US Election 2016, part III

[Guard Dog]

It appears the whole "extremely careless" thing is affecting Hillary. As of June 29 her avg in the battle grounds was +5, now it's Trump +3. Gary Johnson is now averaging 9-7 and is inching closer to that magic number 15. Jill Stein has gone from 2-3 up to 4-5. 

 

Forgot the link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

 

Just a note to those not familiar with how this stuff works here... don't expend any mental energy worrying about this. We haven't even had the conventions yet and November is an eternity away. In fact the most significant development in this is Johnson's and it would literally take an overt act of God himself for Johnson to actually win a state or two. But November is meaningless to him. August and September are the months that matter to him because that is when the debates will be so that is his deadline to get into double digits. 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Tell me you would not rather have this guy than Clinton or Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2UP2mtSm4

 

 

First LP Campaign Commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGD8gJt7weU

[redneckdevil]

If it was JUST between Hillary and Trump, I'd vote Trump. I actually like the guy.

But I'm gonna vote for Gary Johnson. Have no idea what his politices are and I really need to check in to see with that brilliant tax plan of his (no sarcasm, I love the idea) if the current business policies apply to them and if there will be any business policy's that are planning on being changed.

With the very good showing off either inconpentance and/or corruption with Hillarys name all over it and the current tensions with race that Trump is getting unfairly associated with as the 2 heavy hitters not looking very rosy, hopefully maybe a brexit type event happens and people are just feed up with the show place their vote with Johnson either serious or in protest and bam. It's a gamble yeah. I'd feel more morally? good about my vote even though in reality the people's vote don't really count.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Actually its probably going to be a close elections so this time around the individual vote carries more weight than usual. If you don't vote for one of the two major candidates you're kinda throwing your vote away.

 

Although I'm shilling for Trump purely out of novelty value. And a visceral dislike of Hillary.

[redneckdevil]

Actually its probably going to be a close elections so this time around the individual vote carries more weight than usual. If you don't vote for one of the two major candidates you're kinda throwing your vote away.

 

Although I'm shilling for Trump purely out of novelty value. And a visceral dislike of Hillary.

Sigh I know that but let me have my fantasy lol

[Longknife]

Actually its probably going to be a close elections so this time around the individual vote carries more weight than usual. If you don't vote for one of the two major candidates you're kinda throwing your vote away.

 

Hate this attitude and pattern of thinking. To me, people have absolutely nothing to lose since both outcomes are terrible, so wtf might as well try for a third party candidate, because if Johnson or Stein were to pull in an abnormal amount of votes, better believe next election the USA might have a new party. Winning this one? Probably not, but a lasting impression for the future? Totally possible amidst all the discontent with Democrat and republican.

[Guard Dog]

I cannot in good conscience support either Hillary or Trump. But although I am a dues paying, card carrying LP member I've voted Republican more often than not. Actually, that isn't true. I voted AGAINST the democrat more often than not. And like Val and WoD tell me I understand that voting for the LP candidate means throwing away any say, however small, in the outcome. But I don't think of it as wasting a vote any more. And I'm done supporting people I don't respect because the alternative is so much worse. Bad is bad. So from now on I'm going to look at it this way: something done on principles cannot be a wasted act. Whether it's writing a check, casting a vote, whatever.

 

Last night I went on their website: https://johnsonweld.com/donate/ and donated $100. I never do that. The last last political campaign I actually donated money to was my own. But I believe in this guy.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Nah, the two party oligopoly on elections is pretty inherent to the system as is. You'd have to reform it and that ain't gonna happen because it works fine for the guys with enough influence to change it.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Actually its probably going to be a close elections so this time around the individual vote carries more weight than usual. If you don't vote for one of the two major candidates you're kinda throwing your vote away.

 

Hate this attitude and pattern of thinking. To me, people have absolutely nothing to lose since both outcomes are terrible, so wtf might as well try for a third party candidate, because if Johnson or Stein were to pull in an abnormal amount of votes, better believe next election the USA might have a new party. Winning this one? Probably not, but a lasting impression for the future? Totally possible amidst all the discontent with Democrat and republican.

 

 

I understand your sentiment but the first past the post vote distortion and the immense costs of running in so many simultaneous and parallel elections make it impossible for a third party to establish itself. Literally impossible. The fringe parties and candidates that exist are no more than a safety valve for the system, so that it can supports its claim to "democracy".

