2016 Presidential General Election Thread

[Disco King]

I changed my opinion on Hillary Clinton after seeing an image in which she is making a funny face. I mean, she just looked so dumb, and then everything was clear.

[buzzard]

Facts and Reason 101: A Case Study ft. The Omega Concern

1. Computer technology and cloning have both been subject to much research since the 1960s.

2. Computer technology has come a long way, where the room-filling devices of forty years ago were significantly less powerful than the tiny smartphones of today.

Therefore, advancements in human cloning over the same period mean that a genetically identical and fully-grown, albeit "glitchy," copy of a woman in her sixties can be produced within three days to serve as a body double.

[Disco King]

It's Moore's Law. In another decade, we'll be able to clone people years before they are even born.

[buzzard]

Wait a second... If Hillary's team of clones are only a few days old, can they really be blamed for the veritable plethora of rapes that Bill was never convicted of?

Vote Hillary and wait for her to die of Parkinson's on election night, at which point she'll be replaced by a doppelgänger with a clean slate. Done.

[redbreegull]

omi garsh hillary kkklinton is still against gay marriage

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets

They're all evil. But her programs will provide me with more than his. But I will probably vote for Stein and hope others do the same. It's not stupid, it's the only voice I have

that's cool and all just know you're voting against your own self interests by voting for anyone but Hillary

[Elphenor]

tax the rich kills people?


If ever someone was wrong about something

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

that's cool and all just know you're voting against your own self interests by voting for anyone but Hillary

I'm still waiting for a third party voter to explain to me how voting third party is going to break up the two party monopoly.

[redbreegull]

all the third party voters should get together and try to build momentum to amend the Constitution and dismiss the EC forever. That's the only way it's ever gonna happen.

[Disco King]

Even though voting third party is pointless in a two-party state like the U.S., I feel like I can't really begrudge anybody who does it because they feel like they just can't support either of the candidates. It's not a strategic utilitarian decision, but I can accept the idea that sometimes people just want to do something on principle.

I only get annoyed when they come at others and go "haha ur dumb if you vote for one of the major parties because then ur just part of the system man, i like to criticize people who make strategic choices aimed at maximizing good for not being ideologically pure enough even though I haven't established how me finding personal security in my moral superiority will actually make life better for other people." So far ILP hasn't expressed this attitude, so I'm okay with that.

[ilikeplanets]

Thank you, it's not like I have a choice when I hate them both. how else will anyone know that we want better options if no one votes for them?? I am not going to stage a violent revolution ffs

[ilikeplanets]

And I sincerely hope it makes life better for me and other people. Okay so it's not strategic but seriously what else can I do? If I want others to vote third party en masse to get through to the powers that be, I have to be willing to do it too. If people throw their vote away on a candidate they don't actually support but are settling for, I think that's worse in the long run. But I pick and choose what laws I follow anyway, so my daily life is unlikely to change unless something extreme happens.

[MyOneAndOnly]

why do so many people feel that they need to "like" the POTUS candidate that they vote for? voting should only be about advancing your interests. Voting for a third party doesn't advance your interests. It doesn't help anybody. It doesn't change the politics. It accomplishes nothing, except maybe self sabotaging the policies and rights you care about.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I'm still waiting for a third party voter to explain to me how voting third party is going to break up the two party monopoly.

it never has and it never will.

third parties are almost always all white as well. Latinos and African Americans don't have the luxury of throwing their votes away.

[MyOneAndOnly]

"i care so much about income inequality, the environment and human rights that i'm going to vote for someone who is unqualified for the job and will never be elected" - Every Clueless Liberal Who Votes for The Green Party

[MyOneAndOnly]

here's a pic of Clueless Jill Stein having dinner with Putin at a celebration of his State Run propaganda network

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpNtfPFUEAA0mka.jpg

[Disco King]

If the Green Party wants to actually build a movement that could some day change policy in the U.S., kind of wondering why they are trying to start at the top instead of, I dunno, trying to get some people in congress or something first. Nope, let's start with the highest office and work our way down from there.

