[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Tornado]

Remember everyone, he's just joking.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Then your memory is faulty. There's a big difference between accusing people of committing a crime without a shred of evidence, and deliberately orchestrating a scenario whereby a crime is likely to be committed against you and then calling foul when that crime is committed.

My memory is just fine and your semantic gymastics don't change anything. You made the presumption of guilt without a shred of evidence.

 

[mustafur]

Here's a question about the Syrian Civil War...

Who is fighting who, exactly? What I understand (more like, what I've read on wiki) is that it's a many sided war including the Syrian Government, the Free Syrian Army, the Kurdish Rebels, ISIS, and the Al Nusra Front.

Whenever something comes up on the news, it's only mentioned as Syria, Syrian Rebels, or ISIS/ISIL. Who are the rebels that the American government back? Because it really hasn't been made clear to the American public. For all we know the rebels that we support is actually ISIS, and the American public's just being lied to.

The reason is because if they actually say the Rebels are Al queda everyone will be like wait a minute.

American Government mostly backs the Kurds which both their Allies(Saudi Arabia and Turkey) in the region are against, the Kurds are fighting basically everyone in that region but mostly Wahhabi and Turkish rebels and IS.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Kurdish–Islamist_conflict_(2013–present)

Just look at the nonsense Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are backing(Al Nusra is Al queda in Syria).

On a side note, Is it possible to name a country or people next to turkey that they haven't tried to screw over, we are talking about the Country, that has tried to take Cyprus by shipping as much of it's people to the island to overpopulate the Native Greeks.

The same Country that Did a Genocide on the Armenians and to this day refuses to acknowledge their Nazi levels of Genocidal behaviour against a people, and the same country that will fight any Kurdish statehood attempt even if it's outside their own borders because they are Kurds.

They have had Historical tensions with Russia just over the fact they recognize the Armenians and Kurds as humans, and they definetely acknowledge the Genocide of Turkey against the Armenians which to this day America won't in fear of pushing tensions with Turkey.

A toxic culture full of Racism and Racial Focused Mass killing, to this day in Turkey calling someone an Armenian considered the worst offence you could do.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Here's a question about the Syrian Civil War...

Who is fighting who, exactly?

It's very complex.

First of all, you have the pro-government forces, who have struggling to retain control since the Arab Spring uprising. They're supported by the Russians, as Syria is their only ally in the Middle East; they're also supported by the Iranians, who promote a secular government.

Then you have various factions who want to overthrow Assad. However, they don't function as a broad coalition despite sharing a common goal - some are reasonably moderate, while others tend towards radical ideologies. The more moderate groups get support from the West, but it has been suggested that if it weren't for the presence of ISIL, these moderate groups would be pretty bad in their own right. The West generally considers the moderate groups to be a lesser evil than the government. Not all of the rebel groups get along, either.

Then you have ISIL trying to establish their caliphate; they fight everyone, but have mostly been clashing with the rebels, simply because the rebels occupy territory between them and the government. Most of their attention has been focused on Iraq of late, but they're still active in Syria.

In the middle is Turkey. Turkey supports the government to try and stop the spread of radical Islam across the border (but it's implied that they trade heavily with ISIL), but they also support some of the anti-government rebels. One of the most effective groups fighting ISIL - particularly in Iraq - have been the Kurds, a local ethnic group. The Kurds are active as a political group, trying to establish Kurdistan, a nation of their own. The borders of Kurdistan would include western Iran, northern Iraq, northern Syria, and parts of eastern Turkey. Turkey considers the political arm of the Kurdish people - the PKK, or Kurdistan Workers' Party - to be a terrorist organisation and a threat to Turkish sovereignty, so they back anyone who opposes the Kurds to limit the spread of Kurdish influence.

 

[Rage Racer]

Here's a question about the Syrian Civil War...

Who is fighting who, exactly?

 

[Sanji Himura]

(but it's implied that they trade heavily with ISIL)

I think that it has been proven that some elements of Etrogan's government do trade with ISIS. Black market oil for arms is a very lucrative business deal, especially when said elements share a common goal (like establishing a caliphate for example). Though the recent execution of two Turkish troops by ISIS may put a damper to such ambitions.

