[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[High-Test]

it's hard to see what positive qualities Trump embodies - conservative or otherwise.

He's going to restore the white man to power!

Let the dumpster fire burn.

 

[mustafur]

I wouldn't call all the people who voted for Trump racist. There were legitimate reasons to vote against Hillary Clinton - ideological & personal - & as you note above & as everyone is well aware - there are very limited avenues in American politics to express dissent. But Trump himself appealed to racist sentiment as a means to gather support. Hillary may have been a questionable candidate to carry the Democratic banner, but it's hard to see what positive qualities Trump embodies - conservative or otherwise.

Really is it that hard?

I hate Trump but it's not hard to see why people would vote for him, his rhetoric on trade(such an important issue in the swing states he needed to win), the fact he was an outsider in a very anti-establishment climate, gave off the impression he was genuine(even though it's obvious he wasn't).

I would argue there was more reasons for people to vote Trump then Hillary, Bernie was the one that had the reasons to vote for in the Primarys, once he was gone the Dems where left with a Candidate that had no real message other then maintain status quo and platitudes no one believed, and most were already woken up by her exposed corruption in the primary's and just where reluctant to vote for her.

Hillary lost because her base abandoned her(and she abandoned them, Tim kaine for VP really??), just look at the margins of how many votes she lost compared to Obama.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Hitchens (somewhat oddly IMO) supported invading Iraq to get rid of Sadam Hussein. He didn't support conservative policies in general.

Never said he did, he supported various Foreign policy from conservatives. Which as far as I'm aware the other 3 well known atheists didn't. It's a stark contrast from 90s Hitchens to 2000 Hitchens.

I wouldn't call all the people who voted for Trump racist. There were legitimate reasons to vote against Hillary Clinton - ideological & personal - & as you note above & as everyone is well aware - there are very limited avenues in American politics to express dissent. But Trump himself appealed to racist sentiment as a means to gather support. Hillary may have been a questionable candidate to carry the Democratic banner, but it's hard to see what positive qualities Trump embodies - conservative or otherwise.

I don't see any positives in him conservative wise which is why he wasn't wanted by them to begin with. As for hate I wouldn't agree that him making non-definitive statements that got racists or bigots too smile is him just running with it or trying to gain that sentiment. I see his statements as a fear mongering at times call for national security, now racists will automatically jump on that no matter who says it. Him being loose with words was by far the big issue, but not one that was so horrid obviously to stop him being elected. I think the rejection of Hillary, and the biggest thing she had to say was "he's a jack ass" wasn't going to save her from the image of corrupted, immoral, above the law, unidentifiable politician to the nth degree. People clearly were going to over look his crap talk, and I wasn't surprised which is why I find it hard to see this as a racism exclusive, when we both agree he probably isn't racist and a majority that voted him probably isn't racist. Just that American's are tired of being taken for a ride. Is he the guy to fix that...I have no idea and I really didn't want to find out to begin with, now I have to with others.

Trump had %89 rural votes to Clinton's %39.

So what? Not sure what that has to do with my post.

 

[ClydeYellow]

And those that says that USA is the greatest country on the planet? for whom the rich? because about almost all countries in Europe are waaay better than USA to live in for a normal citizen then USA, more freedom and more opportunity and for sure way better healthcare.. Do not confuse a military superpower with how great a country really is. USA is maybe even worse then Russia to live in.

We Europeans know that, thanks. Which is exactly the reason we're wondering why the US voted Trump - who is promising tax cuts for the rich and, maybe, middle-income families while scrapping Obamacare, which wasn't the sweet public healthcare systems we're used to over here, but at least was a start - into office.
But of course, the alternatives - Clinton and Johnson - weren't much better, were they?

Many of the rights Americans want but will never ever have have been obtained by fighting for them through strikes and political protests, and by electing Socialists and Communists into Parliament (while they've never won a general election in the history of Europe, in many countries - Italy, France, post-Francoist Spain, etc. - they always held enough seats to be able to represent the interests of the working class). But both things go against the American Working Ethic™ and political attitudes respectively.

And America is the richest country in the world in terms of GDP, and one of the richest in term of GDP per capita (only being surpassed by countries such as Qatar, Luxembourg and San Marino... And Ireland). The problem of income inequality is, arguably, as much a political as an economical one.

P.S. Russia is arguably worse for certain people than the old Soviet Union; and isn't much better for the average Joe. Definitely not comparable to most of Europe, both in terms of political and individual freedoms, and of income and quality of living.

 

[PeterJB]

Two things I've just noticed. Three states (Arizona, Michigan and New Hampshire), still have not declared a winner, which could potentially swing the popular vote in Trump's favour. What is taking so long?

Also, voter turnout was 53.1%. How, in this day and age, with everyone hooked up to the internet, and everything the candidates say and do all over social media, do almost half the voting population not take part?

 

[mustafur]

Two things I've just noticed. Three states (Arizona, Michigan and New Hampshire), still have not declared a winner, which could potentially swing the popular vote in Trump's favour. What is taking so long?

Also, voter turnout was 53.1%. How, in this day and age, with everyone hooked up to the internet, and everything the candidates say and do all over social media, do almost half the voting population not take part?

