[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Johnnypenso]

So now the hot line of the week is Donald not saying he will accept the results of the election.
After what happened to Mr. Sanders and the leaked emails, I wouldn't trust it either.
They also forgot about Mr. Gore questioning the election. But hey if the Democrats do it, it's okay right?

For months Bernie was shouting about the DNC stacking the deck against him and a lot of people cried sour grapes. Turns out he was right. Any political candidate that isn't HRC should be concerned about forces aligning against them, including the mainstream media which is unashamedly a part of Clinton's campaign team.

 

[killerjimbag]

For months Bernie was shouting about the DNC stacking the deck against him and a lot of people cried sour grapes. Turns out he was right. Any political candidate that isn't HRC should be concerned about forces aligning against them, including the mainstream media which is unashamedly a part of Clinton's campaign team.

George Soros.
Nothing else to be said.

 

[Touring Mars]

When Trump says he may not accept the election result, do you think he means if he wins??

 

[Danoff]

When Trump says he may not accept the election result, do you think he means if he wins??

6th grader mentality. Trash talk going in, don't prepare or bring any real substance, claim your opponent cheated when you lose. The advanced 6th grader move is to prepare the groundwork for your face-saving cheater claim prior to losing, but after it becomes apparent that you will.

If you're a parent and you let your kids play victim in a loss (such as claiming that the other school's team was made up of kids that were older or something), you're a bad parent for not teaching them the lesson that they have to take responsibility for the outcome.

 

[Pillo-san]

But one question, are they related? I mean Hillary and Trump? I thought I saw something about that all presidents in US were related to eachother in some way or an other. If so does it matter who will be the President of USA?

 

[Danoff]

But one question, are they related? I mean Hillary and Trump? I thought I saw something about that all presidents in US were related to eachother in some way or an other. If so does it matter who will be the President of USA?

Yes. Hillary and Trump are related by both being crazy narcissistic self-serving egotists who have a blatant disregard for the US constitution, economic solvency, debt, and general economic principles. Both advocate trampling the rights of American people, champion causes that will deepen the problems they pretend to solve, and over-state the ability of the office. Both are wild hypocrites who are so far removed from the truth that I actually question whether they even know that they're lying when they lie.

"Well, this is usually a Giant Douche household, but we are going firmly with the Turd Sandwich."

Once again, the only way to truly waste a vote is to vote for something you don't even want.

 

[McLaren]

No, we've gone from "I can't reply to Member X when I'm asleep" to "I don't reply to every notification, including one from Member Y". Do you see the difference?

All I see is an attempt to say, "I never saw your posts".

So explain then, why you ignored all that info showcasing the Dems influencing the election even more so than Assange from the same post you replied to?

Or am I to assume you're going to go ahead and "miss" this post as well?

 

[TenEightyOne]

the only way to truly waste a vote is to vote for something you don't even want.

I disagree; it's a matter of one's own opinion if one wants to vote for something one doesn't want so that the vote counts against something one really doesn't want.

 

[Danoff]

I disagree; it's a matter of one's own opinion if one wants to vote for something one doesn't want so that the vote counts against something one really doesn't want.

I'm aware of that argument. It's a distortion of the signal you send with your vote. You erode your representation in government by doing that. Hitler runs against Stalin. You vote for Hitler because Stalin killed more people. Is that a vote against Stalin or against Jews? Is it a vote for warmongering or against warmongering. Is it a vote against oppression or for oppression? It's impossible to know. All you've really done is legitimize someone who should not have been legitimized.

It's a famous trick for getting cooperation from a 3 year old. Red bib or blue bib? They don't want either one, but when given the choice they choose a bib. They've legitimized wearing a bib even though it was the last thing they wanted to agree to.

By voting for someone you don't want to win you remove your representation, legitimize a candidate who is not actually legitimate, and reduce yourself to being tricked like a toddler. It is just about the worst way to behave in an election, and it is a rampant position taken by the majority of the US population.