 

[Dennisch]

Though the recent execution of two Turkish troops by ISIS may put a damper to such ambitions.

Collateral damage.

 

[FoRiZon]

CIA accusing Russia for rigging election is hypocritical.

 

[ryzno]

Well Obama is doing a damn good job of screwing America before he leaves. I'll provide links when I get home from work, unless someone beats me to it.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays y'all.

 

[GTP_Patrick1]

For anyone questioning the results due to Hillary winning the popular vote, here are the reasons it is not a good argument. Going into the election the contest was to win enough states to get to the 270 Electoral votes. Trump knew that CA, NY, and Ill (populations of 1,2 and 5 of all states) will not go his way, thus he never campaigns in those states that have alot of people. Trump went to the states 17 in all for his rallies during the presidential run, where he thought he could get to the 270 number. He went to Maine 4 times to win one Electoral vote. If the rules were most votes win, he would have spent all his time in CA, NY, ILL, Fla and Tx the 5 most populous states. Who knows how that turns out, but to say the results are not valid due to losing the popular vote is invalid in my opinion. Instead he chose to lay out a strategy that would win the game, not the stats is the best way I can put it. This allows smaller states to be relevant in our elections. Trump won 3084 of the counties, and Hillary won 57. Dems win in the big cities and lose everywhere else. Here is a map that demonstrates this. Red Trump, Blue Hillary.
And for a side note, I won over 400 dollars in bets for Trump. Those that paid me said how were you so sure. I said I don't watch the news (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, etc..) and get my info from the internet.

 

[McLaren]

For anyone questioning the results due to Hillary winning the popular vote, here are the reasons it is not a good argument. Going into the election the contest was to win enough states to get to the 270 Electoral votes. Trump knew that CA, NY, and Ill (populations of 1,2 and 5 of all states) will not go his way, thus he never campaigns in those states that have alot of people. Trump went to the states 17 in all for his rallies during the presidential run, where he thought he could get to the 270 number. He went to Maine 4 times to win one Electoral vote. If the rules were most votes win, he would have spent all his time in CA, NY, ILL, Fla and Tx the 5 most populous states. Who knows how that turns out, but to say the results are not valid due to losing the popular vote is invalid in my opinion. Instead he chose to lay out a strategy that would win the game, not the stats is the best way I can put it. This allows smaller states to be relevant in our elections. Trump won 3084 of the counties, and Hillary won 57. Dems win in the big cities and lose everywhere else. Here is a map that demonstrates this. Red Trump, Blue Hillary.
And for a side note, I won over 400 dollars in bets for Trump. Those that paid me said how were you so sure. I said I don't watch the news (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, etc..) and get my info from the internet.

Nailed it.

But, some of the Left will just not get it. I've seen a couple petition, "Wait, why do those smaller states ('the swing states') matter more than we do? That's not fair". Because, it's cruel irony & reasoning for the Electoral College in the first place.

 

[Joey D]

Nailed it.

But, some of the Left will just not get it. I've seen a couple petition, "Wait, why do those smaller states ('the swing states') matter more than we do? That's not fair". Because, it's cruel irony & reasoning for the Electoral College in the first place.

The people that don't understand it also go on to preach that the USA is a democracy and have no actual idea that we are indeed a republic.

 

[samurai8juice]

The people that don't understand it also go on to preach that the USA is a democracy and have no actual idea that we are indeed a republic.

We aren't even a Democratic-Republic.

A republic itself is made up of a democracy. Just call us a Republic.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands..."

 

[mustafur]

So if it where a dictatorship so be it then eh?

I get why you have electoral collage but I don't agree with a system that is based on land matter.

If you broke down the Australian vote system it would probably look similar but like 1% of the population lives outside a major city so why should they be over represented.

Your system stinks regardless of what you call your country.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Going into the election the contest was to win enough states to get to the 270 Electoral votes.

Quite right - so why then do you go on to state this:

Trump won 3084 of the counties, and Hillary won 57.

