[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Brend]

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.

Sure.

 

[DDastardly00]

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

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

I'll give that one, I interpreted that to mean the 'Obstructionist Republicans', usually when Libs use that argument, that is what they are referring to. If that is truly not what you meant, then I will take your word for it.

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.

I'm developing a habit of it? WOW that is rich coming from you, pot meet kettle dude. You have been putting words in my mouth since the first post of mine that you replied to, and now you have the audacity to blame me for one very minor misinterpretation, I'm laughing very hard at you right now, thanks for the entertainment though.

Speaking of misinterpretations, and putting words in other people's mouths, you just did the same thing to me, again. What is the 5th, 7th, 20th time, I've lost count. I did not blame it ALL Obama, I blamed one thing specifically on him, and that is his the failure to right the ship of the sinking middle class during his 8 YEARS in the Oval Office. Yes he had an Obstructionist congress, but he does carry significant weight with his own party. Don't come in here suggesting that he couldn't have leaned on Congress, specifically his own party, to get one of those Bipartisan bills passed because that is just plain daft.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

In any case, showing up and voting blank isn't going to change anything either

Instinctively I'd like to disagree with this, but I suspect you're right. I think if the None-of-the-above option ever "won" an election, it would be quite shocking and prompt some sort of change the first time round - but if was happening election after election, politicans would probably stop taking notice just as much as they do with low turnouts.

Consider this though - what if blank votes, rather than simply being invalid votes (ie. as mathematically worthless as someone not voting), were more than just a symbolic gesture? I remember someone here (@Famine maybe?) suggesting something like if blank votes outnumbered any candidate's total, then the election is declared void and you run it again - and keep running it until someone gets a plurality. Sounds crazy, but I bet you'd find that if spoiling votes actually stopped politicians from getting elected........their attitudes towards voters would change damn quickly.

But saying that not voting is equal to being indifferent, is absurd

Agreed, although sadly it's too easily interpreted as such.

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.

I don't think so, that's all voting blank does because that's all you do with voting full stop - you approve or disapprove of a set of candidates and positions. The avenues for saying why you approve/disapprove exist elsewhere.

 

[DR_SID]

You are DEAD wrong mate, the majority of stem graduates from the US are far more qualified than anywhere else in the world. Companies refuse to pay, hence the drastic outsourcing to asia. CS majors are disposable to them.

If you're saying the US has a surplus in high-skilled/high educated tech workers and companies are outsourcing simply because it's cheaper to get foreign CS majors, then you're just wrong. There's a huge shortage in CS. When I was recruiting and building a company in Atlanta and NYC, we couldn't get any local people, all of them already employed at the big boys. Even when recruiting straight out of college we had to compete with the big players. In the end we had to outsource or not expand at all.

No low-skilled workers on the other hand....but they have more urgent things to worry about in the upcoming 5-10 years.

 

[88GTA]

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.

I had zero wait time voting at the church around the corner of my house but local TV and radio news here was reporting longer wait times than ever. My mother and father in-law in the same town had a 25 minute wait in line at their firehouse to vote and they said they had never had to wait in line to vote before. I went around 3 pm and they said they went around 10 am.

 

[NLxAROSA]

You are DEAD wrong mate, the majority of stem graduates from the US are far more qualified than anywhere else in the world. Companies refuse to pay, hence the drastic outsourcing to asia. CS majors are disposable to them.

Did you even read what I posted? You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[DDastardly00]

Podesta emails vol 36

Hillary is out of touch with Americans, hasn't driven a car in 35 years (since 1981 really?)


"Clinton flew all over the world, but she can't name a single major accomplishment she made as Secretary of State."


"On VI. E -- Wall Street. I would include something from the Maggie Haberman piece on HRC's Goldman Sachs speech. Something like, "When HRC recently spoke to bankers at Goldman Sachs, instead of holding them accountable for their activities that crashed the economy, she told them that banker bashing was foolish and had to stop. She said "soothing" that we all got into our economic problems together."