 

[Biggles]

I'm aware of that argument. It's a distortion of the signal you send with your vote. You erode your representation in government by doing that. Hitler runs against Stalin. You vote for Hitler because Stalin killed more people. Is that a vote against Stalin or against Jews? Is it a vote for warmongering or against warmongering. Is it a vote against oppression or for oppression? It's impossible to know. All you've really done is legitimize someone who should not have been legitimized.

It's a famous trick for getting cooperation from a 3 year old. Red bib or blue bib? They don't want either one, but when given the choice they choose a bib. They've legitimized wearing a bib even though it was the last thing they wanted to agree to.

By voting for someone you don't want to win you remove your representation, legitimize a candidate who is not actually legitimate, and reduce yourself to being tricked like a toddler. It is just about the worst way to behave in an election, and it is a rampant position taken by the majority of the US population.

I feel your pain Danoff - I really do. However, when the same situation exists for decades, at what point do you conclude there's something fundamentally flawed with the constitutional system that created & continues to enable that situation?

 

[Dotini]

I feel your pain Danoff - I really do. However, when the same situation exists for decades, at what point do you conclude there's something fundamentally flawed with the constitutional system that created & continues to enable that situation?

What's flawed with the constitution?? You should realize that a constitutional convention could result in unpredictable outcomes. But is it the constitution that is flawed, or is it the education and character of the people who make up the citizenry and the political aspirants?

 

[sumbrownkid]

Welp, early voting started Monday in Georgia. I'm off tomorrow and I'm going to vote.

Good luck America.

Voting today after I drop my mom off at the airport. I think we can all agree that this crap fest of an election season coming to a close is a gift.

 

[DDastardly00]

Thankfully the moderator attempted to shut down any attempts of applause and cheering at this debate. The last two were ridiculous.

I think Chris Wallace is the clear and obvious winner for the best moderator in all 3 debates, not only did he do a better job of containing Trump's out-of-turn outbursts, but he also reigned in Hillary going past her allotted time as well. All in all this debate was far more civil and easier to watch. I thought the debate questions were good and he even tossed in some hardball questions to both. It was a stark contrast to the 2nd town hall style debate that featured questions that were very sophomore and soft (sorry Ken Bone but your question was weak).

Hillary really stumbled on the wiki leaks question, looked very uncomfortable before she attempted to pivot to a new topic. She had a better debate than Trump but that was clearly her worst moment.

 

[Biggles]

I think Chris Wallace is the clear and obvious winner for the best moderator in all 3 debates, not only did he do a better job of containing Trump's out-of-turn outbursts, but he also reigned in Hillary going past her allotted time as well. All in all this debate was far more civil and easier to watch. I thought the debate questions were good and he even tossed in some hardball questions to both. It was a stark contrast to the 2nd town hall style debate that featured questions that were very sophomore and soft (sorry Ken Bone but your question was weak).

Hillary really stumbled on the wiki leaks question, looked very uncomfortable before she attempted to pivot to a new topic. She had a better debate than Trump but that was clearly her worst moment.

I agree with all of this. I though it was Trump's best debate. He could have had Hillary on the ropes a couple of times, but he showed, once again, that he's not good at thinking on his feet, not good at steering the debate in the direction that would actually benefit him, not prepared enough to be able to put forward a clear explanation of his own positions & still too intellectually undisciplined to avoid counter-productive personal attacks .. "such a nasty woman!".

His comments about not necessarily respecting the results of the election are the final blow to his prospects.

 

[DDastardly00]

I agree with all of this. I though it was Trump's best debate. He could have had Hillary on the ropes a couple of times, but he showed, once again, that he's not good at thinking on his feet, not good at steering the debate in the direction that would actually benefit him, not prepared enough to be able to put forward a clear explanation of his own positions & still too intellectually undisciplined to avoid counter-productive personal attacks .. "such a nasty woman!".

His comments about not necessarily respecting the results of the election are the final blow to his prospects.

I don't think it matters all that much, his ship was sunk the moment the 2005 tape was released and he hasn't been able to rebound since. Hillary is going to win this election unless wikileaks releases a video of her killing kittens and puppies with Putin and Kim Jong Un or something.