 

Even within the UK, which has a much more ideological variety than the US ever had (the US has never even had a genuine Left/Right split, what is called the Left/Right in the US would in Europe be basically two center lib/capitalist parties with a slant toward either side), the best a third party can do on occasion is play kingmaker.

 

The fact is, most political ideas fought their way into parliament (the key of these being socialism and other mass politics movements) from the street, usually through years of blood and sacrifices. It was never a case of simply being voted in and "slipping in unannounced." In the US they tried and were shot down. 80's and latter FBI (and mafia etc.) clampdowns against Unions accounted for the rest. The flip side, the various right "anti-statist/anti fed" movements unique to the US are a bunch of retards living in their own version of a 19th century fantasy capitalism, with no clue how a modern government actually works. Abolishing taxes, minimal state etc. in 2016, indeed. Lol! They have even less chance of success.

 

The elites that hold power in the US have a much tighter hold on society than any government in Europe can ever dream of, even the ones described as practically "authoritarian".

Edited July 13, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[redneckdevil]

Damn I've been watching lynch and comey getting murdered in the courts. Comey seems to have somewhat of a chance because he's at least been "somewhat" cooperatives but lynch.....the same sentence outta her mouth every time it opens up to answer a question.

I know it's just a show with comey and lynch that's gonna get the heat and ire away from Clinton.

[Hurlshort]

You are a moron if you think not voting for one of the two major candidates is throwing your vote away. By the same line of thinking, your vote only counts if you vote for the winner.

 

If your candidate loses your state and the general election, does your vote not count twice as much?

Edited July 13, 2016 by Hurlshot

[Drowsy Emperor]

There are compelling reasons to vote for candidates that cannot "win", especially in proportional systems, where a small party can still play a role. Even in the UK that can happen from time to time, like with UKIP or the Liberals. In the US its just a waste. They aren't going to form a coalition, they aren't going to win or play kingmaker so other than as form of ineffective protest, it serves no point.

[Guard Dog]

There is another prize to be had here though. If Gary Johnson can pick up just 5% of the popular vote, an altogether achievable goal, then the LP candidate in 2020 will automatically be on the ballot in all 50 States. It would not be necessary to expend time and resources on the state by state petition that every party not named Democrat or Republican is obligated to do. Plus they would be eligible for federal election assistance.

 

Like I said before, it would take an act of God to win a state and even God Himself might not be able to make Johnson President but a good performance, say just 5 million votes, sets the table for better things in the future. It would get the LP something it has lacked and sorely needs: public attention.

[Valsuelm]

Tell me you would not rather have this guy than Clinton or Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2UP2mtSm4

 

 

First LP Campaign Commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGD8gJt7weU

 

Yosemite Sam > Mickey Mouse > Donald Trump > A Whole Big Bunch of Other People > Vladimir Putin > Nigel Farage > Ron Paul > Ralph Nader > Micky Donovan > a totally random person chosen from the citizenry of the United States > Homer Simpson > Gary Johnson or Bernie Sanders (they're quite similar where it matters) > the drunk psychopath at my local bar > nearly *ANYONE* else on capital hill > Bruce Jenner > Kim Jong-un  > BruceVC > Nancy Pelosi > Harry Reid > Charles Schumer > Spoiled Fermented Dung Beetle Excrement Come to Life > Any of the Kardasians > Obama for a Third Term > Obama for a Fourth Term > Another Bush > King Obama for life > Kim Jong-il's carcass > Mao Zedong's carcass > Bruce Jenner's discarded phallus >The Devil himself > The most SJW person on earth > Hillary Clinton

 

 

('P enis' is censored?!? WTF?!!?)

 

Edited July 13, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

I cannot in good conscience support either Hillary or Trump. But although I am a dues paying, card carrying LP member I've voted Republican more often than not. Actually, that isn't true. I voted AGAINST the democrat more often than not. And like Val and WoD tell me I understand that voting for the LP candidate means throwing away any say, however small, in the outcome.....

 

I honestly don't think you'd be throwing your vote away. I do think however you're underestimating just what is at stake if Hillary wins. If she wins this very well may be the last U.S. Presidential election that ever matters (in fact I'd put a lot of gold on it, yet at the same time pray to God (and I'm not really a religious man) I lost that wager). For a variety of reasons, not the least of which (but probably most easily discussable as well as most obvious) is the SCOTUS.

