US Election 2016

[Elerond]

If Sanders wins 80% of the vote in California, then things might get funny.

 

Not really, as if I counted right there is 1400 delegates + 267 super delegates left and Sanders needs 1200 delegates to win the nomination, which means that he needs to win over 70% of remaining delegates.

 

Clinton only needs about 470 delegates to get nomination.

[Elerond]

 

 

Very happy with the Democratic results in NY 

 

Well done Hilary Clinton and her campaign, I have been waiting for the Sanders movement   to end its winning streak around the actual votes, not delegates 

 

Results weren't that good for Clinton actually, as New York is her home state, but at end of the day it don't matter because it has been clear for sometime that Sanders can't win the nomination except in most strangest circumstances. 

 

Nah, its a good victory for Clinton. The correct word to describe it  is resounding ...it may not seem like a big lead she won over Sanders but in political terms its considered good ?

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/19/new_york_primary_results_clinton_sanders_trump_who_won.html

 

 

It wasn't really that good result because she was predicted to win more, but she has lost her support (or more accurately Sanders has gained support) in New York in past month. If Sanders had not already virtually lost this race this would have been big win for him, but because Sanders was in need of miracle to come back in the race, this result is sufficient enough to Clinton.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Elerond

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Very happy with the Democratic results in NY 

 

Well done Hilary Clinton and her campaign, I have been waiting for the Sanders movement   to end its winning streak around the actual votes, not delegates

 

 

Results weren't that good for Clinton actually, as New York is her home state, but at end of the day it don't matter because it has been clear for sometime that Sanders can't win the nomination except in most strangest circumstances.

18.5 million(in the entire state) didn't vote and party registration to be able to vote in the primary closed in October(unless you're a completely new voter, in which case they had to be registered a month ahead), I would say it's far from good for Clinton that a guy who was practically unknown a year ago managed to win over 40% of registered democrats when running against party nobility who has been widely known and liked by the party for over two decades. I'd be willing to bet that if they allowed same say registration or open primaries and voting wasn't such a badly managed cluster**** Bernie would have likely won, given his appeal to non-democrats.

[ktchong]

Ted Cruz's "New York value" = Zero delegates

 

#karma #JusticePorn #NYRevenge

Edited April 20, 2016 by ktchong

[Meshugger]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-won-new-york-but-her-image-is-underwater/2016/04/19/d1ff2f3c-0620-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html

 

 

 

Clinton’s image is at or near record lows among major demographic groups. Among men, she is at minus 40. Among women, she is at minus nine. Among whites, she is at minus 39. Among white women, she is at minus 25. Among white men, she is at minus 72. Her favorability among whites at this point in the election cycle is worse than President Obama’s ever has been, according to Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducted the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll with Democratic pollster Peter Hart.

[Volourn]

Yet a lot of people probably still are voting for her and will likely vote for her come election time. IDIOTS.

[BruceVC]

Yet a lot of people probably still are voting for her and will likely vote for her come election time. IDIOTS.

Obviously Volo, she is going to win the election. But Volo its not nice to call people idiots just because they support a different political view than you, its also untrue and libelous 

 

I would support and vote Clinton if  I was an US citizen...does this make me an idiot ?

[Valsuelm]

Yet a lot of people probably still are voting for her and will likely vote for her come election time. IDIOTS.

Idiots is an understatement.

 

I give a pass to a degree to anyone under the age of ~20 or so, to a lesser degree to anyone under ~25 or so, as these folks for the most part haven't had the opportunity to see just how evil and corrupt this woman is. That absolutely nothing she says can be believed. However, anyone over the age of 25 or so that lives in the U.S. (I also give a pass to a degree to foreigners) has their head in the sand or their brain doesn't work if they're voting for her. She's the most obviously corrupt and evil candidate to ever run for President.

 

The average IQ in the world is 100, and sadly that isn't all that smart. I would fully expect most Clinton voters over the age of 25 to fall for this obvious ruse, as their mean IQ is certainly below 100. Idiots is definitely an understatement.

[Malcador]

Voters’ perceptions of her having the knowledge and experience to be president remain strongly positive and unchanged since last fall. On other measures, such as whether she is easygoing and likable, or “shares your position on issues,” or is able to bring real change to the country, or is honest and straightforward, she has seen her standing erode since last fall and even more when compared with her first presidential campaign, in 2008.