 

[FoRiZon]

One thing I agree on Trump though, is that USA spends too much bothering other nations. Also I personally dont like how Clinton says that Wikileaks are sponsored by Russians and USA is in danger of Russian hacks and cyber attacks, as the USA didnt do it on other nations, right?

Nevertheless, never liked Trump style of generalization, though.

 

[DDastardly00]

One thing I agree on Trump though, is that USA spends too much bothering other nations. Also I personally dont like how Clinton says that Wikileaks are sponsored by Russians and USA is in danger of Russian hacks and cyber attacks, as the USA didnt do it on other nations, right?

Nevertheless, never liked Trump style of generalization, though.

Spot on, Clinton's claim that "interfering in our elections is unprecedented" rang hollow when we have a history of meddling in other sovereign nation's affairs.

 

[huskeR32]

Does the name Al Gore ring a bell? He thought he was screwed over and he acted on it.

They also forgot about Mr. Gore questioning the election. But hey if the Democrats do it, it's okay right?

Enough with this absurd comparison.

The Gore campaign understandably asked for a recount in a very close race, and in response to emerging information about faulty voting mechanisms.

Trump is bellowing about voter fraud and election rigging, when there is no evidence that either has ever happened on a significant scale, before the election has even happened.

It's an idiotic comparison to draw between two very different situations.

 

[Duke]

I don't think it matters all that much, his ship was sunk the moment the 2005 tape was released and he hasn't been able to rebound since. Hillary is going to win this election unless wikileaks releases a video of her killing kittens and puppies with Putin and Kim Jong Un or something.

...which is ALL according to the plan. I've said almost since the moment Trump announced his candidacy that he is not a real candidate. Even he isn't trying to get elected - in fact, he's trying his damnedest NOT to. His sole purpose for being in this race is to make Hillary Clinton electable. Yes, this election is rigged, but it was rigged before Bernie got railroaded out of the Democratic nomination, not in the actual voting booth.

Look at the way the media has treated him throughout the race: first tons of coverage and hype as the surprise dark horse; then, as the other Republicans fell by the wayside, they switched to casting him as the bogeyman in order to scare people into voting for Hillary in the primaries so we could be sure to "beat Trump". Since the DNC gave Bernie the bum's rush and Hillary sewed up the Democratic nomination, they've switched to full-on "Is Trump even human?" mode in order to make sure there isn't the smallest accidental chance he will get elected.

Trump himself is fully cooperating in this, as he has from the outset. Yes he has an incredible ego, but don't think for a minute that is what is driving his campaign. He is absolutely helping to set up and throw this election directly to Hillary. He just loves the attention and doesn't care if it's good or bad. If he accidentally gets elected, he will laugh all the way to the White House. But he has no actual desire to be president. Note how he has continued to ramp up the crazy stupidity, the purposeful insensitivity, the outright offensiveness. Note how each bit of new scandal is even more over the top than the last.

Check back to this post in a month and see if I'm right: Keep looking at the alleged "poll" results. They have always shown a strong possibility that Trump could win, in order to frighten the natives into line. Polls will continue to show he has a dangerous chance, right up until election night. But when it comes to the actual event, the popular vote will go 60%-40% for Hillary, and the electoral vote will be even more one-sided. Mark my words.

So, yes, this election is rigged. But it was fixed last year, not next month.

 

[DDastardly00]

Project Veritas has Part 2 of Rigging the Election up:

Scott Foval:

"We've been bussing people in to deal with you Bleepity Bleeps for 50 years. We aren't going to stop now, we're just going to find a different way to do it"

People who don't like Trump are one thing but calling him a "whiner" about election fraud and vote rigging is entirely off-base in light of this new evidence. Take off your blinders and put down the Kool-Aid people, this is what the Democrat ground game really looks like.

Warning: Strong Language NWS

Spoiler

 

[Biggles]

...which is ALL according to the plan. I've said almost since the moment Trump announced his candidacy that he is not a real candidate. Even he isn't trying to get elected - in fact, he's trying his damnedest NOT to. His sole purpose for being in this race is to make Hillary Clinton electable. Yes, this election is rigged, but it was rigged before Bernie got railroaded out of the Democratic nomination, not in the actual voting booth.

