• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

Whom will/would you vote for?

  • Laurence Kotlikoff (Independent)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tom Hoefling (America's Party)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mike Maturen (American Solidarity Party)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    659
Status
Not open for further replies.

RevPokemon

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
4,839
Trophies
0
Age
27
Location
Fort Gay, West Virginia
XP
2,300
Country
United States
Of course that wouldn't be possible right now.
For something like that you would need a democracy.
America doesn't have a proper democracy.
In a democracy you would have two things: A) The ability to directly vote for any candidate of your choice and B) Enough legitimate choices.

If you have the choice between a Maniacal Sociopath and Hillary Clinton, of course your only sensible choice is Hillary Clinton. That does not however mean that you had a legitimate choice in the first place.
Choosing between death and torture might be a choice, but not one that actually reflects your wishes.
A) This is prevented by voting restriction laws and the amount of work to get on ballot in most areas
B) we do have alot of legit choice but it is just that the system is rigged ( how many 3rd parties get over 10%?)


I would add however that I still do believe in the whole "lesser evil is evil" philosophy which leads my to take either the partyist view (voting 3rd party like Pirate, Justice, Libertarian, or Green) or the Agorist view (don't vote but replace the system from the outside) rather than vote for a candidate that I do not like.
 
K

KingpinSlim

Guest
A) This is prevented by voting restriction laws and the amount of work to get on ballot in most areas
B) we do have alot of legit choice but it is just that the system is rigged ( how many 3rd parties get over 10%?)


I would add however that I still do believe in the whole "lesser evil is evil" philosophy which leads my to take either the partyist view (voting 3rd party like Pirate, Justice, Libertarian, or Green) or the Agorist view (don't vote but replace the system from the outside) rather than vote for a candidate that I do not like.
I believe Bernie Sanders would have been the correct choice this time around.
Not the popular choice apparently, but definitely the right one.

EDIT: A) Is prevented by America not having a direct Democracy. You simply can't directly vote for what you want. We don't have that in Germany, either. Mostly because it would be very dangerous for everyone involved to let Germans do exactly what they want.
 
Last edited by ,

RevPokemon

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
4,839
Trophies
0
Age
27
Location
Fort Gay, West Virginia
XP
2,300
Country
United States
I believe Bernie Sanders would have been the correct choice this time around.
Not the popular choice apparently, but definitely the right one.
But the issue was that he had to fight all those people in the DNC who were against his ideas of how the Democratic party should be. I have to say Jill Stein is probably the only one who actually would carry out those ideas of Bernie. Likewise He could of ran as an independent or support Stein but he chose to help Hillary for the Party and because she is better then Trump in his view since he takes voting as a binary choice (which is probably why he didn't run 3rd party or independently).
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
But the issue was that he had to fight all those people in the DNC who were against his ideas of how the Democratic party should be. I have to say Jill Stein is probably the only one who actually would carry out those ideas of Bernie. Likewise He could of ran as an independent or support Stein but he chose to help Hillary for the Party and because she is better then Trump in his view since he takes voting as a binary choice (which is probably why he didn't run 3rd party or independently).
If one cares who wins the election, it is a binary choice. If Senator Sanders had run as an independent or endorsed Jill Stein, he would have unnecessarily split the Democratic vote and increased the odds of a Donald Trump win. Clinton is the only candidate who can beat Trump at this point. In addition, Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton are in alignment 95% of the time with regard to policy, particularly with regard to issues like income inequality that Sanders supporters care about most. Why a Sanders supporter wouldn't vote for Clinton is beyond understanding.
 
K

KingpinSlim

Guest
If one cares who wins the election, it is a binary choice. If Senator Sanders had run as an independent or endorsed Jill Stein, he would have unnecessarily split the Democratic vote and increased the odds of a Donald Trump win. Clinton is the only candidate who can beat Trump at this point. In addition, Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton are in alignment 95% of the time with regard to policy, particularly with regard to issues like income inequality that Sanders supporters care about most. Why a Sanders supporter wouldn't vote for Clinton is beyond understanding.
Because it's a trust issue. Anyone can promise anything.
The candidates could be exactly equal in the things they promise, but you might believe that one of them is capable of doing it and the other isn't.

When Hillary Clinton commented on the incident where our Chancellors phone was bugged by the NSA she said "Germany should remember who saved them from Hitler and they should show some gratitude" and that's basically all you need to know about the kind of person she is.