The likeable is pretty silly to consider. That was one reason people used for GWB if my memory serves me, heh

[BruceVC]

 

Voters’ perceptions of her having the knowledge and experience to be president remain strongly positive and unchanged since last fall. On other measures, such as whether she is easygoing and likable, or “shares your position on issues,” or is able to bring real change to the country, or is honest and straightforward, she has seen her standing erode since last fall and even more when compared with her first presidential campaign, in 2008.

The likeable is pretty silly to consider. That was one reason people used for GWB if my memory serves me, heh

 

Hilary gets a degree of criticism because she is a women, its veiled sexism and its really annoying because men wouldnt get criticized for some of the  things she does

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-sexism/

 

http://www.bustle.com/articles/86050-4-times-hillary-clinton-was-actually-criticized-for-being-a-woman

Edited April 20, 2016 by BruceVC

[Malcador]

Nah. She's not warm and charming. Which is fine by me in that aspect, the hell do I want a likeable person as a leader.

 

Seems like a cold operator to me. But I guess people want the game to change. Sharing position on issues is an interesting thing as well, pretty much any conservative will be in the negative zone on her in that aspect.

[BruceVC]

Nah. She's not warm and charming. Which is fine by me in that aspect, the hell do I want a likeable person as a leader.

 

Seems like a cold operator to me. But I guess people want the game to change. Sharing position on issues is an interesting thing as well, pretty much any conservative will be in the negative zone on her in that aspect.

I hear you, maybe she seems aloof...but are people like  Cruz warm and charming?I can see the Trump and Sanders appeal but for me I think Hilary comes across as sincere and resolute...I like that about her 

[Malcador]

Cruz is like most Canadians. Fake

[Meshugger]

 

Nah. She's not warm and charming. Which is fine by me in that aspect, the hell do I want a likeable person as a leader.

 

Seems like a cold operator to me. But I guess people want the game to change. Sharing position on issues is an interesting thing as well, pretty much any conservative will be in the negative zone on her in that aspect.

I hear you, maybe she seems aloof...but are people like  Cruz warm and charming?I can see the Trump and Sanders appeal but for me I think Hilary comes across as sincere and resolute...I like that about her 

 

 

Cruz has appeal for the autisticly inclined who are striving for idealogical purity. Any normal person who can read basic body and facial language recognizes him as the rat he is. He is the cartoon caricature of a weasel-faced politician saying anything to get the vote.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Nah. She's not warm and charming. Which is fine by me in that aspect, the hell do I want a likeable person as a leader.

 

Seems like a cold operator to me. But I guess people want the game to change. Sharing position on issues is an interesting thing as well, pretty much any conservative will be in the negative zone on her in that aspect.

I hear you, maybe she seems aloof...but are people like  Cruz warm and charming?I can see the Trump and Sanders appeal but for me I think Hilary comes across as sincere and resolute...I like that about her 

 

 

Cruz has appeal for the autisticly inclined who are striving for idealogical purity. Any normal person who can read basic body and facial language recognizes him as the rat he is. He is the cartoon caricature of a weasel-faced politician saying anything to get the vote.

 

Aye, he's essentially hijacked much of the Paul's message and even strategy for getting elected, excepting unlike Ron, he's as sincere as a man with five mistresses when he tells his wife she's the only one for him. Some are dumb enough to believe him, others see through it, and lament they don't really have a candidate this go around.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Nah. She's not warm and charming. Which is fine by me in that aspect, the hell do I want a likeable person as a leader.

 

Seems like a cold operator to me. But I guess people want the game to change. Sharing position on issues is an interesting thing as well, pretty much any conservative will be in the negative zone on her in that aspect.

I hear you, maybe she seems aloof...but are people like  Cruz warm and charming?I can see the Trump and Sanders appeal but for me I think Hilary comes across as sincere and resolute...I like that about her 

 

 

Cruz has appeal for the autisticly inclined who are striving for idealogical purity. Any normal person who can read basic body and facial language recognizes him as the rat he is. He is the cartoon caricature of a weasel-faced politician saying anything to get the vote.

 

Aye, he's essentially hijacked much of the Paul's message and even strategy for getting elected, excepting unlike Ron, he's as sincere as a man with five mistresses when he tells his wife she's the only one for him. Some are dumb enough to believe him, others see through it, and lament they don't really have a candidate this go around.

 

 

Yeah, i would like to inject to go as far to say that Ron was more than a mere politician. He was on a mission, and such things requires strength of character not found in most politicians. For that he has my respect, despite not necessarily agreeing with him on some matters.

[Longknife]

Saw this video, I wanna hear opinions:

 

 

 

 

I adamantly disagree with them. A Clinton-Cruz-Trump-Sanders election is my dream scenario.

