[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Liquid]

What we have learnt over the past two days, to the surprise of no-one:

Everyone is a pundit.
Everyone is dumber than you are.
You are smarter than everyone else.

The sour grapes are pretty unbelievable. I hate that either of those two charlatans has won but if the shoe was on the other foot, and Clinton had won with pro-Trump fans contesting it, the ridicule of them would have been uncontrollable.

However, I still maintain that this is not anything new and I still support my own hypothesis that this has always been the case but we are only now truly aware of how dirty our own society is in a way which was impossible in the days before 24 hour microcommentary and the internet.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The sour grapes are pretty unbelievable. I hate that either of those two charlatans has won but if the shoe was on the other foot, and Clinton had won with pro-Trump fans contesting it, the ridicule of them would have been uncontrollable.

However, I still maintain that this is not anything new and I still support my own hypothesis that this has always been the case but we are only now truly aware of how dirty our own society is in a way which was impossible in the days before 24 hour microcommentary and the internet.

Agreed. I find it ironic that pretty much everyone talking about racism is on the left and the rest of us are like, "what, who said anything about racism?". The left sees racism in everything now and for the people on the right, that's actually a very good thing. It's a "crying wolf" situation now IMO, and the more they shout about it, the more they continue with the basket of deplorables rhetoric, the more it will galvanize all the non-racists on the right and in the middle, to vote Republican.

To the second point, imagine if there was social media when Bill Clinton was molesting and sexually assaulting his way to the Presidency and having an intern dip his cigar into that special sweetener for his smoking pleasure? I wonder what Hillary thinks every time she sees him smoking a cigar for the past 20 years?

 

[Jawehawk]

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.

First off, you ignored the part where I said that if you wanted to change the system, you'd of course need to do more than not vote. That's a small, but none the less important part of what I wrote, so please don't do that.

Second, the people in power would have to be complete morons, or, as you yourself elude to, indifferent to how many people vote, in order to ignore that nearly half the eligible population didn't vote. I haven't fact checked the percentage of voters stated in this thread, but for the sake of my argument, I'll assume it is correct. From a quick Google search, the number of voters for this election aren't massively different from earlier ones in the past two decades, but it is still a significant decline in turnout. Imagine then if 75% or more of the eligible population decided to simply not show up in protest of both the candidates and the political system as a whole. The people in power would have no choice but to address the situation.

I don't agree with your assumptions on why people don't vote, as well as the governments hypothetical response to a significant decline in voters. I also strongly disagree with your either/or mindset when it comes to type of government. There are alternatives that lie in between a two party democratic system and a full dictatorship.

Last but not least, democracy isn't just the right to vote for any given candidate. It's also the right to decide whether you even want to vote. Not voting is not necessarily the same as indifference.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

B. I never said I was Libertarian. I don't subscribe to any single political view in fact, too narrow, too restrictive.

Agreed. I find it ironic that pretty much everyone talking about racism is on the left and the rest of us are like, "what, who said anything about racism?". The left sees racism in everything now and for the people on the right, that's actually a very good thing. It's a "crying wolf" situation now IMO, and the more they shout about it, the more they continue with the basket of deplorables rhetoric, the more it will galvanize all the non-racists on the right and in the middle, to vote Republican.

These two comments seem at odds with each other. But by all means, continue to push this "I have no single political view" stuff. Don't forget to paint anybody commenting on the (blatant) racism Trump and (some of) his supporters have displayed as leftists, too.

I'm not one to subscribe to the full gamut of Tumblr-generated obscure sexual identities. I don't understand how nearly any comment can be a "microaggression". But if you can't identify racist and/or xenophobic comments coming out of Trump's mouth, you're intentionally turning a blind eye.

To the second point, imagine if there was social media when Bill Clinton was molesting and sexually assaulting his way to the Presidency and having an intern dip his cigar into that special sweetener for his smoking pleasure? I wonder what Hillary thinks every time she sees him smoking a cigar for the past 20 years?

On the results that we have on hand now with Trump elected, it certainly seems like nothing would have changed.

 

[AerodyManiac]

After reading the election results and Republicans continuing to have complete control of the Congress, I'm only going to say the following:

Congratulations, Americans, on choosing a new president who has no respect for the opposite sex, made a lot of derogatory and meaningless comments about his rivals (for which he didn't even bother to provide evidence), and is rumoured to have asked repeatedly why he couldn't use nuclear weapons.

Good luck, America and the rest of the world. You're going to need it for the next 4 years.

 

[Brend]

To be fair Trump hasn't shown signs of just racism.







He's just went full-on bigot at times.

 

[huskeR32]

The problem is not the math, it's your argument that Republicans have been the only obstructionists in regards to bills that would have provided much needed relief, and yes, these are in the last SIX years. It's completely errant and devoid of reality that you are casting blame on one side while conveniently neglecting to review the Democrat's own obstructionist record of bipartisan bills.