 

For most of my adult life I have argued against voting for the lesser of two evils. In the past the analogy I've used is: you've got two daughters. One has a person holding a gun to their head, the other has a knife at their throat. You are told to choose between the two. The answer in that scenario is none of the above; don't vote for the lesser of two evils. Put on your action hero boots and find another way. And that has been every Presidential election in the last 20+ years (there truly hasn't been that big a difference where it really matters between the about equally evil Blue or Red frontrunners in a long time). This election is different, for a variety of reasons I will never have time to fully discuss on this forum.

 

This election the analogy is better put: You have two daughters. One has a person holding a gun to their head, the other daughter has person holding a knife at their throat. The same person holding the knife has a suicide vest armed with a 500 megaton yield hydrogen bomb that will go off as soon as your daughter's throat is slit, killing you, your daughter with the gun to her head, everyone you care about in a very large radius, as well as a whole lot of other people. It also is linked with hundreds of other 500 megaton bombs scattered throughout the United States and even a few dozen scattered about the world. If the knife runs across your daughter's throat and the vest is triggered, so are all those other bombs....

 

You are told to choose between the two.

 

This time, isn't like the last few times. Any potential action heroing has been checked and mated. This time, if you want to live to fight another day, live to find another way in the future, you gotta tearfully resign yourself to that gun going off....

Edited July 14, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Guard Dog]

Actually Val, I'm going to disagree with you on this one. Hillary Clinton is as left as they come (for a Democrat at least). She is a big believer in the almighty power of the government and certainly does not agree with any limits or restrictions on government power. She, like Obama is a die hard opponent of Federalism and will work to undermine the 10th Amendment just as Barack Obama has surely done. She, like many others of her ilk believe the people exist to serve the state rather than the reverse which is of course the American tradition. She is a white, female Barack Obama. Philosophically at least.

 

But that is where the similarity ends. She is a technocrat. A machine politician. He is an ideologue, a true believer. IMO the former is far preferable to the latter. Hillary will not involve herself in an unwinnable fight with a hostile Congress, then damn them all with executive action when they don't give her what she wants (probably). Obama did that repeatedly. The only thing more disturbing to me than the Supreme Court having to rein him in three times  is that he got away with it more. She will be more likely to give to get. Right now she is talking tough on gun control. But she knows we (the voters) will not have it. She won't risk losing congress to ram it down our throats. More likely she will trade something to the House & Senate Republicans to get a watered down background check bill that won't be too odious and declare she has save America from gun violence. That is what politicians do.  Small things for small things that are easy to get. That is how the US Government has been operating since the days of FDR. Every so often they will do something big (for good or ill) but four years may easily pass without that happening. It's not for nothing that they say she is beholden to big business. She is. Most of them are. They will talk about helping small business owners and consumers but in the final reckoning they are all about money and who has that? Big business. Now that is not an altogether terrible thing. Most Americans own stock whether they know it or not. 401ks, IRAs, mutual funds, etc. Healthy companies usually translate to healthy investments which helps the economy. It is not the end-all-be-all of the economy but you cant have a good economy without that part. 

 

Now the Supreme Court is a problem. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was her choice when Bill nominated her. I expect she will give us more of that. And that does worry me. DC v. Heller is something I worry about being overturned. But think about what it would take to make that happen. First a governing body would have to completely ban firearm ownership in clear violation of the 2nd Amendment. They would be sued immediately and because of the precedents already in place they will lose and their law will be set aside. Then they would have to appeal, three times, before it would even be considered by the Supreme Court. It would take years. Decades even. No judge on the court today might even be there to hear it. RBG said the one decision she wished she could overturn was FEC v. Citizens United. OK, say that was overturned right now. It did change the law in a profound way but in the end the only tangible change was there are a lot more commercials on TV during election years. Let me ask you a question. What, in your opinion, was the worst SCOTUS decision in recent history? For me, hands down, it was Kelo v. New London. At the time I said (and I still stand by it) the five justices who ruled in favor of the City of New London should have been dragged out of the courthouse at the end of a rope and hung in the streets. But within 10 years of that decision two dozen states have passed laws to prevent the very thing that caused that case from happening. Take the worst case I just asked you about, reverse the decision and see how the world might have been different.

 

Sure a justice can do a lot more harm over the years than a President can. But "landmark" cases like Heller & Kelo are very rare. And Hillary may only get to pick one if she does win. Maybe none. If it looks like a win is inevitable Merrick Garland can be approved in a very short time and the Republicans in the Senate might be well advised to do it. I could easily think of worse candidates. 