I do not believe that Bernie is to blame if his running as a third party candidate would lead to Trump as president. I adamantly believe that in some ways, something like that should happen so it can highlight how flawed our election system is. The two-party system is a cornerstone of why American politics are so terrible, and the fact that the American people aren't given a chance for some sort of "second choice" ballot is likewise problematic. Germany has a coalition system where, if I for example agree with the Green Party more than anyone else but the Green Party stands no hope of seriously winning, the Green Party is going to create a coalition with whichever party they feel closest to, and thus they'll be splitting any potential victories with that other party. So the SPD and the Green Party make a coalition, and even though SPD has the better odds of winning, I should not be forced to vote for them solely for that reason when the Green Party holds to my ideals more. I'm not in Germany; I can safely vote for the Green Party and still have my vote count in the grand scheme of things. It isn't just "wasted" on a party that never stood a chance of winning.

The USA needs that damned system. It's not rocket science. If Bernie were to run as a third-party candidate but create a coalition with the democratic party, then boom, those worries are completely alleviated.

But to see the American people actively discourage the possibility of a VERY popular third party candidate because they worry what affect it would have on the election...? You're perpetuating the flawed system. The answer is not to tell third parties to **** off, the answer is to ****ing go through and do an overhaul of the electoral college. Democrats and Republicans...as far as I'm concerned both of these parties need to die off, but that isn't gonna happen if the American people never get a chance to see that a third party DOES actually have the potential to win.

[Meshugger]

- A 3-way election where two of the candidates are from the established parties? No.

- A 4-way election where two of the candidates are from the established parties? Yes.

 

I don't like TYT.

[Valsuelm]

Saw this video, I wanna hear opinions:

 

 

 

 

I adamantly disagree with them. A Clinton-Cruz-Trump-Sanders election is my dream scenario.

 

I do not believe that Bernie is to blame if his running as a third party candidate would lead to Trump as president. I adamantly believe that in some ways, something like that should happen so it can highlight how flawed our election system is. The two-party system is a cornerstone of why American politics are so terrible, and the fact that the American people aren't given a chance for some sort of "second choice" ballot is likewise problematic. Germany has a coalition system where, if I for example agree with the Green Party more than anyone else but the Green Party stands no hope of seriously winning, the Green Party is going to create a coalition with whichever party they feel closest to, and thus they'll be splitting any potential victories with that other party. So the SPD and the Green Party make a coalition, and even though SPD has the better odds of winning, I should not be forced to vote for them solely for that reason when the Green Party holds to my ideals more. I'm not in Germany; I can safely vote for the Green Party and still have my vote count in the grand scheme of things. It isn't just "wasted" on a party that never stood a chance of winning.

 

The USA needs that damned system. It's not rocket science. If Bernie were to run as a third-party candidate but create a coalition with the democratic party, then boom, those worries are completely alleviated.

 

But to see the American people actively discourage the possibility of a VERY popular third party candidate because they worry what affect it would have on the election...? You're perpetuating the flawed system. The answer is not to tell third parties to **** off, the answer is to ****ing go through and do an overhaul of the electoral college. Democrats and Republicans...as far as I'm concerned both of these parties need to die off, but that isn't gonna happen if the American people never get a chance to see that a third party DOES actually have the potential to win.

 

First, you're watching the Young Turks. A show whose panel is regularly possibly the most unintelligent folks out there commenting on anything to do with politics. Cenk's insight is worth less than any given person's poop. TYT makes the MSNBC reporters look like an enlightened bunch of folks.

 

Second, a parliamentary system is not the answer for the U.S., or really anywhere else that wants real representation and freedom. Parliamentary systems have corruption fundamentally embedded within them, and were pretty much a big part of the answer for the elite of  Europe to the problem of 'how do we take care of this growing movement among the masses for freedom and representation while maintaining our power?'.

 

The two party system within the U.S. is indeed an abomination, and was pretty much the answer for the 19th / early 20th century elite in the U.S. and Europe for the problem of 'how do we reign this nation with so many resources that is inspiring freedom movements throughout the world back under control?'.

 

The illusion of choice is all that is needed to make average Joe/Jane think they had a say. Back it up with a plethora of bought and paid for propaganda and a state sponsored education system that advertises and enforces this illusion and quite a lot of people are fooled. These days though, many of the frogs have come to realize that some of the other frogs are already floating dead in the water and somehow this water got really damn hot, so the illusions are beginning to become more obvious illusions. Some have seen through the divide and conquer charade.

 

'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.'

