[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?


  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Clinton: "I like my elections the way I like my soup, cold and dirty."
Politics is a cold and dirty business. No doubt the release of the tapes from 2005 was timed to be as damaging as possible - soon enough to let it sink into the public consciousness, but late enough that the Trump campaign has to scramble to try and repair the damage - but Trump hasn't characterised Clinton any differently to any other politician. Sure, she's untrustworthy, but what politician isn't? Trump can try to take the high road as often as he likes, but he has played the same cynical game as she has.

"Nobody likes women more than me", he adds. Yes, Donald, we know.
There is one possible good that may come out of his campaign - this election will most likely decide the fate of women in politics. A vote for Trump is a vote for everything he represents; to vote for Clinton is to accept the idea that women can legitimately be in politics.

Sure, we have had women in politics before. But neither Julia Gillard nor Theresa May were directly elected; Gillard usurped Kevin Rudd, while May filled the vacuum left by David Cameron. The likes of Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel might have been directly elected, but in the case of Hillary Clinton, the election is a very public spectacle playing out on the world stage - and Donald Trump is the personification of every negative attitude directed towards women in positions of power.

When Gillard was in power, she was never truly accepted by the public because of the way she took power, and consequently the public was unmoved when she was subject to some truly horrendous abuse - like pornographic cartoons - and this was condoned by the opposition under Tony Abbott. But in Trump, Clinton faces all of this up-front and has to overcome it in the court of public opinion to get into power. Beating him in a fair fight will go a long way towards breaking the glass ceiling.

Of course, we all know that Trump will move heaven and earth to be a thorn in her side if he loses.
 
Of course, we all know that Trump will move heaven and earth to be a thorn in her side if he loses.
Never mind Trump. What about scores of millions of angry people? Will they lay aside their anger and join together to support the new president? Or will the populist movement continue under new leadership to gather steam? Surely there will be a strong effort to impeach the new president with so much evidence of corruption - depending on sufficient numbers in the Congress. Sometimes I think about the French Revolution and wonder if its like will come again?
 
Sometimes I think about the French Revolution and wonder if its like will come again?
I'm sure that the most dedicated Trump followers would love the idea, and Trump may even be deluded enough to believe there's something to it - but at the end of the day, I don't think that there would be much to it.
 
I'm sure that the most dedicated Trump followers would love the idea, and Trump may even be deluded enough to believe there's something to it - but at the end of the day, I don't think that there would be much to it.
Today conditions are somewhat akin to those that inspired the French Revolution.
The realm has been hamstrung by unsustainable debts rung up by costly foreign adventures that did not pay off.
The wealthy are shielded from the required taxation by dubious means while the working class are stuck with the bill.
Is there more to come?


Sheriff openly calls for riots, "pitchforks and torches".
https://thinkprogress.org/sheriff-o...ays-election-is-rigged-dfe1a7ffc2b#.btnsfqqk4
1*q0hT2bVUsBNukHvJSz4mRg.jpeg

David Clarke, Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wis., speaks during the opening day of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Monday, July 18, 2016. CREDIT: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
 
Last edited:
Is there more to come?
I think that it would struggle to be legitimate. For one, I don't think that the discontent is so widespread that it could take hold. And secondly, they'd be unifying behind a figure move divisive than the one they're rebelling against.
 
I think that it would struggle to be legitimate. For one, I don't think that the discontent is so widespread that it could take hold. And secondly, they'd be unifying behind a figure move divisive than the one they're rebelling against.
I don't see the nation unifying under Hillary. Far from it. I see more conflict and turmoil. New leadership will emerge to co-opt the allegiance of the angry millions. The only sure way to stop it is to put a check for a million dollars in everybody's mailbox tomorrow.
 
I don't see the nation unifying under Hillary. Far from it. I see more conflict and turmoil. New leadership will emerge to co-opt the allegiance of the angry millions.
I doubt that it will come to anything as radical as a revolution. An uprising against tyranny is deeply rooted in the mythos of the American Revolution, so any subsequent revolution is invariably going to be compared to it. As such, if there is no tyranny to rise up against, said revolution is going to be find it almost impossible to succeed. It's very difficult to launch a revolution against a democratically-elected government simply because the global community will recognise that government as the legitimate one. You could only really do it if a government that got into power was subsequently proven to be rotten to the core and abused its powers to maintain power.
 