Like, it would make more sense to push for reforms like ranked ballots at local levels to make strategic voting less necessary, getting in some Greens, and progressing from there. The actual structure of the system has to be altered for change to happen. You can't just click your heels together three times or something.

[ilikeplanets]

People here don't care about politics until election year. I'm guilty of this too and want to think about this more.

[Disco King]

Most Americans don't even care for the entire election year, just the two months after Labour Day.

I think that's part of why people feel like they need to vote for a candidate they 'like,' and if they don't like the choices, then the whole system is pointless. Because they think politics is something you do every four years where you're supposed to vote in the person who will fix everything and do everything you want them to do, and if there's no person like that, then fuck. I see elections as a time to choose the option that will allow it to be easier for civil society groups to pursue the goals they want, who are the real sources of change and progress in society. Clinton is still a neoliberal shill, but it'll be easier for anti-corporate progressive groups to achieve their aims under a Democratic administration than under a Republican one.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Poots

When you say "anti-corporate" groups will have an easier time accomplishing their goals under Hillary, does that in-clude Wall Street corporations like Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, the entire defense industry, big pharma, and health insurance providers? Because all of them are supporting Hillary and it's not because she's going to reform those areas.

in one word, taxes

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by Poots

When you say "anti-corporate" groups will have an easier time accomplishing their goals under Hillary, does that in-clude Wall Street corporations like Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, the entire defense industry, big pharma, and health insurance providers? Because all of them are supporting Hillary and it's not because she's going to reform those areas.

I think political trajectories involve a lot more than just the personality of the president. LBJ was one of the Democratic Party's more right-wing/centrist members at the time, but his administration was still one of the most progressive in American history, and saw legislation on things like civil rights and medicare, due to the state of political movements at the time. It was easier for progressives to achieve things like this than it would had been under Goldwater.

Clinton has a very cozy relationship with the finance sector, there are progressive forces within the Democratic Party that are going to push her and influence policy, particularly if there is a blue Congress. The Party has one of the most progressive platforms in years due to the efforts of people like Sanders and Warren. And of course there are looming Supreme Court appointments, so if you don't like the fact that politicians are brought out and are even getting large amounts of foreign money so that Saudi Arabia can influence your elections, it makes sense to vote for the candidate who will appoint the judges who will overturn Citizens United, even if she has Saudi money in her pockets.

Big business has thrown in with Clinton, but that's not evidence that Trump would benefit regular Americans, anymore than Napoleon III shutting down the bourgeois parliament meant that he was aligned with the interests of the working class. Big business just prefers Clinton because Trump is off the spectrum and unpredictable, and they don't like uncertainty in markets. And also Clinton is going to win anyway so may as well throw your money behind her instead of the guy who's alienating sectors of society that are becoming a larger part of your market. But he'd still pursue regressive taxes and austerity and all the things that harm the working class.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets

Honestly I think Fox has the most misquotations out of any American "news" network

Fox News is actually my favorite of the 3 monoliths. Any time serious bombshells drop against Clinton the other 2 channels won't touch it while Fox does a great job covering it... Sure, people can argue that Fox is biased, but they're basically just the Republican version of what MSNBC and CNN are to the Democrats. The only reason people shit on FOX news is cause they're Democrats. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

The one show on MSNBC that is actually entertaining and unusually fair and balanced for the network is Morning Joe. Joe Scarborough's awesome.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

I don't even like Rachel Maddow

really? You guys have the exact same views and and come across with the exact same type of witty, belittling political banter. I figured she was the analyst you were copping.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets

I just don't understand you Fuzzy, you seem like a sympathetic person but you loudly praise this human garbage of a candidate. Why do you think he cares about anything but his money? Hillary might also not but at least she wants to provide for people in need. What amazing plan has he proposed to help the world in crisis? Everything he suggests will hurt more people than help them, and we will fuck up every single alliance. How is he advocating for human rights across all borders? He's not and he doesn't want to. He wants to control people using lies and fear. I agree that Hillary is a shitty choice and does the same but I dont excuse her. I'll probably vote for Stein. Maybe she'll get a whole 10% of the vote!