 

I agree that the best election we could have within the U.S. would be Clinton v. Sanders v. Trump v. whatever stooge the RNC picks to represent them. I firmly believe it would be a fatal blow to the two major parties, who while they may still have an iron grip on power, are increasingly in danger of dying. We won't see that though. The general consensus and what the bought and paid for (by the same people who bought and paid for the DNC and RNC) media pushes over and over is that a third party candidate cannot win. On top of that are a number of very undemocratic laws that were adopted (mostly during the 20th century) in various states that nearly ensure the continued power of the two major parties. The consensus among the populace has been changing, and the realization and outrage that these laws exist have increased, but the talking heads keep muttering the same tune for the most part. Many of these talking heads believe their own BS, and the most thoroughly dazed by the sirens tune are legitimately surprised by Trump or Sanders success, and/or out there protesting one or the other.

 

The solution to all of this isn't simple. Well, to a degree it is, but one has to slice through a lot of gunk many can't easily handle to explain it, and it's certainly would not be a  painless thing to implement. Realistically I do not think we're going to solve much of anything in regards to these corrupt problems we discuss before actual bloodshed is upon us. Humanity and western culture are too far down the road to hell to turn around without many getting burned.

 

Trump or Sanders would possibly get us turning around a bit less painfully than what's to come if the current status quo continues, but at this point I'm not sure.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Zoraptor]

4 way election -> congress picks President from top 3 candidates assuming only a plurality is reached which seems likely in a 4 way race. Which would be interesting if the top 3 candidates were Trump, Sanders, Clinton; not so much if Cruz were in the mix. I don't think that Sanders would run anyway though, he'd be far more effective inverse Tea Partying the Democrats by targeting the electable establishment figures in states he's done well in (practically, all except the south, given he wasn't even a Democrat until recently).

 

Nothing wrong with a parliamentary system, it's no more susceptible to corruption than any other system or the current US one. Party blocs and the Whips are usually stronger than in the US though, if there's one big advantage the US has it's that the two parties are not absolute monoliths but have to tolerate some fraying around the edges. If you want viable 3rd parties- or to remove the possibility that congress directly elects the President- keep the same general system as now but allow preferential voting (Single Transferable Vote; single member variant). Having said that, there's a reason why basically no one else uses the US system, and it isn't that they're just not awesome enough to.

 

As for Cruz, I don't think I've ever seen someone manage to look quite as much like a meat suit wearing lizardman who has only read about human interactions in a book and is trying to mimic them. Everything about him from body language to how he talks to how he looks is like something out of Oblivion rather than reality, I half expect him to start raking the carpet or go on about meeting a liberal the other day, horrible creature he avoids them whenever possible.

[Guard Dog]

 

Yet a lot of people probably still are voting for her and will likely vote for her come election time. IDIOTS.

Obviously Volo, she is going to win the election. But Volo its not nice to call people idiots just because they support a different political view than you, its also untrue and libelous 

 

I would support and vote Clinton if  I was an US citizen...does this make me an idiot ?

 

It is neither untrue nor libelous to say that Hillary Clinton supporters are idiots. First of all idiot is a subjective term and absent a universally accepted definition the actual meaning of the word is the prerogative of the user. Therefore it cannot be libelous because the pejorative cannot be untrue in the subjective sense. If he had said all Hillary Clinton supporters were child molesters THAT would be libelous. On that note accusing Volo of libel is itself libelous since obviously the underlying fact that the charge is predicated on, that Volo called someone a thing that was a lie is itself a lie. 

 

You might want to get a lawyer Bruce. 

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

As for Cruz, I don't think I've ever seen someone manage to look quite as much like a meat suit wearing lizardman who has only read about human interactions in a book and is trying to mimic them. Everything about him from body language to how he talks to how he looks is like something out of Oblivion rather than reality, I half expect him to start raking the carpet or go on about meeting a liberal the other day, horrible creature he avoids them whenever possible.

 

 

You do have way with words I must say, your description of Cruz is very funny 

[BruceVC]

 

 

Yet a lot of people probably still are voting for her and will likely vote for her come election time. IDIOTS.

Obviously Volo, she is going to win the election. But Volo its not nice to call people idiots just because they support a different political view than you, its also untrue and libelous 

 

I would support and vote Clinton if  I was an US citizen...does this make me an idiot ?

