[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Blitz24]

I don't see it as support, I just feel Carter could never find himself to say anything negative, which is why people saw him as a push over.

I was never a fan of Carter. He's still anti-Israel.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I was never a fan of Carter. He's still anti-Israel.

I'm not either, which is why I too see him as a push over goody two shoes type.

 

[Blitz24]

I'm not either, which is why I too see him as a push over goody two shoes type.

It wouldn't be hard to say he bungled the last friendly ally the US had in Iran.

 

[mustafur]

It wouldn't be hard to say he bungled the last friendly ally the US had in Iran.

Let's be real here that was going to **** well before he even got into Office.

The Irainans were a ticking time bomb given how badly they knew their leader was a US Puppet and how that system got established.

 

[Blitz24]

Let's be real here that was going to **** well before he even got into Office.

The Irainans were a ticking time bomb given how badly they knew their leader was a US Puppet and how that system got established.

This is true. Also establishes the fairly obvious fact that interference by Western Powers in the Middle East will only cause more wars. Sure we want to help those in dictatorship countries, but at what point are we effectively setting up a worse option by promoting a revolution (or rebellion)?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It wouldn't be hard to say he bungled the last friendly ally the US had in Iran.

You got your history mixed up, the U.S. is to blame for that **** storm to begin with. We put a guy and his family into power backed him, gave a nation a reason to hate him and by default us, and a religious revolution ensued that would place us where we are today.

There is nothing Carter could have done, once again it was one of the many reason to hate the U.S. because of modern Imperialist foreign policy.

 

[Blitz24]

You got your history mixed up, the U.S. is to blame for that **** storm to begin with. We put a guy and his family into power backed him, gave a nation a reason to hate him and by default us, and religious revolution ensued that would place us where we are today.

There is nothing Carter could have done, once again it was one of the many reason to hate the U.S. because of modern Imperialist foreign policy.

We are just very bad at getting countries to like the United States .

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

We are just very bad at getting countries to like the United States .

Which is why many times we should mind our own damn business instead of playing chess with nations and trying to expand off them in a forced globalism effort.

 

[mustafur]

What is worse is the US deposed a Democratically elected leader, Simply because he didn't want Iran Oil Reserves to be in control of the west.

In doing so the US made an Enemy and a dictatorship that has probably sent the country back 50 years.

 

[samurai8juice]

No Mr. Trudeau, you don't speak on behalf of all Canadians.

Once a socialist always a socialist.

What is worse is the US deposed a Democratically elected leader, Simply because he didn't want Iran Oil Reserves to be in control of the west.

In doing so the US made an Enemy and a dictatorship that has probably sent the country back 50 years.

Different leader and time period, but don't forget about Gaddafi who wanted to create a trans-African currency backed by gold, which may or may not have lead to his death (who knows the truth of that article, it is RT, and AFAIK, RT was the only one reporting specifically on Gaddafi's gold dinar).

 

[Carbonox]

No Mr. Trudeau, you don't speak on behalf of all Canadians.

I'm convinced that if the word "cuck" ever makes it into a dictionary, the definition should just be a picture of this guy.

 

[Tornado]

To me it means he's feckless.

I mean, it wouldn't be nearly the first time Jimmy Carter was called something along those lines, so...

 

[mustafur]

Once a socialist always a socialist.



Different leader and time period, but don't forget about Gaddafi who wanted to create a trans-African currency backed by gold, which may or may not have lead to his death (who knows the truth of that article, it is RT, and AFAIK, RT was the only one reporting specifically on Gaddafi's gold dinar).

It would make sense, if there was a Gold based currency out there. It would absolutely destroy the US dollar as Reserve currency as it will be compared to gold rather then other fiat currency.

Not to mention many wealthy 1st world countries would be devastated by their incredibly low Gold reserves(Most Notably Canada).

 

[mister dog]

Once a socialist always a socialist.

Not really, people can start to realize after a while that it's just a flawed ideal, as it doesn't take mans inherent need for selfishness into account, and that there will always be more people around abusing socialism than benefiting from it.

I used to be a socialist in my younger years, so in effect i'm a living example of this famous quote :

If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.

 

[stonesfan129]

How come Hillary didn't spend her own money on this whole "recount" thing? I think people are making too big a deal out of this. Trump won, move on.

 

[BobK]

How come Hillary didn't spend her own money on this whole "recount" thing?

I'd like to know why Jill Stein is seeking recounts in the first place. Unless she's shilling for Hillary.

I also find the irony hilarious in a sick sort of way, considering what the left was saying about Trump's statements regarding acceptance of the outcome.

I think people are making too big a deal out of this. Trump won, move on.

Careful there -- I drew moderator attention for expressing the same sentiment.

 

[stonesfan129]

I'd like to know why Jill Stein is seeking recounts in the first place. Unless she's shilling for Hillary.

I also find the irony hilarious in a sick sort of way, considering what the left was saying about Trump's statements regarding acceptance of the outcome.

So, I have a question. If the election results are overturned and let's say Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan all switch to Hillary and she gets the election - why should people suddenly accept that? Can we recount again after that?

 

[BobK]

So, I have a question. If the election results are overturned and let's say Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan all switch to Hillary and she gets the election - why should people suddenly accept that? Can we recount again after that?