It's all about the lesser of 2 evils. I think you have Trump all wrong. The guys a billionaire, if it was about the money he wouldn't be doing this. The guys also put in 100 million dollars of his own money to fund his campaign while Hillary Clintons put in ZERO of her 250 million net worth.

I think Trump will help fix the economy and help you guys with the collective snowballing debt and he'll focus on an America based sovereignty instead of this hippie-diiipy one world government dream that Hillary Clinton is peddling.

This talk about Hillary Clintons policies are all but senseless as it's already a fact that she'll lie about her positions in order to get the people behind her. That's all she's doing by adapting some of Sanders popular positions. It ain't gonna happen ILP. S'all a fraud.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Disco King

Unless Poots can establish that there is no possible way that somebody who had access to the television programme's tapes could had leaked them without consulting the Clinton campaign, his claim remains an argument by assertion.

Look at the timing of it man... Any time a campaign leaks something it's always on a Friday before the debate so the media can all stew about it. And the fact that it coincided exactly with the Wikileak dump tells you all you need to know.

But for the sake of your hypothetical argument: IF Clinton HAD nothing to do with the leaked audio: SHE STILL got up on her high horse and criticized Trump to no end over the footage, so in that sense it's only logical for Trump to point out the hypocrisy.

Though of course "Hillary's an inspiration, Trumps the devil" when it comes to you mainstream media sheep.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

it never has and it never will.

third parties are almost always all white as well. Latinos and African Americans don't have the luxury of throwing their votes away.

It takes time and momentum. If people always have this mindset then it'll never grow at all. If 3rd party votes keep on a steady increase over the years, more people will jump on the bandwagon.

Common sense Scotty.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

Look at the timing of it man... Any time a campaign leaks something it's always on a Friday before the debate so the media can all stew about it. And the fact that it coincided exactly with the Wikileak dump tells you all you need to know.

But for the sake of your hypothetical argument: IF Clinton HAD nothing to do with the leaked audio: SHE STILL got up on her high horse and criticized Trump to no end over the footage, so in that sense it's only logical for Trump to point out the hypocrisy.

Though of course "Hillary's an inspiration, Trumps the devil" when it comes to you mainstream media sheep.

She didn't say anything about it until she was asked at the debate. There was no statement before that. He went on damage control and had that press conference before Clinton said anything at all about his rapey statements.

And again, just asserting that she put it out doesn't prove anything. Any one with access to that footage could have put it out without consulting her.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

really? You guys have the exact same views and and come across with the exact same type of witty, belittling political banter. I figured she was the analyst you were copping.

you speak with the intelligence and articulation of scrawlings in a truck stop restroom but I don't assume you are imitating a urinal

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by fuzzyroes

It takes time and momentum. If people always have this mindset then it'll never grow at all. If 3rd party votes keep on a steady increase over the years, more people will jump on the bandwagon.

Common sense Scotty.

it just doesn't work like that unfortunately. not in winner take all elections. third parties need to start with the senate/house

[redbreegull]

Again, a third party will not ever win a presidential election, ever, except in times of total political chaos, and that is usually when one party dissolves and a third party takes its place in the bipolar system. If these people really want to undermine the two party model, amend the Constitution to 1 person 1 vote. That is the only way we are ever going to have a multiparty system in the US.

But of course it's way easier to whine and moan about your choices and then throw a temper tantrum that others won't throw away their votes with you because PRINCIPLES and VOTE WITH MAH CONSCIENCE. Start talking about amending the Constitution, then I might see third party efforts as something other than bee stings meant to herd the two larger parties