She is less garbage than Trump, but she is still garbage. Her garbage might be less rancid than his, but that doesn't mean i wouldn't take her out to the curb as well i given the chance.

That one comment alone made the strongest European nation already turn against her. Brilliantly done Ms. Clinton. Brilliantly done.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
Because it's a trust issue. Anyone can promise anything.
The candidates could be exactly equal in the things they promise, but you might believe that one of them is capable of doing it and the other isn't.

When Hillary Clinton commented on the incident where our Chancellors phone was bugged by the NSA she said "Germany should remember who saved them from Hitler and they should show some gratitude" and that's basically all you need to know about the kind of person she is.

She is less garbage than Trump, but she is still garbage. Her garbage might be less rancid than his, but that doesn't mean i wouldn't take her out to the curb as well i given the chance.

That one comment alone made the strongest European nation already turn against her. Brilliantly done Ms. Clinton. Brilliantly done.
Secretary Clinton condemned the wiretapping, and I couldn't find any reporting for that "saved them from Hitler" quote.
 

RevPokemon

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
4,839
Trophies
0
Age
27
Location
Fort Gay, West Virginia
XP
2,300
Country
United States
If one cares who wins the election, it is a binary choice. If Senator Sanders had run as an independent or endorsed Jill Stein, he would have unnecessarily split the Democratic vote and increased the odds of a Donald Trump win. Clinton is the only candidate who can beat Trump at this point. In addition, Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton are in alignment 95% of the time with regard to policy, particularly with regard to issues like income inequality that Sanders supporters care about most. Why a Sanders supporter wouldn't vote for Clinton is beyond understanding.
Hear me out

They feel that the DNC screwd Bernie and did not give him a fair chance
She is relatively hawkish when it comes to the military (The war in Iraq thing is an issue)
She is not nearly as much as an "Activist" type as Bernie or Jill

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Because it's a trust issue. Anyone can promise anything.
The candidates could be exactly equal in the things they promise, but you might believe that one of them is capable of doing it and the other isn't.

When Hillary Clinton commented on the incident where our Chancellors phone was bugged by the NSA she said "Germany should remember who saved them from Hitler and they should show some gratitude" and that's basically all you need to know about the kind of person she is.

She is less garbage than Trump, but she is still garbage. Her garbage might be less rancid than his, but that doesn't mean i wouldn't take her out to the curb as well i given the chance.

That one comment alone made the strongest European nation already turn against her. Brilliantly done Ms. Clinton. Brilliantly done.
I didn't see this post but I agree with what you say here

Secretary Clinton condemned the wiretapping, and I couldn't find any reporting for that "saved them from Hitler" quote.
Although I would still say her views towards encryption, Snowden, and privacy still leave alot to be desired.
 

Engert

I love me
Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2012
Messages
887
Trophies
0
Location
Taxachusetts
Website
www.google.com
XP
493
Country
United States
I am german, so i personally believe that the goverment should exist for the benefit of the people they serve.
This means that everything important to the development of the people should be absolutely free.
This means education, medical treatment and yes... even supporting people financially who can not support themselves.
In germany that has been the case for ages and it saddens me that this shouldn't be the standard in any western nation.
This is nothing new, nothing revolutionary. This should be the absolute bare-minimum.
If someone needs help, you help them.
If someone wants to learn, you teach them.
If someone has nothing to eat, you feed them,
and if someone doesn't have a home, then you give him one.

America is not a country. It's a business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cracker

chrisrlink

Has a PhD in dueling
Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
5,546
Trophies
2
Location
duel acadamia
XP
5,707
Country
United States
F- the election I'm getting married and moving to vancover a month before election day (yes my fiance is canadian and I'm muslim so idgaf if i cannot return for a max of 8 years assuming his damn ban passes congress i give trump 3 months (or less) before he's impeached his racist and xenophobic ways will not be allowed by congress
 

RevPokemon

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
4,839
Trophies
0
Age
27
Location
Fort Gay, West Virginia
XP
2,300
Country
United States
F- the election I'm getting married and moving to vancover a month before election day (yes my fiance is canadian and I'm muslim so idgaf if i cannot return for a max of 8 years assuming his damn ban passes congress i give trump 3 months (or less) before he's impeached his racist and xenophobic ways will not be allowed by congress
The GOP (unless the lose alot of seats) has majority so I doubt they will impeach the president of their own party.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
They feel that the DNC screwd Bernie and did not give him a fair chance
Despite the personal views of many at the DNC, he was treated impartially and wasn't screwed by them.

