[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Speedracer8218]

Regardless of whether people are saying Sanders won the debate, that will only translate into winning the popular vote, and if I remember correctly, popular vote don't mean 🤬 in here (Bush vs. Gore). It's the electoral college's vote that decides who the next POTUS is going to be (unfortunately), meaning "the people" will NEVER elect a president as long as this silly system is in place.

I fear Bernie labeling himself as a socialist democrat was a bad choice, as many of the friends I know who have been discussing election related topics have always first gone to an assumption "Oh he's socialist and that's bad...

I agree 100%, calling himself a socialist will get people to see him as a communist or worse...

 

[Sanji Himura]

Regardless of whether people are saying Sanders won the debate, that will only translate into winning the popular vote, and if I remember correctly, popular vote don't mean 🤬 in here (Bush vs. Gore). It's the electoral college's vote that decides who the next POTUS is going to be (unfortunately), meaning "the people" will NEVER elect a president as long as this silly system is in place.

While that is indeed true, the fact remains that this is primary season. 50 contests are to be held in 50 different states over different days. Each one is winner take all for the nomination.

 

[DK]

From what I read, CNN's poll was flooded by Redditors, and you know how echoey the pro-Sanders echo chamber is there.

 

[Swagger897]

lol... best troll group ever then.

"Your mission, flood every poll possible using as many proxies that you can to hide your IP."

 

[A2K78]

I Clinton take on captialism is pathetic at best...she bashes it, praises it, yet fail to realize that the very things she's proposing fly in the very face of what free market capitalism is. On an interesting not it look she like favors not only endless wars but the permanent occupation of Afghanistan...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-backs-obamas-afghanistan-move

Well its nice knowing that that good ole US of A will be heading in the same direction of the Soviets.

 

[Swagger897]

You know, when I heard over the week that Obama wanted to do this... I was like "Wait, didn't we just do this 7 years ago..."

I mean, C'mon man..

 

[Darla Starch]

Third party, third party, oh my kingdom for a third party......

Not sold on literally ANYONE from either Dems or Repubs....

 

[Swagger897]

Why not? (there must be a reason)

 

[ukfan758]

Why did CNN and FOX make the Republican debate a food fight but the democrat debate a semi-professional one? Was it the RNC demands or just an agenda they are trying to shove through? We know more about what the democrat candidates are from a 2-hour debate than the ~10 hours of republican debates.

 

[Darla Starch]

Why not? (there must be a reason)

With me, I base my decision making primarily on a gut feeling. Based off of relatively libertarian leanings, who would I best be suited to check out?

 

[GTPorsche]

Why did CNN and FOX make the Republican debate a food fight but the democrat debate a semi-professional one? Was it the RNC demands or just an agenda they are trying to shove through? We know more about what the democrat candidates are from a 2-hour debate than the ~10 hours of republican debates.

Democrats don't have Trump on stage looking like a clown? That may be why the difference in atmosphere.

Also CNN being owned by Time Warner and Time Warner being a major campaign contributor for Clinton. Gotta make their poster child look good.

 

[Swagger897]

Not really sure where I can guide you on that. I'm not going to vote for a certain party just because, but I don't want it to be a waste either.

In my case, I don't want Hilary president. She shows me nothing good compared to what others have, and has only been helped along the way. None of her previous decisions have been leading decisions, or one that stands out from the rest.

The republicans are too big to see who is yet to drop. I'll just cut to the chase on this one but Kasich would be my choice for that party. Not for the main vote though... No one else in the party to me did something meaningful in their time, and nor do I see any of them fit to lead our military. I could expand more but on mobile now...

 

[zzz_pt]

Disclaimer: I didn't read this whole thread before posting.


Yesterday I spent my afternoon watching both the democratic and the republican debates (5h ftw).

The democratic debate was more interesting. I like Sanders social (or socialists) proposals but I have no idea if he's gonna pull of a good result. Nor do I know him well enough to be sure if he's a populist politician. It's so awkward to live in Europe and listen to a debate where the candidates are still "pushing for" and announcing as a "big deal" paid leave for people who have kids, paid holidays, universal healthcare system and background checks (at least).

The republican debate more entertaining (for a 3h long video...) but not pleasant at all. Those republicans really are too stupid to run a country with the largest military resources on earth. It was cringing to hear some stances by some candidates on their positions regarding the middle east. It's a dangerous thing. And that's one of the reasons why I "have to" watch what the republicans are thinking atm if they gonna be in the white house next year.

