US Election 2016, part II

[Meshugger]

 

Discuss.

[Leferd]

According to 538, Fox News Polls grade out as a C+ for reliability with a strong Republican mean-reverted bias, and they don't call mobile phones. If they switched up their pollster and operations, then it may be a different story with its own set of problems.

 

Last I checked a week ago --based on aggregate polling methodologies, N. Silver reported Trump's unfavorable at above 50% while Clinton's at just under 40%.

 

That Fox poll shows extreme high variance compared to the aggregate.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Leferd

[Meshugger]

^Why in the world are you not working in Vegas?

[HoonDing]

Feel the Bern

 

[Hurlshort]

 

Nothing wrong with that. I think Clinton will be lucky to have such a high result in the actual election, but ok.

 

 

Considering how close all the recent elections have been, that would not be a very safe bet to make.

 

The only way you are going to see either candidate get below 40% is if there is a legitimate 3rd party candidate, like when Ross Perot pulled 18% of the vote.

[Bartimaeus]

And since Trump is winning the Republican nomination and Bernie Sanders is unlikely to get so angry at the DNC he would try to run third party (if he even could)...

[Volourn]

Yeah. This isn't   dictatorship where the winners somehow end up with 80%+ of the votes. People simply aren't that agreeable. L0L

[Guard Dog]

A respectable 3rd party challenge would make an already entertaining farce of an election even more so. Personally I wish more people would give the Libertarian Party a look. To quote Tyrion Lannister "Give freedom a chance. See if it doesn't taste every bit as sweet as what came before" 

[Hurlshort]

It kind of boggled my mind that Ross Perot managed to get nearly 19% of the vote, and then I started checking out all the 3rd party candidates of the past.  I always remember Teddy Roosevelt and his 3rd party run, but there are a lot of interesting stories out there.  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Discuss.

Inflated because FOX, but it's no big secret that both presumptive nominees(FBI party van please take Clinton) are the most disliked candidates we've seen in a long time, if not ever. I'd say it's evidence of a broken election system where two private entities have a monopoly on elected officials and there's nothing within the system that can change that. Within context of this election, it would be interesting if we saw record low turnout and declining to vote for president.

[Volourn]

You won't though not when you have the over dramatic dehumanzing you get. Afterall, we all know if the other side wins the country will be DESTROYED.

[Namutree]

A respectable 3rd party challenge would make an already entertaining farce of an election even more so. Personally I wish more people would give the Libertarian Party a look. To quote Tyrion Lannister "Give freedom a chance. See if it doesn't taste every bit as sweet as what came before" 

Guard Dog, if people were free, how would we stop those grown adults from smoking pot, and force some random bakery to make a cake for a gay wedding? Geez, you need to work on your priorities.

 

Haphazardly screwing with other people's lives over issues that you don't understand is more important than freedom.

[Meshugger]

Oh yes.

 

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/733758716311437312/photo/1

[BruceVC]

There seems to be a degree  of sarcasm and negativity  on this thread? I try not to be sarcastic and focus on the big picture view of politics and not get bogged down when those  meaningless debates around ideology begin...sometimes they can be divisive 

 

So for me the good news view at the moment is " Hilary Clinton will almost certainly be the next president of the USA" ..    

 

But the whole election race is chaotic and I think very hard to predict accurately ..I still stand by my original prediction but there are some anomalies and exciting new developments that make any prediction possibly spurious 

[Guard Dog]

There seems to be a degree  of sarcasm and negativity  on this thread? I try not to be sarcastic and focus on the big picture view of politics and not get bogged down when those  meaningless debates around ideology begin...sometimes they can be divisive 

 

So for me the good news view at the moment is " Hilary Clinton will almost certainly be the next president of the USA" ..    

 

But the whole election race is chaotic and I think very hard to predict accurately ..I still stand by my original prediction but there are some anomalies and exciting new developments that make any prediction possibly spurious 

Here is a prediction: The next President of the US will be a big government autocrat who knows nothing (Trump) or cares nothing (Clinton) about the US Constitution, the limits of the office, or the freedoms and liberties of the citizens of the country whose government they have found themseves (by virture of being least awful of only awful choices) at the head of. If that strikes you as negative well... doesen't make it not true.