She is relatively hawkish when it comes to the military (The war in Iraq thing is an issue)
This is a fair criticism.

She is not nearly as much as an "Activist" type as Bernie or Jill
I don't know what this is even supposed to mean.

Although I would still say her views towards encryption, Snowden, and privacy still leave alot to be desired.
Another fair criticism.

America is not a country. It's a business.
No, it's definitely a country.
 

RevPokemon

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
4,839
Trophies
0
Age
27
Location
Fort Gay, West Virginia
XP
2,300
Country
United States
Since you agreed with part of what i said i will leave that alone but as for

Despite the personal views of many at the DNC, he was treated impartially and wasn't screwed by them.
I must say i have not read the DNC leaks nor can i consider them 100% true at this point. Nevertheless you could argue that Sanders (and to a point O'Malley) did not receive the full support that Clinton had when it came to the run for the nomination. Partially it is because the Clintons are simply more influential in the party and just plain more well known (how many people knew who bernie was in 14?). I am not saying it was totally rigid but i will say i do however feel that it was stackted in her favor to an extent (how large is debatable). Likewise if the voters do feel it was rigid then that causes distrust of the party shich is only natural.

The activist comment is that to a large degree Clinton did not have the same type of activists suppprt her that Bernie had and likewise mamy activist (3rd party progressives for example) liked him for being a progressive outsider who was willing to disagree with the party if it was to support american progressive causes.

Likewise i have to say whether fair or not Clinton is getting some flak for support of things like Doma, the tpp, 3 strike policies and other things of the past which scare some progressives even if she has supposedly changed views (whether you believe that is personal opinion).
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
I must say i have not read the DNC leaks nor can i consider them 100% true at this point. Nevertheless you could argue that Sanders (and to a point O'Malley) did not receive the full support that Clinton had when it came to the run for the nomination. Partially it is because the Clintons are simply more influential in the party and just plain more well known (how many people knew who bernie was in 14?). I am not saying it was totally rigid but i will say i do however feel that it was stackted in her favor to an extent (how large is debatable). Likewise if the voters do feel it was rigid then that causes distrust of the party shich is only natural.
The Democratic Party didn't do anything to hurt Senator Sanders' campaign, and it didn't do anything to give an advantage to Secretary Clinton. One might argue about debate scheduling, but that's both circumstantial, a matter of opinion, and hardly out of the ordinary.

The activist comment is that to a large degree Clinton did not have the same type of activists suppprt her that Bernie had and likewise mamy activist (3rd party progressives for example) liked him for being a progressive outsider who was willing to disagree with the party if it was to support american progressive causes.
By any definition, Secretary Clinton is as much an activist for social change as any other candidate. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you criticizing her because she's not an activist (she is), or are you criticizing her because she's not progressive enough? They're two separate issues.

Likewise i have to say whether fair or not Clinton is getting some flak for support of things like Doma, the tpp, 3 strike policies and other things of the past which scare some progressives even if she has supposedly changed views (whether you believe that is personal opinion).
Hillary Clinton wasn't in a position to vote on DOMA at the time of its passage, but regardless, some would argue it was better than the alternative of a constitutional amendment. In addition, Bernie Sanders was on record against same-sex marriage nearly ten year after DOMA's passage. You'd be hard-pressed finding an American politician who has been consistently in favor of gay rights. The vast majority of Americans have switched from one position to the other. One shouldn't be punished for his or her history on the issue after coming around on gay rights like we asked. With regard to just this issue, what more do people want?

With regard to the TPP in its current form, Secretary Clinton was never on record in favor of it; the controversy was she didn't want to undermine President Obama while it was being negotiated and wouldn't take a position. She did come out against it after being pressed on the issue. For as long as she's had a public opinion on it, she's been relatively consistent in being against the TPP. One might point to positive things she said about it during her time as Secretary of State, but much of what you find will reference what she said she hoped it would be and was before or in the middle of its synthesis.

I'm not saying there aren't things to give liberals some pause, but these aren't them, and they're hardly relevant anymore in a general election against Donald Trump.
 

RevPokemon

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
4,839
Trophies
0
Age
27
Location
Fort Gay, West Virginia
XP
2,300
Country
United States
1. I agree what you say but i feel that not having a debate in California would count as not being fair sonce it is/was something that had happened for awhile.