It's a shame that a country as the USA doesn't have, currently, some "serious" people running for the oval office. Hillary? Despite being better than a republican candidate is far from being a good or ideal leader.

ps: Madre Teresa on the 10 dollar bill? What a dunce. lol

 

[FoolKiller]

Clinton suggests a national gun buyback program could be a possibility.

A man in the audience asked Clinton whether she thought it would be possible for the U.S. to enact such a program, and if not, why. Gun buybacks have happened at the metropolitan level in the U.S., but any effort at the national level would be sure to run into intense political opposition.
Clinton, for her part, seemed open to the idea.
"Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have had mass killings" she said. "Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws."
Australia’s mandatory gun buyback program of semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns was enacted after a shooter killed 35 people in 1996. The country bought back more than 650,000 weapons.
"The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns," Clinton said. "Then, they basically clamped down, going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach, but they believed, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buyback those guns, they were able to curtail the supply and to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future."

It took me forever to actually find a site with video of the full exchange.
Clinton is careful to never use the word "mandatory," but she keeps pointing at Australia's program, which was mandatory, as I understand it.
If they tried to enact a mandatory gun buyback it wouldn't make it. If it was voluntary then I think they could slide it through. I don't think they should. I don't want my tax dollars going to buy guns, especially if they were originally obtained illegally or used for crime. I also don't want to hand the government more guns. If anything, I want them armed less.
Hillary compares it to the Cash for Clunkers program. She even refers to that as a stimulus program to encourage buying more new cars. I'm not sure she realized that its intended effect is the opposite of what she would want with guns.

I'm not going to vote for a certain party just because, but I don't want it to be a waste either.

If everyone who said that actually voted the way they really felt they wouldn't be wasted votes.

It is long past time that we quit voting to keep someone out of office, or like it is just an us vs. them sport, and actually allowed a third option to become viable. Only the voters can do that. All it takes is one third party to win a couple of states in the general election and you will likely have a failure of our electoral system. It will have to be changed, and then it won't be a setup that practically necessitates a two-party system.


Right now, I see a two-headed beast that wants to eat us and we are just picking the head we prefer. We don't notice it because we are busy talking about the cosmetic differences between the two heads.

 

[Pupik]

If it was voluntary then I think they could slide it through.

We have that now: it's called not owning a gun because it's not in one's own best interests.

It is long past time that we quit voting to keep someone out of office, or like it is just an us vs. them sport, and actually allowed a third option to become viable. Only the voters can do that. All it takes is one third party to win a couple of states in the general election and you will likely have a failure of our electoral system.

And if there ever was at time to make that sort of noise, it needs to be made constantly and thoroughly at THIS TIME. There's no certainty, no incumbent unifying a party for re-election, a mess of candidates, and the time is prime for this sort of action.

Problems are 1) a single candidate with enough widespread popularity to spearhead this sort of challenge 2) enough money to keep the campaign rolling [since 2007, it seems to be a 20-month process!] 3) strong media presence, but major media players have either hitched their stars to a party or are following the distracting antics of Trump 4) unsure people also feel a societal pressure to vote as others would.

It could happen, but third parties seem to get no share of major debates, and they typically have enough contributions to make a push (outside the Internet and specialist press) in October, at most. I think too many folks make up their mind around June, and at that point, a third-party candidate does little other than take away votes from one/both candidates. If the percentage was stronger, say...20-30% in a state's popular vote, then there would be some awareness to shake up the two-party system, and the Establishment would have to take notice.

 

[CodeRedR51]

It's a shame that a country as the USA doesn't have, currently, some "serious" people running for the oval office.

This is why I never vote.

 

[Keef]

It's a shame that a country as the USA doesn't have, currently, some "serious" people running for the oval office.

There's a simple reason this happens and it's called "democracy".

Democratic principles - majority rules - were few and heavily checked and balanced when our government was first established. Pure democracy is one of the most self-destructive ideologies humanity has ever invented. Most elections at the Federal level are nothing more than popularity contests these days because the States have lost their say in the elections so they're all based on public opinion. And people, as you know, are emotional animals, especially in groups. That's why democracy is so dangerous, because people in groups tend to do what they feel is right, whether or not it is actually completely wrong.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Democracy would work...

But only here, we have the people who are blind sheeps, and the nominees as deaf as a rock...

... And the vote filtered out by the electoral college...

I dont feel my vote will count as much...


Sad.

 

[Pupik]

The most awesome thing about democracy is that anyone can run for office.

The worst thing about democracy is that anyone can run for office.

Want that cake? Enjoy the carbs!

 

[Swagger897]

Even a Canadian can run....