With all the things he's said and alleged about Clinton, whatever the outcome of the election, Trump will commit suicide shortly afterwards by shooting himself twice in the back of his head...

I hear he hopes Vince Foster left behind crib notes.
 
There is one possible good that may come out of his campaign - this election will most likely decide the fate of women in politics. A vote for Trump is a vote for everything he represents; to vote for Clinton is to accept the idea that women can legitimately be in politics.

How exactly will this decide the fate of women in politics? Most people don't vote for parties based on the gender of their leader, and they don't dislike Clinton because she's female, it's nonsense to imply that if people don't vote for her that they don't think women can legitimately be in politics.
 
Never mind Trump. What about scores of millions of angry people? Will they lay aside their anger and join together to support the new president? Or will the populist movement continue under new leadership to gather steam? Surely there will be a strong effort to impeach the new president with so much evidence of corruption - depending on sufficient numbers in the Congress. Sometimes I think about the French Revolution and wonder if its like will come again?

It's not like the French Revolution at all (or, for that matter, the American Revolution). It's much more like the rise of facism in Germany: a right-wing, nationalist, populist movement centered around a "strong" leader railing against a weak, ineffective government saddled with bad "deals", & using a visible minority as a scapegoat.
 
How exactly will this decide the fate of women in politics? Most people don't vote for parties based on the gender of their leader, and they don't dislike Clinton because she's female, it's nonsense to imply that if people don't vote for her that they don't think women can legitimately be in politics.

Eh, do you know who are about to argue with, he's been parading a lot of things pro Clinton that stem off controversy of click bait news. While what you just posted is quite logical, it's not surprising to see you or someone else having to post it and legitimately question.

To echo this I too feel it's a cop out inane argument to say that me not voting for a woman is a subconscious vote against women.
 
Eh, do you know who are about to argue with, he's been parading a lot of things pro Clinton that stem off controversy of click bait news. While what you just posted is quite logical, it's not surprising to see you or someone else having to post it and legitimately question.

To echo this I too feel it's a cop out inane argument to say that me not voting for a woman is a subconscious vote against women.

I know, I felt someone had to say something though, it was such a stupid argument that I couldn't let it go unchallenged.
 
It's not like the French Revolution at all (or, for that matter, the American Revolution). It's much more like the rise of facism in Germany: a right-wing, nationalist, populist movement centered around a "strong" leader railing against a weak, ineffective government saddled with bad "deals", & using a visible minority as a scapegoat.
You're like a blind man groping one member of an elephant, thinking you've seen the whole. Not bad, but there's more to it. Bernie's followers, for openers.
 
You're like a blind man groping one member of an elephant, thinking you've seen the whole. Not bad, but there's more to it. Bernie's followers, for openers.

You think there wasn't a left-wing movement in Germany (or Italy) in the 1920's & 30's?
 
You think there wasn't a left-wing movement in Germany (or Italy) in the 1920's & 30's?
When the wages of political sin and the price of economic injustice comes due, when war and debt are upon us, the left and right - liberal and conservative - will suffer alike.

Liberals are not our enemies, nor are conservatives. Neither are Muslims or Russians. Our boats will all float or sink together.

This election is merely a political football in a bigger game.
 
Last edited:
How exactly will this decide the fate of women in politics? Most people don't vote for parties based on the gender of their leader, and they don't dislike Clinton because she's female, it's nonsense to imply that if people don't vote for her that they don't think women can legitimately be in politics.

I'm also kind of curious how only now could Hilary be considered to legitimately be in politics.
 
It's not like the French Revolution at all (or, for that matter, the American Revolution). It's much more like the rise of facism in Germany: a right-wing, nationalist, populist movement centered around a "strong" leader railing against a weak, ineffective government saddled with bad "deals", & using a visible minority as a scapegoat.
We don't agree much, but we are in agreement here. This rise in populist momentum is going to be the major problem of the new president, and it could lead to a dictator.
 