Funny, that's not what I said at all. Let's look again:

Blaming all of the failures of the last six years on Obama, and laying none of it on the shamefully obstructionist Congress we've been saddled with, is just more of the same binary thinking that has broken American politics.

Where did I say anything about it being only the Republicans' fault? In fact, where did I even use the word "Republican?"

I was quite clearly denouncing your one-sided, blame it all on Obama view, and pointing out that both sides deserve blame for the hyper-partisan, ineffective government that we've now got.

Stop putting words in other peoples' mouths. You're developing a habit of doing this, and it's starting to border on disrespectful. People can and do think for themselves, stop trying to do it for them.

So what about the bipartisan bills that the Democrat-controlled senate blocked?

Just as shameful.

The only conversation in which I've proclaimed the Dems to be faultless is the one in your head.

And yes the ACA is still relevant, the costs keep rising every year, in some cases tripling this year, it is still VERY relevant.

sigh

Yet again, you're completely misconstruing what was said. I didn't say the ACA was irrelevant in an all-encompassing sense, just that it wasn't relevant to what I was talking about:

it was more than six years ago, and therefore isn't relevant to what I said.

You're either willfully ignoring the context in which people say things, or you badly need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

[McLaren]

To characterise all Clinton supporters and protesters as violent rioters because of the actions of a few is the same as saying that all Caucasians are racist because the KKK exists, or that Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organisation because a small handful attacked police, or that all Muslims are terrorists because some subscribe to radical ideology. It just doesn't bear out.

I did no such thing. Once again, you selectively edit my post to pose my position into how you see fit despite the fact I concluded that I do not consider those people as a representative of the Democratic Party. I even said they had full right to protest as long as violence doesn't start.

 

[Johnnypenso]

These two comments seem at odds with each other. But by all means, continue to push this "I have no single political view" stuff. Don't forget to paint anybody commenting on the (blatant) racism Trump and (some of) his supporters have displayed as leftists, too.

One is a statement of my political views the other is my observation on current events. If I don't like to eat fish and then go to the river and see fish jumping and talk about how beautiful and graceful they are, does that mean you'd question my desire to eat fish?

 

[TheCracker]

Second, the people in power would have to be complete morons, or, as you yourself elude to, indifferent to how many people vote, in order to ignore that nearly half the eligible population didn't vote. I haven't fact checked the percentage of voters stated in this thread, but for the sake of my argument, I'll assume it is correct. From a quick Google search, the number of voters for this election aren't massively different from earlier ones in the past two decades, but it is still a significant decline in turnout. Imagine then if 75% or more of the eligible population decided to simply not show up in protest of both the candidates and the political system as a whole. The people in power would have no choice but to address the situation.

I don't agree with your assumptions on why people don't vote, as well as the governments hypothetical response to a significant decline in voters. I also strongly disagree with your either/or mindset when it comes to type of government. There are alternatives that lie in between a two party democratic system and a full dictatorship.

Last but not least, democracy isn't just the right to vote for any given candidate. It's also the right to decide whether you even want to vote. Not voting is not necessarily the same as indifference.

In the US elections over the past 100 years, the polling turnout has been pretty constant between about 50 and 63%. Of course, there are always those who on the day can't get to a polling station for one reason or another, but those figures suggest a general apathy towards who they want in power. Maybe those that don't bother just see all politicians as all the same, and that's a fair conclusion to be honest.

But why do you insist that those in power actually care how many voters bother to turn up? If voters don't appear to care who's in power, why would those in power care what that percentage of the population think? - after all, they are actively having no say in how the government is run or who is running it.

If you ran a subscription based company, say one that delivers out a selection of locally grown fruit and veg to it's subscribers every week. Of those subscribers, 60% actively complain or congratulate or offer ideas on improvements you could make to your services. The other 40% just accept what's delivered, no matter what the selection is that week or by how much they're charged. They just continue to pay their monthly direct debits. Which clients do you take notice of and strive to improve your business for?

 

[CodeRedR51]

In the US elections over the past 100 years, the polling turnout has been pretty constant between about 50 and 63%. Of course, there are always those who on the day can't get to a polling station for one reason or another, but those figures suggest a general apathy towards who they want in power.

I think two things would increase turnout:

1. Change the voting day to a Saturday
2. Allow online voting (obviously sketchy with hackers and the like)

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Imagine then if 75% or more of the eligible population decided to simply not show up in protest of both the candidates and the political system as a whole. The people in power would have no choice but to address the situation.

Here's a national election in the UK where 76% didn't turn up to vote. I don't know what was said at the time, but the fact every EU election since had similarly low turnout - and that we're now out of the thing altogether - suggests it wasn't addressed at all.