2. She is not an activist in the terms of what most "activists" want for president in that they want a complete overhaul of the system . Likewise the being progressive comment was because in turn you could argue that she would not fight for the most progressive causes and would take agreement with more conservative hawkosh democrats and republicans that she would not bring the progressive change wanted by so many "activists".

3. My bad here as i did not mean to suggest Bernie was against doma but the fact that the Clinton administration did support it still is something that bothers some people ( although as you said few big party politicans where vocal supporters of lgbtqi rights then). As for the position changing in general i agree but i think it is hard to convince people at times of the change is genuine or for political advamtage.

4. As for the TPP it still could bother some in that the Clinton Administration had before supported trade agreements (although this goes back to the whole position swapping issie) and also if she was strongly against it then she could have been more openly critical (something many activists would like). Also unrelated the pick of Kaine and his previous support of the TPP again could re ignite fears (although that may not happen but could be a key issue if it came down to it).
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
1. I agree what you say but i feel that not having a debate in California would count as not being fair sonce it is/was something that had happened for awhile.
To talk about the debate schedule is silly when Clinton, Sanders, and the other candidates agreed to the official debate schedule well ahead of time. Just because Sanders thought late in the campaign that he could win in California and considered himself narrowly behind doesn't mean he gets to retroactively schedule a debate that would specifically benefit him just because he wants it. Not to say he did this, but he doesn't get to say it's unfair when the aforementioned debate doesn't happen. I like Sanders and I even voted for him, but he had the habit throughout the campaign of condemning things when they were detrimental to his campaign before embracing them when he thought they worked in his favor (e.g. superdelegates).

2. She is not an activist in the terms of what most "activists" want for president in that they want a complete overhaul of the system . Likewise the being progressive comment was because in turn you could argue that she would not fight for the most progressive causes and would take agreement with more conservative hawkosh democrats and republicans that she would not bring the progressive change wanted by so many "activists".
Then as I've said before, you have a problem with what she isn't an activist for, not that she isn't an activist.

3. My bad here as i did not mean to suggest Bernie was against doma but the fact that the Clinton administration did support it still is something that bothers some people ( although as you said few big party politicans where vocal supporters of lgbtqi rights then). As for the position changing in general i agree but i think it is hard to convince people at times of the change is genuine or for political advamtage.
Sanders was actually against DOMA, but he wrote in an op-ed that he was against it on a purely states' rights argument. He was against marriage equality for many years after that. It doesn't excuse it, but it was a different time twenty and even ten years ago. As I also mentioned earlier, some would argue that at the time, the alternative to a simple anti-marriage equality law like DOMA was an Amendments Convention.

4. As for the TPP it still could bother some in that the Clinton Administration had before supported trade agreements (although this goes back to the whole position swapping issie) and also if she was strongly against it then she could have been more openly critical (something many activists would like). Also unrelated the pick of Kaine and his previous support of the TPP again could re ignite fears (although that may not happen but could be a key issue if it came down to it).
Kaine never supported the TPP and has actually come out against it. He did say in the past, however, that there were things that he liked about it while acknowledging concerns.
 

RevPokemon

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
4,839
Trophies
0
Age
27
Location
Fort Gay, West Virginia
XP
2,300
Country
United States
1.to some point i agree but i feel that no matter what that the super delegates system is bad but atleast afaik the new platform fixes certain problems of that.


2. I am speaking of progressive causes which to a point she has not always been 100% for when ot went against the mainstream Democratic views of the time (war in iraq for example).

3. I do agree that the world was very different in the past but the matter of the fact is that some people still have problems with such positions even if they have some understanding that times have chamged. Although i do agree that doma was better than a constitutional amendment but it still was horrible.

4. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-kaine-changes-course-on-tpp-after-vp-nod/

I take it as he supported the TPP (even if parts where bad in his view) but then came out against it. However it is open for interpretation i guess.
 