"Number of counties won" validates Trump's victory about as much as "total number of votes" invalidates it. Is this not doing the very thing the rest of your post was criticising?

And for a side note, I won over 400 dollars in bets for Trump. Those that paid me said how were you so sure. I said I don't watch the news (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, etc..) and get my info from the internet.

Place bets on everything you read on the internet, and tell me how that goes.......

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If you broke down the Australian vote system it would probably look similar but like 1% of the population lives outside a major city so why should they be over represented.

My understanding is that the electoral college system works along the same lines as our senate.

Seats in the lower house are set based on the population. Each MP will represent the same number of voters, which is why the electoral borders change every few years. But there's a problem: there are far more MPs from New South Wales than there are from the likes of Tasmania, simply because New South Wales has a larger population and thus has more seats. So in the senate, each state gets equal representation. It's to stop the interests of the most populated states dominating the national agenda.

The electoral college system is trying to do the same thing. It's trying to give all fifty states relative parity in the elections because without it, the most populated states would have the most influence.

 

[polysmut]

My understanding is that the electoral college system works along the same lines as our senate.

Seats in the lower house are set based on the population. Each MP will represent the same number of voters, which is why the electoral borders change every few years. But there's a problem: there are far more MPs from New South Wales than there are from the likes of Tasmania, simply because New South Wales has a larger population and thus has more seats. So in the senate, each state gets equal representation. It's to stop the interests of the most populated states dominating the national agenda.

The electoral college system is trying to do the same thing. It's trying to give all fifty states relative parity in the elections because without it, the most populated states would have the most influence.

That sounds like it works the same as the US Legislative Branch but doesn't describe a similarity to the system for electing the US President & Vice-president.

 

[mustafur]

My understanding is that the electoral college system works along the same lines as our senate.

Seats in the lower house are set based on the population. Each MP will represent the same number of voters, which is why the electoral borders change every few years. But there's a problem: there are far more MPs from New South Wales than there are from the likes of Tasmania, simply because New South Wales has a larger population and thus has more seats. So in the senate, each state gets equal representation. It's to stop the interests of the most populated states dominating the national agenda.

The electoral college system is trying to do the same thing. It's trying to give all fifty states relative parity in the elections because without it, the most populated states would have the most influence.

But NSW should have more say, Tasmania has like 4 people, same with Northern Territory.
NSW Has the most people to represent and is the most important state in basically every area of the national economy.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That sounds like it works the same as the US Legislative Branch but doesn't describe a similarity to the system for electing the US President & Vice-president.

I'm just going off how our media reported it. They drew a lot of parallels to the senate and the idea of spreading the votes out in such a way that the national agenda is not dictated by the most populous states. What's good for California isn't necessarily good for Wyoming.

But NSW should have more say, Tasmania has like 4 people, same with Northern Territory.
NSW Has the most people to represent and is the most important state in basically every area of the national economy.

Which is how it works in the House of Representatives. There are more members of parliament from New South Wales than there are from Tasmania. The senate is where there is equity between the states. Legislation has to pass through both houses before it becomes law.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

That sounds like it works the same as the US Legislative Branch but doesn't describe a similarity to the system for electing the US President & Vice-president.

The similarity is in the purpose of tying (somewhat loosely) electoral "power" to the size of a region's population. Imagine an electoral college where every state was given 1 electoral vote, but each election the lines of the states were redrawn to ensure each state had an equal population - that's what @prisonermonkeys was describing. With the US Presidential system instead of redrawing the states, just keep that the same and adjust the "value" of each state's electoral votes. It's a different method, but achieves essentially the same effect.

 

[waboo]

Pizzagate has largely been debunked by publications from across the political spectrum. No victims have ever come forward, and no evidence of its existence has ever been found. So what, exactly, is there to investigate?

The point you make there doesn't add any closure at all, politicians are trustworthy?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The point you make there doesn't add any closure at all

It's kind of hard to find closure for something that never happened in the first place. Find some definitive proof that it existed, and then we can talk.

 

[Dotini]

It's kind of hard to find closure for something that never happened in the first place. Find some definitive proof that it existed, and then we can talk.