 

[TenEightyOne]

Even a Canadian can run....

With the proviso that he's natural-born, of course. If you're referring to Cruz then he satisfies the definition however much of a nut-job he might be.

 

[Swagger897]

With the proviso that he's natural-born, of course. If you're referring to Cruz then he satisfies the definition however much of a nut-job he might be.

Yeah, he's just so terrible when he's got the camera on him... It felt like he was molesting my eyes during the republican debate when he had his turn.

And I mean that in not a good way.

Edit:

I can't even imagine what he would do when there's a presidential announcement..

 

[Keef]

Democracy would work...

Pure democracy can't work. There is nothing to prevent poor decisions from being made. And any checks or balances or justice systems put in place can simply be removed by a simple majority. Pure democracy as a governmental system is a ridiculous system that is impossible to sustain.

Some aspects of it are useful, sure, but in and of itself it is an awful idea.

 

[Dotini]

If you're referring to Cruz then he satisfies the definition however much of a nut-job he might be.

I agree that Cruz is an amoral zealot. Plenty around like him.
Also he has the most elite education of any candidate.

You should know he's currently leading the pack of establishment candidates (ahead of Rubio, Bush, Graham, etc.) in both polling and fund-raising.

With his backing by the energetic Freedom faction, he occupies the high ground between the brain-dead and corrupt majority wing of the Republicans, and the loose cannon of Trump riding a wave of Populism.

 

[zzz_pt]

There's a simple reason this happens and it's called "democracy".

Democratic principles - majority rules - were few and heavily checked and balanced when our government was first established. Pure democracy is one of the most self-destructive ideologies humanity has ever invented. Most elections at the Federal level are nothing more than popularity contests these days because the States have lost their say in the elections so they're all based on public opinion. And people, as you know, are emotional animals, especially in groups. That's why democracy is so dangerous, because people in groups tend to do what they feel is right, whether or not it is actually completely wrong.

That is true. But I was thinking about having someone who even without chances of winning to be there. At least to be seen and heard by the people.

About democracy, is not perfect, yes. There's no such thing. But it's the best of all the tested possibilities. Anyone can run for president but my "complaint" here is there's no one good enough even trying. I mean, the best of the bunch is a Clinton? or Bernie Sanders? :X

I might be demanding to much. lol

 

[CodeRedR51]

That is true. But I was thinking about having someone who even without chances of winning to be there. At least to be seen and heard by the people.

About democracy, is not perfect, yes. There's no such thing. But it's the best of all the tested possibilities. Anyone can run for president but my "complaint" here is there's no one good enough even trying. I mean, the best of the bunch is a Clinton? or Bernie Sanders? :X

I might be demanding to much. lol

Unfortunately the truly brilliant people in this country have no interest.

(Adam Savage for president! )

 

[Keef]

About democracy, is not perfect, yes. There's no such thing. But it's the best of all the tested possibilities.

It's isn't the best and I explained why in my previous couple of posts. In fact, it's one of the worst. The American system has thusfar been the best thing we've tried. It is a constitutional republic or a federal republic. Both terms are basically interchangeable. Despite what you hear people say, the US was never designed to be a democracy, still isn't a democracy, and God help us all it never becomes a democracy.

 

[zzz_pt]

As someone said, in democracy the vote of an informed and intelligent person and the vote of a troll have the same value.

 

[Sanji Himura]

As someone said, in democracy the vote of an informed and intelligent person and the vote of a troll have the same value.

No it doesn't. Trolls can mob together and force something down your throats (i.e. Obamacare) whereas intelligent and informed people will often debate a subject first before voting. The ONLY way that the two share the same value is if the latter ignores the other side's opinion and votes along side their opinion.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Pure democracy can't work. There is nothing to prevent poor decisions from being made. And any checks or balances or justice systems put in place can simply be removed by a simple majority. Pure democracy as a governmental system is a ridiculous system that is impossible to sustain.

Some aspects of it are useful, sure, but in and of itself it is an awful idea.

I dont think i agree with you...

Because ideally,democracy should work.
The check and balance is done by pipular votes. Any stupid idea would ve weeded out by popular votes...
Any poor decisions would be voted out by popularity (assuming the voters thinks and considers rationally.

The problems we have are:
1) the structure we currently have is not ideal
2) our votes from the public is filtered and overiden by the middle men (big corporations and bought public servants)
3) the media who cannot report the entire truth
4) people and the voters too blind and unabled to make the choices they should be making.


All that because we have a social economic systems that is being controlled by the invisible and invincible middle man....

The matrix needs to be brought down...