is incompetence of an almost unprecedented level, at worst someone's rigging the election.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;49990567]Do you even know what that change is?[/QUOTE]
Fortunately, I do. If nothing else, I cannot support Clinton solely on ethical grounds. She has a far too dirty past for me to put my vote into. At least Trump is a new face, and will give a shock the GOP if he wins.
He wouldn't accomplish much, because he's hated by both parties. A Trump presidency would be nothing but a dud and empty rhetoric. Clinton on the other hand actually has the ability to pass legislation and really only fights against the GOP. I don't see her pushing through any favorable legislation, so I am opting for the idea of "no laws are better than bad laws".
It has nothing to do with smiting someone for winning or taking revenge for losing. Twist it as you will.
[QUOTE=BuffaloBill;49991831]Been reading up on the whole Arizona situation. Something's royally fucked there. At best this is incompetence of an almost unprecedented level, at worst someone's rigging the election.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure which it's more likely to be. The problem is that since the Early votes were counted fine (and EV are always heavily in favor of Clinton) it just feels too convenient.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;49990937]How did you get 92% with Hillary? She's for the patriot act, for fracking, for TPP and the other trade agreements, against a 15 dollar minimum wage, against single payer healthcare, against taking money out of politics.
Like I'm more inclined to think that the iSideWith quiz is broken than that actual democrats agree with Clinton on >90% of the issues.
And even if she flipped her stance on all that, guess what she would do if she got into office? She'd just flip right back.
She would already have achieved her goal of "i am President", she doesn't seem to care about what happens to the American people or after that.[/QUOTE]
uhhhhhhh do you like read her site or whatever
She's for a 12 dollar minimum wage, for putting a supreme court justice that will end Citizen's United, Trade agreements aren't necessarily bad it's the people who write them that are the problem, she's for strengthening Obamacare and enacting more healthcare reform (Rather than bullrush into single player). She's also for moderate tax hikes on the very wealthy.
All in all her positions are a more moderate Bernie Sanders. I want Bernie too but I would just as easily vote for Hillary Clinton
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49991800]maybe the problem is the fact that left wing politics is not only sorely lacking, but demonized in america, not voters that get annoyed about their candidate losing
i can see why people would be disgruntled when people see bernie as a breath of fresh air that is getting stamped down by yet another generic democrat politician
sure, calling them clouts but you were literally questioning their right to vote
if you're one of the people that is OK with people voting independent, then sure you're right - if sanders loses they should vote for the candidate that next represents their views[/QUOTE]
I think people should be voting independent if the candidate represents them well. What I detest are the retards who think that if Sanders loses they should vote trump. I mean, what the fuck?
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49991266]Hillary Clinton is what you get when Frank Underwood and Cersei Lannister have a child.
If Bernie doesn't get the nomination I'll vote Libertarian or Green. I want someone who isn't a slave to donor interests, I don't vote for the party identity.[/QUOTE]
These parties could not be more opposite to eachother in ideals
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49992130]uhhhhhhh do you like read her site or whatever
She's for a 12 dollar minimum wage, for putting a supreme court justice that will end Citizen's United, Trade agreements aren't necessarily bad it's the people who write them that are the problem, she's for strengthening Obamacare and enacting more healthcare reform (Rather than bullrush into single player). She's also for moderate tax hikes on the very wealthy.
All in all her positions are a more moderate Bernie Sanders. I want Bernie too but I would just as easily vote for Hillary Clinton[/QUOTE]
She won't accomplish any of that, she is just saying that shit to get elected. Especially she won't enact a 12 dollar minimum wage and tax hikes on the wealthy defiantly won't happen, she is in the pocket of groups who don't want that.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;49991031]The "piles of shit" on Hillary include her voting record and policies.[/QUOTE]
Her voting record is 96% in line with Sanders...
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49991183]I just re-took the whole thing - 96% Sanders, 90% Jill Stein, 87% Hillary. I went through the whole list of shit I agreed with Hillary on and disagreed with her on and some of them were iffy - I don't trust her on her stance on the TPP or charging wall street execs with crimes - but overall most of my major issues were covered. But then again, Obama isn't opposed to the TPP and he never got anyone charged with crimes for the recession - does that mean I should hate him?
The only issues I absolutely did not side with Hillary on were Israel-Palestine, declaring war on ISIS, use of military drones, the PATRIOT Act, banning people on the no-fly list from buying guns, charging gun manufacturers/distributors for gun violence, fracking, the death penalty, requiring welfare recipients to work (for little to no pay), and the importance of the wage gap.
Compared to Trump, the only things we really agree on are certain aspects of foreign policy, like avoiding involvement and war-hawking in the middle east. That's my major disagreement with Hillary - but the vast majority of her domestic policies (which more directly affect my own life) and her economic policies are significantly more in line with my own interests.