-Polar opposite of Bernie. Why did Bernie supporters vote for this woman? That had to be morally degrading in every way to sacrifice the basic principles that they believe in. This is more than holding your nose and voting for someone, this is borderline hypocritical. And since the DNC was caught red handed fixing the primary in favor of Hillary, Democrats need to clean their own house before lashing out at middle America and Conservatives. The DNC won't crumble over this but it will be bad. This is their failure, THEY OWN IT.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/54085#efmAFrAV9

 

[SlipZtrEm]

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.

It wasn't clear — if it was, I doubt @Joel and I would've read it that way — but now that it's explained, it's understood.

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.

"What, who said anything about racism?"

I certainly wouldn't suggest racism is the only motivator here, since there's myriad reasons people vote the ways they do, but it's certainly one of them. Stuff like this and this are very, very concerning. Yep, they're Buzzfeed articles (I can almost hear the "liberal media bias" outcries already), but those links are real.

Not that I am aware.

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.

Well that's not very encouraging. 👎

It's almost as if the system is designed to discourage voting...

 

[Danoff]

Ok, so now that Hillary is obviously not going to be the first female president, what are the odds on Ivanka pulling that off? The Trumps could take that too.

 

[DDastardly00]

Ok, so now that Hillary is obviously not going to be the first female president, what are the odds on Ivanka pulling that off? The Trumps could take that too.

Depends on how successful her father's presidency is. I bet the ratings on a Sate of the Union address by Ivanka would be much higher than usual, she certainly is much easier on the eyes than Trump.

 

[Sanji Himura]

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.

Actually, the answer is yes. The precise wording varies from state to state, but to sum it up, if your shift starts before the polls open and doesn't end until after the polls close, then employers are usually required to give you paid leave to go vote.

http://www.findlaw.com/voting-rights-law.html

 

[Pupik]

Actually, the answer is yes. The precise wording varies from state to state, but to sum it up, if your shift starts before the polls open and doesn't end until after the polls close, then employers are usually required to give you paid leave to go vote.

http://www.findlaw.com/voting-rights-law.html

It can also be grounds for an absentee ballot.

 

[PeterJB]

Depends on how successful her father's presidency is. I bet the ratings on a Sate of the Union address by Ivanka would be much higher than usual, she certainly is much easier on the eyes than Trump.

Donald's money carried him to the presidency, maybe Ivanka's tits could carry her?

 

[Danoff]

Donald's money carried him to the presidency, maybe Ivanka's tits could carry her?

I have significantly more respect for Ivanka than Donald. If anything, she's beaten the odds by having cultivating a strong mind when she didn't need one to be successful.

 

[Dotini]

Hillary tried and failed to break the glass ceiling for women. But now The Donald has broken another glass ceiling - that no one other than a politician or general has ever attained the White House. Now there is a new paradigm for businessmen to be president. So I think that before a woman ever becomes president we may have a parade of egotistic white male billionaire businessmen trying for the job. Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and the ilk come to mind.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Donald's money carried him to the presidency, maybe Ivanka's tits could carry her?

I wonder if you would have said the same thing about Hillary, considering that she both outspent Trump and has tits.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Ok, so now that Hillary is obviously not going to be the first female president, what are the odds on Ivanka pulling that off? The Trumps could take that too.

There's a lot of stuff going around right now trying to encourage Michelle Obama to run in 2020.

 

[Danoff]

There's a lot of stuff going around right now trying to encourage Michelle Obama to run in 2020.

Excellent point. I didn't think of her because she has almost no qualifications.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Excellent point. I didn't think of her because she has almost no qualifications.

Arguably true of Trump too... I don't think Michelle Obama will run for president but nowadays I'm prepared to believe that anything could happen.

 

[Dotini]

Sarah Palin will most assuredly have a position in the new administration. Undersecretary, I should think.

 

[DDastardly00]

No more first ladies or ex-first ladies please. I know Condoleezza Rice isn't interested, but I would much rather see her run for president than Michelle Obama, she much more qualified.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Excellent point. I didn't think of her because she has almost no qualifications.

True, but her husband does. Not sure how much he's be allowed to help though.