By implication you blandly seem to dismiss or write off pedophilia among the rich and famous "across the political spectrum". It makes you seem like you defend a sub-culture "living among us".

It would be helpful to those whom you've confused to be clear that you actually do condemn pedophilia. Right now we aren't too sure.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

By implication you blandly seem to dismiss or write off pedophilia among the rich and famous "across the political spectrum".

Only if you're reading too much into it. Which you are.

Right now we aren't too sure.

You aren't too sure because you're deliberately twisting my words. I never denied that paedophilia among the rich was an issue; you simply assumed that I did. All I did was point out that there was no evidence that a paedophile ring operating out of that pizza restaurant despite the rumours and conspiracy theories (all of which had been debunked), and thus investigating it was a waste of time, effort and money. You somehow took this to mean that I didn't believe that paedophilia among the rich was an issue, and now you're trying to imply that I don't condemn it at all.

Do you know what "evidence" of the paedophile ring was put forward? A series of emails from John Podesta that were supposedly written in code; ordering a cheese pizza was said to be code for ordering child pornography, because "cheese pizza" and "child pornography" both share the initials "CP". The alleged code was completely unverified, and this "evidence" fails every single check to be considered admissable in a court of law.

I'm the guy calling for specific, tangible and admissable evidence to prove the existence of the alleged pedophile ring in this one particular instance - the same standard by which any criminal investigation would be required to observe. You're the guy who is suggesting that this is a completely unreasonable request and that by making it, I am in denial about child sexual abuse among the rich existing it all and implying that I somehow don't have a problem with it existing.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do you know what "evidence" of the paedophile ring was put forward? ...ordering a cheese pizza was said to be code for ordering child pornography, because "cheese pizza" and "child pornography" both share the initials "CP". The alleged code was completely unverified,

Unfortunately I have to correct you there; that phrase is used by a particular section of the internet community as a code, one that's become fairly widely known in the years since it was first used. That said, it's ridiculous to suppose that every reference to "cheese pizza" is a CP reference... although why one would differentiate the "cheese" component of any pizza (except Marinara) remains beyond me.

 

[GTP_Patrick1]

Place bets on everything you read on the internet, and tell me how that goes.......


My point was every news outlet reported that it was impossible for Trump to win. There were polls showing Trump had a very good chance, yet the news outlets shrugged them off. Trump when campaigning got 50,000 or more a day to watch him at his rallies, Hillary could not get 200 to show up. This election cycle the outlets were openly colluding with Clinton as Wikileaks proved. CNN gave debate questions to Hillary when she debated Bernie. The reason so much of the outrage when Trump won, was because the press basically told this country that Trump can not win. Here is a pretty good video of what the press and celebs kept saying over and over before the election.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

My point was every news outlet reported that it was impossible for Trump to win.

Well I took not trusting traditional news outlets to be the first half of your point - which I can respect albeit not fully agree with - but it was the second half of your point which threw me, which was "I trusted the internet instead"..........I would not be automatically convinced by that logic. Depends on what your sources were of course - there definitely was credible, objective information out there that as you say gave Trump a good chance - but in general the internet as a source of political info is a bit of a cesspit........with in particular plenty of places that would have always said "Trump's going to win" regardless of what the evidence actually suggested (technically they were "proven right", but in about as meaningful a way as guesswork can be "proven right"). I get that a lot of outlets "called" it badly wrong this election, but to go back to my original point all I'd say is be careful what outlets you turn to instead to inform your bets.........it might have given a win this time (congrats, btw ), but it's no guarantee of getting it right in the long run imo.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Unfortunately I have to correct you there; that phrase is used by a particular section of the internet community as a code, one that's become fairly widely known in the years since it was first used.

Be that as it may, it's not proof that a paedophile ring was operating out of that restaurant. Like I said, the entire story was debunked by media outlets across the political spectrum - Democrat supporters, Republican supporters, centrist publications; they all shot the story full of holes. But apparently some people think that an accusation is proof of wrongdoing and so it took hold in the consciousness of the political fringe.