I would 100% back Hillary if she were less hawkish and obsessive over gun control. Those are the two major issues that I disagree with her on - but I still support the majority of her beliefs, especially when compared to effectively every other viable candidate out there other than Bernie.[/QUOTE]
Her "beliefs" are for the most part whatever is currently politically expedient, luckily for you she's in the DNC.
[QUOTE=plokoon9619;49992160]She won't accomplish any of that, she is just saying that shit to get elected. Especially she won't enact a 12 dollar minimum wage and tax hikes on the wealthy defiantly won't happen, she is in the pocket of groups who don't want that.[/QUOTE]
You're forgetting it's in her best interest to get re-elected. You think you get elected and it' boom, you're free to do whatever you want? Do you think she will solely listen to corps but not listen to the electorate? That's political suicide at its finest. If she gets elected it'll be on progressive principles and it's in her interests to represent them as best as she can.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49992173]You're forgetting it's in her best interest to get re-elected. You think you get elected and it' boom, you're free to do whatever you want? Do you think she will solely listen to corps but not listen to the electorate? That's political suicide at its finest.[/QUOTE]
How high can you aim above the presidency?
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49992173]You're forgetting it's in her best interest to get re-elected. You think you get elected and it' boom, you're free to do whatever you want? Do you think she will solely listen to corps but not listen to the electorate? That's political suicide at its finest. If she gets elected it'll be on progressive principles and it's in her interests to represent them as best as she can.[/QUOTE]
First woman president, salary for life, endorsements for life, the endgame of American politics outside of heading a superPAC, and an ensured legacy with the media until people start to deconstruct her actual politics and policies.
Re-election will mean very little stacked against that.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49992173]You're forgetting it's in her best interest to get re-elected. You think you get elected and it' boom, you're free to do whatever you want? Do you think she will solely listen to corps but not listen to the electorate? That's political suicide at its finest. If she gets elected it'll be on progressive principles and it's in her interests to represent them as best as she can.[/QUOTE]
Or you know, her political opponent for re-election will be the next Donald Trump/Ted Cruz and people vote for her yet again because she is the lesser of two evils.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49992137]I think people should be voting independent if the candidate represents them well. What I detest are the retards who think that if Sanders loses they should vote trump. I mean, what the fuck?[/QUOTE]
Likely the same reason a lot of Trump voters are going for Trump, he's different, he's not the establishment candidate. Some people don't see them as far left / far right, they just see them as 'not wall street'.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;49991502]i think that was a joke[/QUOTE]
It's not, he has seriously brought it up before I believe.
[editline]23rd March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49991850]Fortunately, I do. If nothing else, I cannot support Clinton solely on ethical grounds. She has a far too dirty past for me to put my vote into. At least Trump is a new face, and will give a shock the GOP if he wins.
He wouldn't accomplish much, because he's hated by both parties. A Trump presidency would be nothing but a dud and empty rhetoric. Clinton on the other hand actually has the ability to pass legislation and really only fights against the GOP. I don't see her pushing through any favorable legislation, so I am opting for the idea of "no laws are better than bad laws".
It has nothing to do with smiting someone for winning or taking revenge for losing. Twist it as you will.[/QUOTE]
What legislation would be so unfavorable?
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;49992163]Her voting record is 96% in line with Sanders...[/QUOTE]
Yeah, like how she voted for the Iraq war, or for Doma, is against pushing Glass Steagall apparently, voted for the Patriot act, voted for TPP, hasn't been against the death penalty for a long time, she is probably gonna approve the Keystone pipeline (since her campaign is so quiet about it), she voted for the border fence, she voted for offshore drilling.
But sure, when you count the bills that don't really have a huge lasting impact, yeah, they vote roughly the same.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;49992501]It's not, he has seriously brought it up before I believe.
[editline]23rd March 2016[/editline]
What legislation would be so unfavorable?[/QUOTE]
Anything along the lines of the TPP, surveillance, encryption, middle-eastern involvement, wall street, not pushing green energy.
Character and ethics aside, she is a political "shotgun". She is spread all over the political spectrum depending on what way the wind blows. That mentality alone isn't detrimental, but coupled with the fact that she has the ability to make things a reality, it does become haunting. Thus my preference of "no laws > bad laws".
Video of the lines we had in Utah.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwRcJXVL6oE[/media]
[QUOTE=glitchvid;49992661]Video of the lines we had in Utah.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwRcJXVL6oE[/media][/QUOTE]
Regardless if there's voter fraud involved in any of these primaries, it's clear that we need to make a new system that's designed for populations over a few thousand
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