Probably due to Long lines(massive lack of polling stations in many areas), lack of decent candidates and the fact voting is on a Tuesday is probably why.

If I had to wait 4 hours and wasn't forced to like in Australia, I would freely admit I wouldn't vote.

 

[PeterJB]

How do they think that fixes it? Do they think that by not voting no-one will get elected? Also if you complain about the results whilst not voting you have no grounds on which to do so.

 

[mustafur]

How do they think that fixes it? Do they think that by not voting no-one will get elected? Also if you complain about the results whilst not voting you have no grounds on which to do so.

Some states don't have early voting, so expecting people to take out a massive chunk out of their day(which is a Tuesday) when they might have work or something it's understandable.

 

[PeterJB]

Some states don't have early voting, so expecting people to take out a massive chunk out of their day(which is a Tuesday) when they might have work or something it's understandable.

Aren't polling stations open until late at night, a good few hours after most people would have finished work? Seems odd for that to prevent 120 million people from not voting.

 

[mustafur]

Aren't polling stations open until late at night, a good few hours after most people would have finished work? Seems odd for that to prevent 120 million people from not voting.

Not all, some close at 7PM and not everyone works 9 to 5.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Two things I've just noticed. Three states (Arizona, Michigan and New Hampshire), still have not declared a winner, which could potentially swing the popular vote in Trump's favour. What is taking so long?

I don't know about Arizona but in Michigan and New Hampshire the results were close enough that there may be recounts going on.

 

[mister dog]

Suits the current outrage :

 

[Winters Noble]

How do they think that fixes it? Do they think that by not voting no-one will get elected? Also if you complain about the results whilst not voting you have no grounds on which to do so.

I agree, but since it based on the electoral college, the popular vote doesn't matter. It's more symbolic more than anything.

 

[Dotini]

You've spent the last 6 months defending Trump from every angle of attack, gleefully cheering him on, and minimizing every scandal. How do you reconcile that with being libertarian?

Trump was arguably unquestionably more libertarian than any other candidate from the two main parties.
- Socially liberal
- fiscally conservative
- non-interventionist foreign policy

 

[PeterJB]

I agree, but since it based on the electoral college, the popular vote doesn't matter. It's more symbolic more than anything.

Which is determined by people voting. On a state level the popular vote does matter.

 

[Dotini]

Know the truth and how it got this way.

 

[Omnis]

Trump was arguably unquestionably more libertarian than any other candidate from the two main parties.
- Socially liberal
- fiscally conservative
- non-interventionist foreign policy

Absolutely not. Rand Paul was far and away the most libertarian.

There is also nothing fiscally conservative about wanting to spend money on a massive wall and wanting to pump even more cash into the pentagon. Trump's budget doesn't balance. And his trade policy rhetoric? Come on, man.

 

[Dotini]

Absolutely not. Rand Paul was far and away the most libertarian.

There is also nothing fiscally conservative about wanting to spend money on a massive wall and wanting to pump even more cash into the pentagon. Trump's budget doesn't balance. And his trade policy rhetoric? Come on, man.

Yeah, you're right about Paul. I forgot about him after he got 5% in the Iowa caucus and then dropped out.
I disagree that Trump will pay for or even build a massive wall or pump up the military budget. Trump has used bluster, puffery and some artful deception to attain office. Don't bet on it.

 

[FoRiZon]

tTrump has used bluster, puffery and some artful deception to attain office. Don't bet on it.

So all of past he's talking on campaign has been total BS?

 

[Dotini]

So all of past he's talking on campaign has been total BS?

Some of it, yes. But not all. Nobody knows what he's really going to do, though we do have some ideas and insights. Soon we will see appointments and position papers and then know more. This presidency is very much a work in progress.

A good example of his BS is how he told the Cuban exiles what they wanted to hear simply to win the crucial Florida electoral votes. Lies are sometimes necessary in the real world.

 

[Jawehawk]

How do they think that fixes it? Do they think that by not voting no-one will get elected? Also if you complain about the results whilst not voting you have no grounds on which to do so.

Surely, the best way to show a complete lack of faith in not just the candidates, but the system as a whole, is to not vote at all?

If you vote blank you're saying you don't like the candidates, but also that you do have at least some faith in how the system works. Otherwise it'd be pointless to show up in the first place. I think people are misjudging failure to vote as indifference. Of course you need to do more than just not vote in other to change the system, but many people not voting should send a clear message to the people in charge that something is wrong.

Personally, I would not have voted in this election, not because I'm indifferent to it, but because I find the system to be flawed to the extend that it needs to be restablished from scratch.

Just my point of view.

 

[PeterJB]

Surely, the best way to show a complete lack of faith in not just the candidates, but the system as a whole, is to not vote at all?

If you vote blank you're saying you don't like the candidates, but also that you do have at least some faith in how the system works. Otherwise it'd be pointless to show up in the first place. I think people are misjudging failure to vote as indifference. Of course you need to do more than just not vote in other to change the system, but many people not voting should send a clear message to the people in charge that something is wrong.