Look at the way the media has treated him throughout the race: first tons of coverage and hype as the surprise dark horse; then, as the other Republicans fell by the wayside, they switched to casting him as the bogeyman in order to scare people into voting for Hillary in the primaries so we could be sure to "beat Trump". Since the DNC gave Bernie the bum's rush and Hillary sewed up the Democratic nomination, they've switched to full-on "Is Trump even human?" mode in order to make sure there isn't the smallest accidental chance he will get elected.

Trump himself is fully cooperating in this, as he has from the outset. Yes he has an incredible ego, but don't think for a minute that is what is driving his campaign. He is absolutely helping to set up and throw this election directly to Hillary. He just loves the attention and doesn't care if it's good or bad. If he accidentally gets elected, he will laugh all the way to the White House. But he has no actual desire to be president. Note how he has continued to ramp up the crazy stupidity, the purposeful insensitivity, the outright offensiveness. Note how each bit of new scandal is even more over the top than the last.

Check back to this post in a month and see if I'm right: Keep looking at the alleged "poll" results. They have always shown a strong possibility that Trump could win, in order to frighten the natives into line. Polls will continue to show he has a dangerous chance, right up until election night. But when it comes to the actual event, the popular vote will go 60%-40% for Hillary, and the electoral vote will be even more one-sided. Mark my words.

So, yes, this election is rigged. But it was fixed last year, not next month.

Nice theory ... but I don't think it's true. I suspect the election will turn out to very one-sided, but I think Trump really began to believe he could & should win the election. He does seem to have sabotaged his own chances, but I think that's because he really IS that stupid. Just look at his history of saying ignorant, insensitive, "politically incorrect" things - it goes way back.

 

[samurai8juice]

That's some complex thinking there: Government money could be used to help develop clean energy resulting in reduced dependence on Middle East oil, diminished Russian power, less entanglement in overseas conflicts & ... can I throw in reducing the effects of climate change too? You sound like a regular liberal/progressive! 👍

That's both Crunch & Sumurai coming over to the good guys!

I still don't support either of them.

I just can't trust Hillary. She could be the greatest president the U.S. has ever had, yet I still wouldn't trust her.

Donald's presidency is just going to be him relying on his cabinet and advisors the whole time (which might not be a bad thing, though).

But, no, definitely not a liberal/progressive, more like a conservative-moderate socially and a liberal-moderate economically (somewhat statist I guess).

 

[sumbrownkid]

I put down Harambe for local Tax Commissioner because I did not know who the current guy was and he was the only one running for the job.

 

[ryzno]

Enough with this absurd comparison.

Call it absurd. Call it what you want. I'll use it as a comparison if I choose. Who are you to tell me what to post?

The Gore campaign understandably asked for a recount in a very close race, and in response to emerging information about faulty voting mechanisms.

And there is plenty of proof of the DNC rigging the primaries. But go ahead and dismiss it. The primaries aren't important right? Just the setup for the actual election. It's not important at all.
But since you are voting for Hillary as the poll here suggests, you're going to get in a huff of anything said about your poster girl ain't ya?

Trump is bellowing about voter fraud and election rigging, when there is no evidence that either has ever happened on a significant scale, before the election has even happened.

I'm not even going to waste the effort of my fingers to explain it to you.

I said:
After what happened to Mr. Sanders and the leaked emails, I wouldn't trust it either.

But keep ignoring the signs that are right in your face. And picking lines from a post, that fit your argument. Don't they call that a straw-man or something?
But again I doubt you care, you're voting for her. You are as blind, as you want to make me look. I voted for Trump. I hate Hillary, but if I saw false info, I'd correct them even if it's in her favor.

It's an idiotic comparison to draw between two very different situations.

We'll see how it turns out won't we? Ain't much we can do now except hurry up and wait, who knows, might be another 2000 election, we'll see.
Now if all you are going to do is bother me every time I post something about Donald, you will not be getting a response. I don't recall quoting you every time you post something here about Hillary.
---------------------------------------------

And if anyone cares... http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...delaware-county-fairgrounds-after-debate.html

"Of course I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result. I will follow and abide by all of the rules and traditions of all the candidates who came before me," Trump said.