 

It is neither untrue nor libelous to say that Hillary Clinton supporters are idiots. First of all idiot is a subjective term and absent a universally accepted definition the actual meaning of the word is the prerogative of the user. Therefore it cannot be libelous because the pejorative cannot be untrue in the subjective sense. If he had said all Hillary Clinton supporters were child molesters THAT would be libelous. On that note accusing Volo of libel is itself libelous since obviously the underlying fact that the charge is predicated on, that Volo called someone a thing that was a lie is itself a lie. 

 

You might want to get a lawyer Bruce. 

 

 

Okay  so  suggesting you can't sue someone in the USA  if you get called an idiot? How is idiot subjective....surly this is a negative word?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Yet a lot of people probably still are voting for her and will likely vote for her come election time. IDIOTS.

Obviously Volo, she is going to win the election. But Volo its not nice to call people idiots just because they support a different political view than you, its also untrue and libelous 

 

I would support and vote Clinton if  I was an US citizen...does this make me an idiot ?

 

It is neither untrue nor libelous to say that Hillary Clinton supporters are idiots. First of all idiot is a subjective term and absent a universally accepted definition the actual meaning of the word is the prerogative of the user. Therefore it cannot be libelous because the pejorative cannot be untrue in the subjective sense. If he had said all Hillary Clinton supporters were child molesters THAT would be libelous. On that note accusing Volo of libel is itself libelous since obviously the underlying fact that the charge is predicated on, that Volo called someone a thing that was a lie is itself a lie. 

 

You might want to get a lawyer Bruce. 

 

 

Okay  so  suggesting you can't sue someone in the USA  if you get called an idiot? How is idiot subjective....surly this is a negative word?

 

First of all Volo is in Canada. They do things differently. They have this reputation for being nice and well mannered but all that means is the say "Have a nice day" after the f--k your s--t all up. The definition of idiot is someone who is stupid. The definition of stupid is someone who is lacking intelligence. Volo has an IQ of 240 therefore almost everyone is technically less intelligent than he is. That means 1) It is subjectively true that if a person of greater intelligence refers to a person of lesser intelligence as an idiot it is not a lie. 2) Subjectivity and negativity are not mutually exclusive.

 

Bruce I've got a good buzz going and 3/4 of a liter of fine Kentucky single barrel sour mash on my desk. You wanna play word games I can do this all night! 

[Valsuelm]

4 way election -> congress picks President from top 3 candidates assuming only a plurality is reached which seems likely in a 4 way race. Which would be interesting if the top 3 candidates were Trump, Sanders, Clinton; not so much if Cruz were in the mix. I don't think that Sanders would run anyway though, he'd be far more effective inverse Tea Partying the Democrats by targeting the electable establishment figures in states he's done well in (practically, all except the south, given he wasn't even a Democrat until recently).

 

Nothing wrong with a parliamentary system, it's no more susceptible to corruption than any other system or the current US one. Party blocs and the Whips are usually stronger than in the US though, if there's one big advantage the US has it's that the two parties are not absolute monoliths but have to tolerate some fraying around the edges. If you want viable 3rd parties- or to remove the possibility that congress directly elects the President- keep the same general system as now but allow preferential voting (Single Transferable Vote; single member variant). Having said that, there's a reason why basically no one else uses the US system, and it isn't that they're just not awesome enough to.

 

I'm more than a little well aware of the 12th amendment. It's one of the many after the initial ten, that should be overhauled or repealed all together. However, a four way election wouldn't necessarily mean congress would choose the President, and to a degree if they did it would be irrelevant insofar as affecting what a four way election with the aforementioned candidates would do to the national political system of the nation in which I live.

 

As for Parliamentary systems. If one likes true individual freedom, dislikes monarchy, dislikes oligarchy, and isn't a fan of corruption, they're horrific. On the surface they look good, sure. People get to vote, so how is that bad? Right?

 

Looking good on the surface to the peasantry while appeasing the blue bloods is how they've been able to survive and thrive. I will only say this: Parliamentary systems were by and large granted, not fought for. For the historically astute, who knows well what came before and how these systems came to be, that's all that need be said. Getting in deeper as to why I say they are bad I will not do as to go there would take many many pages of writing, or a semester or three worth of lectures on the back of at least a few of European History. I simply don't have the time.

 

The U.S. system isn't perfect, but most of the big problems with it came later, and are the result of a myriad of things (most not accidental) that manifested themselves over time. ie: The two party system can be broken. Most of what keeps them in power is inertia, and a lack of will on the part of the American people over all (however this has been changing). Party systems are inherently corrupt, something most of those who laid the framework for the U.S. Federal government knew well. They attempted to design a system to thwart them, and they did succeed to a degree. It took a long time to get where we are now.