Edit:

Sarah Palin will most assuredly have a position in the new administration. Undersecretary, I should think.

Ugh.

 

[Danoff]

Arguably true of Trump too... I don't think Michelle Obama will run for president but nowadays I'm prepared to believe that anything could happen.

Trump has at least run businesses (and successfully starred in his TV show). Michelle hasn't done much. She'd have to pull a Hillary and work her way through politics at a lower level.

 

[ClydeYellow]

So, the favorite for the role of Secretary of the Treasury in Trump's brave new world is... Jamie Dimon? And his campaign's Finance chair and other candidate for the role, Steven Mnuchin, is also a JPMorgan man.

Wasn't he supposed to drain the swamp or some such nonsense?

Trump has at least run businesses (and successfully starred in his TV show). Michelle hasn't done much. She'd have to pull a Hillary and work her way through politics at a lower level.

I'd argue that having a degree from Princeton and a JD from Harvard Law School in your CV already trumps (no pun intended) decades spent on mostly unsuccessful development projects, and then putting your face on several ghost-written books and starring in a reality show where you essentially part the play of the asshole with money who tells utter nonsense about how to be a successful enterpreneur.
Michelle also had a successful career in public administration with the Chicago city government, having held executive positions. That, too, is arguably better experience to be had for a President than spending inherited money on casinos.

 

[Dotini]

So, the favorite for the role of Secretary of the Treasury in Trump's brave new world is... Jamie Dimon? And his campaign's Finance chair and other candidate for the role, Steven Mnuchin, is also a JPMorgan man.

Wasn't he supposed to drain the swamp or some such nonsense?

I doubt it. Those who are talking don't know, and those who know aren't talking.

By FAR the most important position to fill is chief of staff.

 

[Danoff]

@TenEightyOne

Michelle hasn't done much. She'd have to pull a Hillary and work her way through politics at a lower level.

I mean for me to consider her qualified. The US public will apparently elect anyone regardless of anything. She could be elected President after sitting on her couch for 4 years.

 

[ClydeYellow]

I doubt it. Those who are talking don't know, and those who know aren't talking.

By FAR the most important position to fill is chief of staff.

I guess we'll have to wait and see, yes... But it doesn't seem very unlikely to me that we may see a JPMorgan or ex-JPMorgan man filling that spot. Or maybe someone from Goldman Sucks, ehr, Sachs.

Speaking of that, the names I hear being thrown around the most for Chief of Staff are those of Stephen Bannon and Reince Priebus. What's that noise? Oh, kettle's whistling...

 

[DR_SID]

Hillary supporters and these pro feminist "cucks" make me sick to my stomach. Another issue that pisses me off is this gender of the day crap give me a break and also those damn pro sjw affirmative action punks. This whole liberal agenda got a reality check, hopefully the USA can get back to business. Liberals stay classy and keep blocking those roads to get your point across its doing wonders. America has gone softer than Charmin.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Graph of voter turnout for the last 3 elections. Trump had less voters than Romney and even McCain. It wasn't some enthusiastic show of support for Trump really. Problem was the Obama coalition completely collapsed under Clinton. Joe Biden or whatever slick suit they could have nominated wouldn't have matched 2008 or 2012 Obama's vote totals, but I don't think you'd see the utter collapse we saw for Clinton. We're talking 6 million votes, I have a hard time believing Biden or Warren or O'Malley would be that unpopular.

Just read up on this a bit and turns out it's a misleading graphic, as there's very many absentee ballots still out (@PeterJB, this is also why Arizona and Michigan haven't been called yet for Trump):

 

[Johnnypenso]

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.

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.

In case you missed it:

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

I certainly wouldn't suggest racism is the only motivator here, since there's myriad reasons people vote the ways they do, but it's certainly one of them. Stuff like this and this are very, very concerning. Yep, they're Buzzfeed articles (I can almost hear the "liberal media bias" outcries already), but those links are real.

Not sure what your point is with the links. I'm quite certain there are billions of tweets and facebook posts and you can find just about anything you like in them.