Personally, I would not have voted in this election, not because I'm indifferent to it, but because I find the system to be flawed to the extend that it needs to be restablished from scratch.

Just my point of view.

There are a whole host of things you could be saying by not voting, or throwing your ballot paper. To rectify that they would need "none" as an option, and then maybe a list of reasons to choose from. Not voting and remaining silent contributes nothing.

 

[FoRiZon]

Some of it, yes. But not all. Nobody knows what he's really going to do, though we do have some ideas and insights. Soon we will see appointments and position papers and then know more. This presidency is very much a work in progress.

I take a benefit of doubt. I give him 6 months.

Honestly I can see what Trump quality has. He promise to end the US intervention as "world police" and focus on their own country instead. He promises to open new jobs with whatever he'll do next, and I can see it being the current problem in US nowadays.

Though if he actually done all what he says on campaign, then I'm really feel bad on my fellow Americans, really. Not to mention the casual generalizations and phobia, which can agitate American majority into prejudicing specific groups of people.

Im not sure about the global warming issue though. Is he really dont believe it? Also being a conservative he is, some rights are probably held back. But we'll see.

 

[Touring Mars]

Newsweek were clearly a bit too eager to get that early edition scoop on a Clinton presidency... it is perhaps not unexpected or unusual to publish a magazine with a possible outcome that doesn't transpire, but it is a bit embarrassing that some 125,000 copies actually got distributed...

 

[Tornado]

 

[Exorcet]

Also if you complain about the results whilst not voting you have no grounds on which to do so.

I don't agree. If Clinton and Trump were the only choices in this election, I wouldn't have bothered voting. It would have been a waste of time. Casting no votes is an option, and it says something. It tells anyone watching that there may be a bunch of votes up for grabs. You just have to be none of the candidates that no one cared to vote for.

There are a whole host of things you could be saying by not voting, or throwing your ballot paper. To rectify that they would need "none" as an option, and then maybe a list of reasons to choose from. Not voting and remaining silent contributes nothing.

Refusing to cast a vote does not make you silent at all. You can very easily display your views, share your ideas, and call for people you would actually support outside of the election system. Plenty of people on this forum have been doing that.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Some of it, yes. But not all. Nobody knows what he's really going to do, though we do have some ideas and insights. Soon we will see appointments and position papers and then know more. This presidency is very much a work in progress.

A good example of his BS is how he told the Cuban exiles what they wanted to hear simply to win the crucial Florida electoral votes. Lies are sometimes necessary in the real world.

It's amazing - actually, no, it's completely unsurprising - you deem lying acceptable for only one candidate.

 

[TheCracker]

Surely, the best way to show a complete lack of faith in not just the candidates, but the system as a whole, is to not vote at all?

If you vote blank you're saying you don't like the candidates, but also that you do have at least some faith in how the system works. Otherwise it'd be pointless to show up in the first place. I think people are misjudging failure to vote as indifference.

Governments don't give a damn if you don't vote. The less people voting against them gives them more chance in staying in power. Low voter turn out doesn't worry them into thinking they're doing something wrong, it just tells them that most people don't care what they do - which in turn gives them the idea that they can do what they want - since people don't appear to be complaining.

If you don't exercise your right to vote, you might as well be living in Saudi Arabia or North Korea where you have no opportunity to vote whether you want to or not.

If there's no candidate you feel represents your ideals, then the very least you should do is turn up and 'spoil' your ballot paper - or what ever the equivalent is where you live.

 

[Dotini]

It's amazing - actually, no, it's completely unsurprising - you deem lying acceptable for only one candidate.

If you check my posts going back for several years, you will see my position on lying. I have said that sometimes beautiful, useful or necessary lies are justified in preference to an ugly truth. This applies universally, not just to Donald J Trump.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Oh no! Not the property!


Uh...what? You've spent the last 6 months defending Trump from every angle of attack, gleefully cheering him on, and minimizing every scandal. How do you reconcile that with being libertarian?

A. I explained in my response which part of his post I was agreeing to, in black and white no less.
B. I never said I was Libertarian. I don't subscribe to any single political view in fact, too narrow, too restrictive.
C. Even if I was Libertarian, why would that preclude me from supporting Trump on an O&CE Forum?
D. Call me a crazy capitalist, but I think property is important, especially my own. My property represents hours worked, time invested, time I cannot get back, time that belongs to me and only me, future time lost if I have to use my future time to replace my damaged property. If someone was painting grafitti on my house or breaking my windows, I wouldn't be running outside with cookies and milk for them or sitting inside, looking out my window saying, "Oh the poor lefties, they lost the local election, they have to get their feelings out, it's only windows, I can work a few extra days next week and pay for it, oh wait, there's only 7 days, ok I'll just work weekends for the next two months so they can get their feelings out..."

Absolutely not. Rand Paul was far and away the most libertarian.

There is also nothing fiscally conservative about wanting to spend money on a massive wall and wanting to pump even more cash into the pentagon. Trump's budget doesn't balance. And his trade policy rhetoric? Come on, man.

Rand Paul wasn't a candidate for POTUS. Trump never said anything about spending money to build a wall either.