Thousands of women who are victims of sexual assault or harassment are forced to work alongside their abusers every day. Some of them even do it willingly - particularly when their abuser is in a position of power - because they feel that speaking out will turn them into a pariah. Just because Zervos had subsequent contact with Trump, it doesn't mean that she's lying.
Note it says she wanted to work with him, not that she was working with him after the alleged abuse.

Someone harasses you, so 2 years later, you apply to work with them? What goes through your mind thinking you're not going to put yourself in the same position again?
"I'm not winning the way I thought I would, so this election is clearly rigged! Also, my opponent is on drugs."

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...egitimacy-of-us-presidential-election/7936600
"I'm going to mock Trump in a form that presents his view as I see fit."

"The election is being rigged by corrupt media pushing completely false allegations and outright lies in an effort to elect her president."
Anyone who has paid even just an hour of attention knows that is exactly true unless you're watching Fox News. The media has not commented on allegations against Hillary, only Trump.

They're so focused on what Trump said 10 years ago, but won't dare go near what Obama said about her 8 years ago.
 
As much as I dont really Desiring Trump, pointing out what he says 10 years ago about women is pretty much invalid. People can change on that span of time.

Nowadays what matters.
 
CuxvdmgW8AAXONb.jpg

But please Prisoner, tell us again how victims will go as far as to call their harasser a man who is "cut from the same cloth" as anyone who is honest while working hard.

Nobody in their right mind would ever say such kind words about someone they said tried to sexually harass them beforehand. Nicest victim, ever. :lol:
 
It's not like the French Revolution at all (or, for that matter, the American Revolution). It's much more like the rise of facism in Germany: a right-wing, nationalist, populist movement centered around a "strong" leader railing against a weak, ineffective government saddled with bad "deals", & using a visible minority as a scapegoat.

We'll know if it's like Fascist Germany when the Capitol is burnt down.

I'd say it's more like a psychological Russian Revolution, where we believe that 'production' (probably a metaphor for wealth now) will be returned into the hands of the middle class/working class, yet the result will either be status quo or a complete failure, and the slim chance of real growth, and both sides advocate that their candidate will do this.

I don't think any physical violence will come of the election at all, whether it be a minority or otherwise. At worst there'll be an Occupy Wall Street-like movement, but with way more people.

We don't agree much, but we are in agreement here. This rise in populist momentum is going to be the major problem of the new president, and it could lead to a dictator.

I doubt a bunch of hicks are going to do anything.

Unless you're talking about Queen Hillary. Than, maybe.

Anyways it's impossible for a dictatorship to form, unless every Liberal-leaning Supreme Court judge mysteriously dies, and Republicans have a large majority of the Congress, and vice versa for Liberals; like John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts, which essentially banned immigration and free press, because of the same circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Politics is a cold and dirty business. No doubt the release of the tapes from 2005 was timed to be as damaging as possible - soon enough to let it sink into the public consciousness, but late enough that the Trump campaign has to scramble to try and repair the damage - but Trump hasn't characterised Clinton any differently to any other politician. Sure, she's untrustworthy, but what politician isn't? Trump can try to take the high road as often as he likes, but he has played the same cynical game as she has.

Such a glowing endorsement; you could be her campaign manager!

Here, I'll give you this first advertisement as a freebie in your new career.

9hhzl1.jpg


Best of luck.
 
I doubt a bunch of hicks are going to do anything.
Adolf Hitler couldn't really do anything either until he had his goon squad, the Brown Shirts, killed in 'The night of Long Knives'. It is how he reacted to the situation that is how he ascended to become the Führer. Just keep in mind that if there is a mad man wanting power, and he has goons, he will use them to their fullest potential until they become politically convenient to get rid of.
 
When the wages of political sin and the price of economic injustice comes due, when war and debt are upon us, the left and right - liberal and conservative - will suffer alike.

Liberals are not our enemies, nor are conservatives. Neither are Muslims or Russians. Our boats will all float or sink together.

This election is merely a political football in a bigger game.

What on earth are you going on about?

The situation really isn't like the Weimar republic in the 1920's, because economic circumstances in the US today aren't remotely as bad as they were in Germany at that time. It's Trump & the alt-right media that have promoted the idea of a wildly dystopian present, but it's an image that doesn't bear much resemblance to reality.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back