So whats your argument again?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Voting today after I drop my mom off at the airport. I think we can all agree that this crap fest of an election season coming to a close is a gift.

But you haven't seen who wins yet

I'm aware of that argument. It's a distortion of the signal you send with your vote. You erode your representation in government by doing that. Hitler runs against Stalin. You vote for Hitler because Stalin killed more people. Is that a vote against Stalin or against Jews? Is it a vote for warmongering or against warmongering. Is it a vote against oppression or for oppression? It's impossible to know. All you've really done is legitimize someone who should not have been legitimized.

And, ultimately, you've exercised your freedom of choice. One could equally argue that one's representation is bolstered rather than eroded - the legitimacy of any successful candidate is never decided with a pure, unitary mandate. Ultimately the effect of one's own vote (and therefore one's own choice) depends on which direction you look at the process from.

 

[Biggles]

And there is plenty of proof of the DNC rigging the primaries. But go ahead and dismiss it. The primaries aren't important right? Just the setup for the actual election. It's not important at all.

It's pretty clear that the DNC made every attempt to "rig" the primaries in Clinton's favour. The DNC has a lot of control over the process. It's a different story in the general election - any hotly contested constituency is carefully monitored by both major parties.

And picking lines from a post, that fit your argument. Don't they call that a straw-man or something?

No.

 

[DDastardly00]

Dr. Jill Stein will be in the Seattle area on Monday.

"Stein’s major issues include the push for a single-payer health-care system, a quick shift to renewable energy sources, a $15 national minimum wage, big cuts in military spending and free college and university."

I'm amazed that more Bernie people aren't supporting her.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...utm_medium=Referral&utm_campaign=RSS_politics

 

[Danoff]

And, ultimately, you've exercised your freedom of choice. One could equally argue that one's representation is bolstered rather than eroded - the legitimacy of any successful candidate is never decided with a pure, unitary mandate. Ultimately the effect of one's own vote (and therefore one's own choice) depends on which direction you look at the process from.

Your goal should be to best represent your positions.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I disagree; it's a matter of one's own opinion if one wants to vote for something one doesn't want so that the vote counts against something one really doesn't want.

Kind of hard, have you talked to a handful of people planning to vote. If not I'll give you a top hat of random things you can expect to hear as justification for picking people. "My parents voted republican so I plan to", "my parents voted republican and I can't stand them, so I will vote Democrat/Hillary", "He's going to make a great change he cant be bought", "The first woman in office and she's done this work most of her life, why vote against that", "Oh I don't know I just think they have the most experience...not sure what they stand for". Oh and my all time favorite depending on what news you most prescribe to or tend to hear in the doctor's office, "I'm voting for them cause they're the lesser of evils, in reality I don't have much choice so yeah..."

Never or to be more fair (though not deserved) do I get to meet a person in public at random who actually knows what either person stands for. If I give a couple general quick topics, like domestic policy in regards to minorities...nothing. If I ask about economic policy nothing, or the one I tend to care about most, foreign policy. Which tends to come back as "they're gonna stop those terrorists".

So I disagree with the notion that people actually have a faintest clue who they're voting for in the first place to even know what they want or if that's what they would have wanted. I mean even you have just given the lesser of two evil statement which really should be it's own fallacy at this point.

 

[huskeR32]

And there is plenty of proof of the DNC rigging the primaries. But go ahead and dismiss it. The primaries aren't important right? Just the setup for the actual election. It's not important at all.

What does that have to do with Gore?

But since you are voting for Hillary as the poll here suggests, you're going to get in a huff of anything said about your poster girl ain't ya?

You compared Trump to Gore. What does any of it have to do with my "poster girl" Hillary?

Now if all you are going to do is bother me every time I post something about Donald, you will not be getting a response.

I challenge unfounded or inaccurate statements, regardless of what they're about. That's kinda the point of this thread, no?

Or were you hoping for an echo chamber?

I don't recall quoting you every time you post something here about Hillary.

I haven't said much about her, but if any of it was unfounded or inaccurate, I'd expect someone to point that out.