 

[AerodyManiac]

I still can't fathom out why the Electoral College wasn't abolished in favour of a 'popular vote' system, or, perhaps even better, abolish the 'winner-takes-all' system and allocate electors of each state proportionally according to the percentage of votes received by each candidate.

The reason why I'm against the Electoral College is because, from what I've read, it gives people living in some areas 'a heavier weight' in their votes, but equality is one of the US's core values. Don't they seem to contradict?

As for the 'winner-takes-all' system for most states, it actually allows a candidate to win the election while not getting the popular support. An extreme example would be a candidate getting slightly more than the number of votes required to secure all electors in states where the elector amount just reaches 270, while losing by a landslide in all other states. This candidate will still secure the presidency despite not getting the support of the majority of the public.

A better system in my mind would be to allocate electors in each state to various candidates according to the percentage of votes they got in the state. Retain the Electoral College, if you're really that afraid of demagogues holding office, but impose a harsh penalty on faithless electors (unless they can provide sufficient and sound reasoning for their choices). It's not ideal, but it's still better than the complicated and misrepresentative system that you currently have.

But then I question the effectiveness of the Electoral College, considering who is going to hold office of the president on the 20th of January.

I may sound ignorant here, but I just want to state my own opinion.

For anyone questioning the results due to Hillary winning the popular vote, here are the reasons it is not a good argument. Going into the election the contest was to win enough states to get to the 270 Electoral votes. Trump knew that CA, NY, and Ill (populations of 1,2 and 5 of all states) will not go his way, thus he never campaigns in those states that have alot of people. Trump went to the states 17 in all for his rallies during the presidential run, where he thought he could get to the 270 number. He went to Maine 4 times to win one Electoral vote. If the rules were most votes win, he would have spent all his time in CA, NY, ILL, Fla and Tx the 5 most populous states. Who knows how that turns out, but to say the results are not valid due to losing the popular vote is invalid in my opinion. Instead he chose to lay out a strategy that would win the game, not the stats is the best way I can put it. This allows smaller states to be relevant in our elections. Trump won 3084 of the counties, and Hillary won 57. Dems win in the big cities and lose everywhere else. Here is a map that demonstrates this. Red Trump, Blue Hillary.

BTW, am I the only one who's struggling to comprehend what @GTP_Patrick1 is saying? I mean, after reading the post, I'm still struggling to find out why he thinks the statement of 'Trump losing the popular vote makes the results invalid' is invalid.

Hillary could not get 200 to show up.

Interesting. Where did you get that information, may I ask?

 

[Famine]

Like I said, the entire story was debunked by media outlets across the political spectrum - Democrat supporters, Republican supporters, centrist publications; they all shot the story full of holes.

As, in the UK, was the Jimmy Savile story. It was the worst-kept secret in the entertainment industry here - just about anyone with a BBC contract knew of his tastes and predilections to the point where it was just accepted almost as a rider. It was so open that it was almost public knowledge: a fake out-take transcript from a panel show in 1999 featuring Savile circulated soon after the show broadcast absolutely packed with references to his paedophilia which the creators (a couple of comedy likely lads who'd worked with Lee & Herring) had based on far earlier rumours. Basically it was so well known at TV Centre that scriptwriter nobodies knew about it. And period comments when the hoax was published included notes that it was obviously faked because Savile liked boys rather than girls!

What did the press do about it? Nothing. For decades all we heard was the tireless charity work Savile did (for the hospital we later learned that used to procure and abuse children), and the marathons and occasionally the asexual eccentricity of the man, particularly after the Louis Theroux documentary. But the paedophile stuff? Nothing. In fact the BBC itself had prepared a documentary investigation into Savile, but shelved it before it was due to air, despite containing information relative to the criminal investigation brought about by Savile's death 2 months previously...


Essentially this stuff was well known but utterly unreported - buried even - by any news outlet and even the police until after the man had died.


That neither proves nor disproves that any such thing as Pizzagate ever happened, but should prove a cautionary tale against taking establishment denial of establishment crime as an indicator that no crime occurred.