[Hurlshort]

Interesting little blog by Glenn Beck after his meeting with Facebook:

 

https://medium.com/@glennbeck/what-disturbed-me-about-the-facebook-meeting-3bbe0b96b87f#.dh3w1jamk

[Guard Dog]

I can't figure it. The silicon valley types are so opposed to government censorship of speech, government regulation of business and the internet. But they support the Democrats who want very much to do all those things. Makes no sense to me.

[Volourn]

"So for me the good news view at the moment is " Hilary Clinton will almost certainly be the next president of the USA" .."

 

Yup, it is good news that an SJW nazi supports  a president who laughs at rape victims. BRILLIANT.

[Leferd]

I can't figure it. The silicon valley types are so opposed to government censorship of speech, government regulation of business and the internet. But they support the Democrats who want very much to do all those things. Makes no sense to me.

 

Makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Having been raised in the area and being related to and being good friends with "silicon valley types," I can also tell you that they/we support social justice, civil rights, progressive immigration reform, universal healthcare, quality public education, affordable housing, and an inclusive government that you know, actually "governs."  

 

Creative and dynamic types tend to be more "progressive" thinking. This is more in alignment with the Democratic Party. 

[Meshugger]

Sounds like Silicon Valley is LARPing as aristocrats.

[Hurlshort]

I thought Beck brought up a good point that conservatives are scaring off these tech companies by behavior that is traditionally more reserved for liberals.  It wasn't liberal mouthpieces telling Apple to crack their phone for the FBI.  You look online and a bunch of the so-called "conservative" sites are calling for police to shoot BLM people, the government to deport all Muslims, and put Target out of business for bathroom policies.  It's a hostile environment and doesn't represent smaller government or freedom.  

 

Look at a site like this:

 

https://www.facebook.com/FreedomDailyNews/

 

They have a million likes.  The stories are usually misleading and the comments are filled with hate.  I'm know there are liberal equivalents, but they don't tend to breed nearly as much vitriol. 

[ShadySands]

I'd agree with that

 

I think that most of the "freedom" people have left the party or at least don't participate as much on a national level and maybe it's just me but even the supposed fiscal conservatives seem to be mostly about cutting only the things they don't like or approve of

 

That's not to say that I've never voted Republican, because I have, but mostly at the local and state level

[Volourn]

" I'm know there are liberal equivalents, but they don't tend to breed nearly as much vitriol."

 

Why lie?

 

All sides are crap. All sides are evil. All sides are nazis. People don't know what freedom is. People FEAR freedom. Because freedom means having to hear and see things YOu don't like. And, that is SCARY.

 

 

You claim there isn't as much vitriol but when you have so 'LIBERALS' stating  that 'Hitler had the right idea... just the wrong target.". You can't ge tmuch more vitriolic than that. LMAO

Edited May 21, 2016 by Volourn

[HoonDing]

No internet community is filled with more vitriol than chess and gardening forums.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I thought Beck brought up a good point that conservatives are scaring off these tech companies by behavior that is traditionally more reserved for liberals.  It wasn't liberal mouthpieces telling Apple to crack their phone for the FBI.  You look online and a bunch of the so-called "conservative" sites are calling for police to shoot BLM people, the government to deport all Muslims, and put Target out of business for bathroom policies.  It's a hostile environment and doesn't represent smaller government or freedom.  

 

Look at a site like this:

 

https://www.facebook.com/FreedomDailyNews/

 

They have a million likes.  The stories are usually misleading and the comments are filled with hate.  I'm know there are liberal equivalents, but they don't tend to breed nearly as much vitriol.

 

I'm reminded of a joke about how most Silicon Valley folks(programmers and stuff, not necessarily executives) are all libertarians until their jobs are in danger of being outsourced or taken. The argument is that whatever principles whatever group has are going to be jettisoned in times of crisis by a good number of members of whatever group in favor of what they perceive to be self-interest. I'm not sure if it's true in every case, but I've noticed a lot of people from varying ideologies willing to accept, or even support, things that are antithetical to their ideology and rhetoric because there's some pressing issue that overrides their core principles.