The problem with thinking voter apathy can provoke change is that apathy isn't random, it usually lines up with certain demographics - overs 60s are more likely to vote than students/young people, for example. And naturally, it's more difficult to convince people to vote who normally don't, than people who do. So for a politician who wants power, they're usually better off moulding their positions and policies to fit those that you can reliably count on to turn up.

I do agree with this:

Last but not least, democracy isn't just the right to vote for any given candidate. It's also the right to decide whether you even want to vote.

But I wouldn't expect not voting to help bring about the change you want - if anything I think it's more likely to bring about change you don't want.

 

[Danoff]

I think two things would increase turnout:

1. Change the voting day to a Saturday
2. Allow online voting (obviously sketchy with hackers and the like)

Colorado used a mail-in ballot system this year (everyone received a mail-in ballot, and it's how you voted). You could either drop your ballot off at a ballot box (located all over the place) after filling it out at home, or you could mail it off. I love this system for a bunch of reasons:

- Easier to track ballots so that someone else can't vote in your name
- Voting occurs likely with Google at arms reach instead of head scratching in a plastic booth
- No need for cheat sheets or trying to remember which amendment was what or which politician you liked.
- No long lines at the polling places
- No need to vote on Tuesday. I dropped mine off without getting out of the car (just roll the window down at a drive-up receptacle) about a week before the election.
- Reduces the possibility of terrorism or intimidation and public concentrations at polling places.
- Reduces issues of unfamiliarity with polling apparatus in what would otherwise be a pressured environment.

 

[FoRiZon]

To put in perspective, Mike Tyson who is a muslim choose Trump.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/21/mike-tyson-why-i-m-a-muslim-for-donald-trump.html

 

[TheCracker]

I think two things would increase turnout:

1. Change the voting day to a Saturday
2. Allow online voting (obviously sketchy with hackers and the like)

In the UK, figures are traditionally higher - between 72 and 80% since the 1950's, but dipped sharply in the early 90's, dropping down to about 60% and has only picked up the past couple of elections. So apathy has crept in here too. But we're a much smaller country geographically, so you're never that far from a voting station. I'd guess that Trump's strong support in your more rural areas and a rise in effort to go and cast their votes, along with a general dislike for either candidate in areas of denser population, has been one of the reasons why Trump has succeeded.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Apparently the stock market is a big fan of Trump:tup:. For today anyway

 

[SlipZtrEm]

One is a statement of my political views the other is my observation on current events. If I don't like to eat fish and then go to the river and see fish jumping and talk about how beautiful and graceful they are, does that mean you'd question my desire to eat fish?

If you proclaimed you had no preference for any particular fish, but constantly voiced your approval of one specific fish that has repeatedly taken a disparaging stance against just about every other species in the pond, to the point of pretending this fish hasn't made these comments... well, I'm not sure how eating any of them fits into the scenario, if I'm honest.

You responded to someone who quite clearly said they were libertarian with "keep the faith brother". If you don't identify as that, perhaps you should've worded in a way that doesn't make it seem as such. I mean, yes, the half-year of constant Trump cheerleading should make it fairly clear, but still.

But sure, let's pretend racism isn't a very real issue right now.

 

[PeterJB]

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...publish&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-no_msg

Give me strength...

 

[Exorcet]

But why do you insist that those in power actually care how many voters bother to turn up?

The average number might not matter, but a change in that number might. To go from one election to the next and lose 50% of votes would probably be noticed.

If voters don't appear to care who's in power, why would those in power care what that percentage of the population think? - after all, they are actively having no say in how the government is run or who is running it.

Not true, abstaining from a particular vote is not abstaining from all voting, nor does it imply complete silence.

If you ran a subscription based company, say one that delivers out a selection of locally grown fruit and veg to it's subscribers every week. Of those subscribers, 60% actively complain or congratulate or offer ideas on improvements you could make to your services. The other 40% just accept what's delivered, no matter what the selection is that week or by how much they're charged. They just continue to pay their monthly direct debits. Which clients do you take notice of and strive to improve your business for?

I'm not sure which group of subscribers is supposed to represent which voters. My initial thought is that the quiet 40% are the people who would just vote for anyone, but I don't think that's what you're trying to say.

 

[PeterJB]

Why has that quoted me?

 

[Jawehawk]

@TheCracker @TRGTspecialist

That's why you don't just not vote, but also make sure that the government knows why you're not voting. I'm not suggesting that apathy will bring about change. I'm suggesting that by not voting, and by being vocal about why, you could spark debate amongst the higher ups. You can call it a naive or idealistic way of thinking, but I find it hard to believe that no one in the government cares about how the government is serving its people.

Whether it's large scale peaceful protests or viral videos that have a lot of support behind them, they ought to have some impact.