 

I know I've run long here.. too long really. But the point I'm trying to make is that while a Hillary Clinton Presidency would be a bad thing and certainly not something I'd want to see, she would probably not be the worst President we've ever had. She might not even be the worst we've had in the last five years.

[Hurlshort]

Everybody is freaking out about Ginsburg's comments, and the chance that we will get another one of her on the SC.  But she is 83 years old, so I'd try to keep that in mind.  The odds are more likely we'll get two moderates to replace Scalia and Ginsburg in the long run, because even with a liberal President, you've got a conservative congress.

[Hurlshort]

Fun facts:

 

I am voting for a libertarian candidate for the second straight election.  I voted for Obama, Nader, and Clinton in the past.

 

My wife has voted Republican since she was old enough.  She is also leaning heavily towards Johnson. 

 

I have a number of Republican friends posting Big Johnson jokes and showing favor towards him.  

 

 

This is a pretty different election, I say vote for who you think is the best candidate and ignore all the naysayers.

[Guard Dog]

Everybody is freaking out about Ginsburg's comments, and the chance that we will get another one of her on the SC.  But she is 83 years old, so I'd try to keep that in mind.  The odds are more likely we'll get two moderates to replace Scalia and Ginsburg in the long run, because even with a liberal President, you've got a conservative congress.

Well the Republicans are defending more seats than the Democrats this election and enough of those are in blue states to swing the Senate. It's impossible to predict what effect Trump & Hillary will have down ballot but the percentages favor the Democrats recapturing the Senate no matter what happens. That means Hillary can name whomever she pleases and she is WAY too friendly with judges like Carolyn Walker-Diallo (now there is a f-----g winner) and David Jeremiah Barron for my comfort. She could easily select either and that would be disastrous. 

[Namutree]

Val is 100% right. Hillary has to lose. If she wins you can just forget future elections. The right will have 0% chance at winning forever. Future elections are only meaningful if Trump wins. If he doesn't it's lights out for the right, and the US. 

[Guard Dog]

You know how Trump could win this thing right now? When he accepts the nomination this weekend during his speech say something to the effect of "I am seeking this office to solve a problem. That problem is (picks something popular like TPP, Keystone, etc) and I will solve that problem in on term. I will not seek a second term".

 

What that does is it gives voters who hate them both an out. An opportunity to kick the can to 2020. We can endure any a-----e for four years. Hillary will be an eight year proposition.

 

I think that message wins this thing if he's willing to do it.

[Namutree]

You know how Trump could win this thing right now? When he accepts the nomination this weekend during his speech say something to the effect of "I am seeking this office to solve a problem. That problem is (picks something popular like TPP, Keystone, etc) and I will solve that problem in on term. I will not seek a second term".

 

What that does is it gives voters who hate them both an out. An opportunity to kick the can to 2020. We can endure any a-----e for four years. Hillary will be an eight year proposition.

 

I think that message wins this thing if he's willing to do it.

I think that'd be a great idea actually. 

[HoonDing]

"That problem is (picks something popular like TPP, Keystone, etc) and I will solve that problem in on term."

 

illegal immigrants?

[Pidesco]

Is everyone missing how Trump takes every opportunity to say revolting xenophobic, extremist crap? Unless a video comes out of Clinton clubbing baby seals while screaming "I love gun control" at the top of her lungs and stealing food directly from the mouths of starving babies, Trump isn't going to win in November.

 

The Republican Party drove itself into a horrible corner, that depends on the votes of the aging white men demographic to win anything. They'll have to do a complete about-face if they want to stay relevant in the future. If the election goes as badly for Trump as it currently seems like, perhaps Republicans will get a grip and start doing something to change their insane outlook. Or perhaps they'll double down on the crazy again. If they do, FSM help America.

 

Perhaps if the Republican party collapses, a non insane conservative party option will appear to take its place, somehow. After seeing that Samantha Bee video on the Libertarian convention, I don't think the Libertarians will be that option.

 

The US has a two party system by design, by the way. As long as you don't move away from first-past-the-post (impossible, I think), voting for a third party will always be a waste.

[Elerond]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/13/ahead-of-gop-convention-cleveland-officials-affirm-protesters-may-carry-guns/

Ahead of GOP Convention, Cleveland Officials Affirm Protesters May Carry Guns 

But water guns, toy guns, knives, aerosol cans, rope, tennis balls are barred