Costello

Headmaster
Administrator
Joined
Oct 24, 2002
Messages
14,198
Trophies
4
XP
19,646
GBAtemp is not representative of the US population at all, but I think the current poll results pretty much depict what could actually happen at the election: people turning their back on Hillary and voting for third parties, whereas Trump and republicans unite...
I am scared for real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chary

RevPokemon

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
4,839
Trophies
0
Age
27
Location
Fort Gay, West Virginia
XP
2,300
Country
United States
GBAtemp is not representative of the US population at all, but I think the current poll results pretty much depict what could actually happen at the election: people turning their back on Hillary and voting for third parties, whereas Trump and republicans unite...
I am scared for real.
The current electoral college system currently looks good for the Democrats in that (correct me if i am wrong) she could win the presidency with all the states Kerry won plus new Hampshire (and lose florida). The third parties will not really change the election since historically they draw equalish amounts from both sides (Johnson is actually more likely to hurt trump due to support from Never Trump people like Glenn Beck and has decent conservative support). Plus currently Clinton has a much much better chamce of beating Trump then Obama did of Romney at the time.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,338
Country
United States
1.to some point i agree but i feel that no matter what that the super delegates system is bad but atleast afaik the new platform fixes certain problems of that.
The role of Democratic superdelegates in the next election is ambiguous. We'll see. I agree that superdelegates need to go away, but my point was Senator Sanders was not consistent on that. He openly embraced them when they became his only way to win.

2. I am speaking of progressive causes which to a point she has not always been 100% for when ot went against the mainstream Democratic views of the time (war in iraq for example).
I agree, but 95% is better than the alternative.

4. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-kaine-changes-course-on-tpp-after-vp-nod/

I take it as he supported the TPP (even if parts where bad in his view) but then came out against it. However it is open for interpretation i guess.
I think one could argue that Kaine was open to the TPP, but he and Secretary Clinton are against it now, and they've been against it for as long as they've had a clear position on the topic. That's all that really matters.

GBAtemp is not representative of the US population at all, but I think the current poll results pretty much depict what could actually happen at the election: people turning their back on Hillary and voting for third parties, whereas Trump and republicans unite...
I am scared for real.
This is a real possibility. Ignoring Jill Stein for a moment, Governor Johnson is right now taking more support from Secretary Clinton than Donald Trump, but this could change between now and the election, particularly after the DNC.

Also, didn't you vote for Jill Stein? If so, you're about as much to blame as anyone for the poll results:
GBATrump_zpsqzmlt6lk.jpg

The current electoral college system currently looks good for the Democrats in that (correct me if i am wrong) she could win the presidency with all the states Kerry won plus new Hampshire (and lose florida). The third parties will not really change the election since historically they draw equalish amounts from both sides (Johnson is actually more likely to hurt trump due to support from Never Trump people like Glenn Beck and has decent conservative support). Plus currently Clinton has a much much better chamce of beating Trump then Obama did of Romney at the time.
While Secretary Clinton is narrowly ahead, the electoral map is a little too close for comfort. While the state of the race now is comparable to this date in 2012, it's simultaneously comparable to this date in 2004. Things could go either way. As of today, Nate Silver puts Donald Trump's odds of winning at around 40% in his polls-plus model.
 
Last edited by Lacius,

RevPokemon

GBATemp's 3rd Favorite Transgirl
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
4,839
Trophies
0
Age
27
Location
Fort Gay, West Virginia
XP
2,300
Country
United States
1.In a large sense they were always the only way to win but lets move on this point as I think we have come to an agreement.

2. Depends for many people the alternatives are
Jill Stein a progressive who deeply cares and fights for progressive causes or Dont vote which has appeals (especially if you live in a state where the electoral vote is almost gaurented to go one way. But again this is a point we dis agree on since I do not believe in the "lesser of evil"/binary ideologue. Oh well

3. Again that is open to interpertation but I under stand your point of view

4. I strongly disagree here. Sure Johnson will probably get some sanders supporters but overall he is getting way more support from conservatives then he is progressives. Look at his endorsements they all are from people who indentify as conservative or who generally support 3rd parties, practically no well known progressives or progressive groups are giving him favor. Ultiamatly I feel he is going to end up with more Never Trump people then people who support Sanders.I still Highly doubt that voting Stein or Johnson will cause Trump to win much like how Nader did not cause Gore to lose or Perot did not cause Bush to lose.That type of Perot support is what I expect to be what happens for Johnson.

5. Either way I still believe that unless the DNC leaks she will probably win. The way the electoral college is still favors the Democrats currently (what polling for the electoral college you prefer to use is up to you) and it would be hard for trump to win in all the battle ground areas needed. The best thing for Trump I honestly could see would be winning the popular vote thanks to a surplus of votes in the deep red south but I still highly doubt that would happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    SylverReZ @ SylverReZ: @salazarcosplay, Morning