In any case, showing up and voting blank isn't going to change anything either, and in a two party system, a 3rd party will never become relevant. I'd much rather stay true to my ideals and not take part in a system that I do not believe in, than waste my time showing up and voting blank, just so that I can say I took part. I'll concede that your arguments on why not voting at all doesn't work, are good ones. But saying that not voting is equal to being indifferent, is absurd (not directed at either of you, as I don't think you were the ones who said that). You might be right that not voting doesn't help a thing. But at the same time, does it really help anything to vote within a broken system? Aren't you simply perpetuating a broken system by voting, as all voting blank does is showing that you don't like the candidates, without casting light on any flaws with the system as a whole.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

With all the talk of having to go and vote being such a pain, I've gotta ask: is it not the same in the US as in Canada? Our employers are legally required to give us time to go do our civic duty. There are exceptions of course, but three hours is plenty.

I was lucky last year, since the voting station is literally around the corner from our condo.

 

[Exorcet]

Why has that quoted me?

I have no idea, but I fixed it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

If you proclaimed you had no preference for any particular fish, but constantly voiced your approval of one specific fish that has repeatedly taken a disparaging stance against just about every other species in the pond, to the point of pretending this fish hasn't made these comments... well, I'm not sure how eating any of them fits into the scenario, if I'm honest.

You responded to someone who quite clearly said they were libertarian with "keep the faith brother". If you don't identify as that, perhaps you should've worded in a way that doesn't make it seem as such. I mean, yes, the half-year of constant Trump cheerleading should make it fairly clear, but still.

But sure, let's pretend racism isn't a very real issue right now.

You read @Keef's, and my own post, differently than me. I see his post as questioning his own reasoning, whether he's wrong in the way he thinks or the world around him is wrong. "Keep the faith" is an encouragement to continue to believe in himself and his thinking process. I made the very clear when I said,

"Keep the faith brother. I've had the same train of thought as you for 30+ years, wondering whether it was me or everyone around me. " Very clearly, I'm isolating that part of his response in which I'm asking him to keep his faith and on which I have concurrent thought. Seems obvious to me.

Nowhere did I say racism isn't a real issue, I just don't think it's nearly as pervasive as the lefties make it out to be and I think it has very little, if anything, to do with Trump's win in the race for POTUS.

 

[Legro]

First off, you ignored the part where I said that if you wanted to change the system, you'd of course need to do more than not vote. That's a small, but none the less important part of what I wrote, so please don't do that.

Even if you do something more than just decide not to vote at all, how are those in power supposed to tell whether your protest and decision not to turn up from one of those protesters who voted empty or a minor party candidate and those non-voters who don't bother doing either of those things to change the system.

The government might see that there are people not voting and that there are protests, but finding the connection between the two is easier when more people vote empty rather than go along with those who didn't vote because they think that the situation is good enough as it is.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I've gotta ask: is it not the same in the US as in Canada? Our employers are legally required to give us time to go do our civic duty.

Not that I am aware.

 

[Joel]

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.

Again, the last 6 months (and really ever since Trudeau won our election) from you have literally just been decades old stock conservative talking points, complaining about the hypocrisy of "the left", "PC", and defending Trump through every single scandal. If you're a mainstream conservative that's fine, but own it. And if you're not, maybe consider why your posts for months and months have been completely indistinguishable to one for ages. Ever since Trudeau won and Trump became the front-runner your posts have really changed.

C. Even if I was Libertarian, why would that preclude me from supporting Trump on an O&CE Forum?

You can do what you want, this is a meaningless internet forum in the grand scheme of things. But I don't think anyone cheering and gleefully supporting Trump can consider themselves Libertarian with his complete and utter disdain for civil liberties. It's one thing to kinda prefer him over Clinton and another to cheer and support his every move for months when his presidency will be decidedly not libertarian.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I did no such thing

I know you didn't, because the post wasn't directed at you. It was more of a general comment inspired by something that you said rather than something specifically intended to address your beliefs.

Stop taking everything so personally.

 

[Brend]

I think two things would increase turnout:

1. Change the voting day to a Saturday
2. Allow online voting (obviously sketchy with hackers and the like)

Or actually make polling stations more frequent and reachable. It baffles me there's queues hours long to vote in America when in the UK I can walk to my polling station, vote and walk home in 10 minutes.

That's also a completely pencil and paper process.

 

[88GTA]

With all the talk of having to go and vote being such a pain, I've gotta ask: is it not the same in the US as in Canada? Our employers are legally required to give us time to go do our civic duty. There are exceptions of course, but three hours is plenty.

I was lucky last year, since the voting station is literally around the corner from our condo.

It's not like that here. I had to vote after work and we don't get time reserved for it. Schools are closed though because so many are used for voting stations.

 

[BobK]

Can anyone tell us where there were long lines this past Tuesday? As I said before I have never had to wait in any significant line to vote in my life. Yet I hear people (seems to be mostly overseas) talking about the long lines being one of the problems with our electoral process.