I'd be shocked & amazed if there wasn't a re-recount in that case.

 

[Touring Mars]

So, I have a question. If the election results are overturned and let's say Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan all switch to Hillary and she gets the election - why should people suddenly accept that? Can we recount again after that?

I'm guessing that there can be as many recounts as are paid for by the person or people who can afford the necessary cash to get the done, up to the point where the electoral college decides how to vote. I may be wrong, but the electoral college effectively renders all public vote counts moot anyway, since it is the electoral college vote that actually decides who becomes POTUS.

It's quite ironic that the same electoral college that Trump supporters have been championing since the election - and that Clinton supporters have been demanding the abolishment of - might just end up deciding the election in favour of Clinton and against Trump if it can be proven that Trump benefited from some form of electoral fraud.

 

[stonesfan129]

I'm guessing that there can be as many recounts as are paid for by the person or people who can afford the necessary cash to get the done, up to the point where the electoral college decides how to vote. I may be wrong, but the electoral college effectively renders all public vote counts moot anyway, since it is the electoral college vote that actually decides who becomes POTUS.

It's quite ironic that the same electoral college that Trump supporters have been championing since the election - and that Clinton supporters have been demanding the abolishment of - might just end up deciding the election in favour of Clinton and against Trump if it can be proven that Trump benefited from some form of electoral fraud.

That's definitely possible, and you know, if that happens, whatever I'll accept it. That's the system we've chosen (the electoral college).

 

[Dotini]

...the same electoral college that Trump supporters have been championing since the election - and that Clinton supporters have been demanding the abolishment of

The electoral college cannot simply be abolished. It would definitely require a constitutional amendment. That means no practical chance.

 

[Touring Mars]

The electoral college cannot simply be abolished. It would definitely require a constitutional amendment. That means no practical chance.

Never mind the silly old constitution - Facebook has spoken... the electoral college must go/stay! [delete as appropriate depending on whether it benefits you]

 

[Dotini]

Never mind the silly old constitution - Facebook has spoken... the electoral college must go/stay! [delete as appropriate depending on whether it benefits you]

Facebook/Google/CIA notwithstanding, only a handful of big, populous states like California, New York and Texas would benefit if the electoral college went away. The majority of small states would never, ever allow that to happen. It would mean the end of the Republic.

 

[huskeR32]

How come Hillary didn't spend her own money on this whole "recount" thing?

Is this an implication that Jill Stein's actions are in some way on Hillary's behalf? If so, that's a pretty shaky conclusion to draw.

For one thing, if Stein was interested in helping Hillary at all, why didn't she tell her supporters in swing states to vote for Hillary? This tweet from Stein that pretty well obliterates any idea that she's interested in helping Clinton.

 

[ryzno]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hillary chip in some money after Jill started this recount? And if Rush is right, Jill said she doesn't need as much money as she's raised. Guess who gets to keep the money...

 

[stonesfan129]

Is this an implication that Jill Stein's actions are in some way on Hillary's behalf? If so, that's a pretty shaky conclusion to draw.

For one thing, if Stein was interested in helping Hillary at all, why didn't she tell her supporters in swing states to vote for Hillary? This tweet from Stein that pretty well obliterates any idea that she's interested in helping Clinton.

I didn't say that at all.

 

[Carbonox]

This tweet from Stein that pretty well obliterates any idea that she's interested in helping Clinton.

Slightly off-topic, but funny how the top reply wasn't anywhere close to being a rebuttal, just a butthurt complaint.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'd like to know why Jill Stein is seeking recounts in the first place. Unless she's shilling for Hillary.

She says that it is an issue of transparency. The voting machines used in the states where she is campaigning for a recount have been banned in other states. They were banned because authorities felt that they were vulnerable to tampering. As Obama pointed out before the election, the decentralised system makes widespread vote-rigging extraordinarily difficult to achieve, but Stein says that she is more interested in reassuring the American public that the system works rather than changing the outcome of the election. After all, Trump was claiming that the election was rigged on a daily basis, and while it was bluster aimed at galvanising his supporters, it's not something that he can walk away from (not that he hasn't tried, first claiming that the election results weren't rigged after all, and then claiming that vote-rigging denied him the popular vote).

 

[Dotini]

I'd like to know why Jill Stein is seeking recounts in the first place. Unless she's shilling for Hillary.

She only had less than $3 million generated during her entire campaign. Now suddenly in days she has $5 million ginned out of whole cloth. Most of it into her own pockets and those of the Green Party. Suddenly Jill doesn't seem as inane as she looks.

 

[samurai8juice]

The electoral college cannot simply be abolished. It would definitely require a constitutional amendment. That means no practical chance.

It means abolishing a chunk of the Constitution, something that Republicans definitely won't do (as they see themselves as kind of the 'Defenders of the Constitution'), and something that hasn't been done since, probably the 12th Amendment.

For those of you (including I) who thought the Electoral College could change the result:

How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?

It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The Electoral College vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide popular vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each state.

Note that 48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does the District of Columbia). For example, all 55 of California’s Electoral votes go to the winner of the state election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But, it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual state elections and the national vote totals. This also occurred in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?

The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state’s Electoral votes.

Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#ecpopulardiffer