2016 Presidential Election

[Vhale]

In case anyone missed it. Video has surfaced of Trump bragging about using his celebnty status to grope and assault women. One of many stories. The language of which I can not post here. More importantly, what he bragged about, grabbing women by the genitals, matches the description of his assaults brought by prior sexual harassment complaints - Jill Harth and others. Probably in light of the video, a federal judge has moved to grant a hearing in a case being brought against him with witnesses where he is accused of raping a 13 year old at a party of a man known (and convicted) of passing around kids to rich men - Jeffrey Epstein. One of the few sources of info

Right now, most of the media is not touching the rape charge. But the New York Times may do a large expose Sunday. I hope he goes down like Cosby.

[flockof-doves]

If I could vote it would all be for Hillary. Sure, she's bad, but Trump is much, much worse.

 

and the emails were a big issue and still are a big issue, but like, every other secretary of state had a private email server I'm pretty sure???

[orphaned]

 

Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and some other countries

that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards

of justice, honesty or good morals."

 

This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th century.

 

Need I say more ???

 

Apparently so ...

 

If Donald Trump were to apply for citizenship, based on his past actions, he would be denied.

 

Yet some still feel he is an able and worthy presidential candidate.

[ChocolateIzzy]

In all honesty, I may not have ever been to America. But I think Hillary would be a better president. She knows how to talk and get her facts right. Trump just knows how to lie. Hillary just screwed up with her emails? Who cares?? But Trump is just silly in my opinion... Promoting racism and violence :/

[TCA]

I dunno, I really, really dislike Hillary. She's supported policy that's directly responsible for my parents having to sell their house, personally discredited rape victims, and there's evidence of quid pro quo corrupt dealings with her taking money to endorse whatever the heck the people paying her want.

 

If you think Trump's worse, I can't blame you, he's a pretty awful choice. But if you feel good about supporting her, you're clearly not doing your research. This entire election is a mess and I hate all the options. Nobody should feel 100% good about their choice of candidate.

Edited October 20, 2016 by TheCompleteAnimorph

[AppleMango]

I dunno, I really, really dislike Hillary. She's supported policy that's directly responsible for my parents having to sell their house, personally discredited rape victims, and there's evidence of quid pro quo corrupt dealings with her taking money to endorse whatever the heck the people paying her want.

 

If you think Trump's worse, I can't blame you, he's a pretty awful choice. But if you feel good about supporting her, you're clearly not doing your research. This entire election is a mess and I hate all the options. Nobody should feel 100% good about their choice of candidate.

Is this what you're talking about when you say she 'personally discredited rape victims'?

 

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-free...ughed-about-it/

 

[TCA]

That was not the main thing I was thinking of, no. I don't have my sources handy, sadly, I'll have to track them down again. but it's more related to Bill Clinton.

Edited October 20, 2016 by TheCompleteAnimorph

[Fuzzbucket]

That was not the main thing I was thinking of, no. I don't have my sources handy, sadly, I'll have to track them down again. but it's more related to Bill Clinton.

Well - I do wish people would stop tarring her with the brush that is her husband. She isn't Bill. I'm not wild about her, but if I had to make the choice you guys do - no contest (I hoped for Bernie too.)

 

I feel sure she would never have laughed about these things. She has been through too much horrible of her own.

 

May I lighten the gloom here a little:

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckTingle

 

I hope the debate tweets are still at the top.

 

I seriously think Trump - evil as he has been all his life - is now in the throes of dementia. He can't even finish a sentence, and the rage that so often goes with dementia is also all too evident. He looks like Maggie did towards the end of her term as PM.

Edited October 20, 2016 by fuzzbucket

[Keyboard_Cat]

I have a few things to say.

 

Clinton has said that she wants to make it legal to kill babies shortly after birth.

 

She's accomplished this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp (That's 46 people.)

 

She lies.

 

And we have to stop her. #HillaryForPrison2016

[Fuzzbucket]

I have a few things to say.

 

Clinton has said that she wants to make it legal to kill babies shortly after birth.

 

She's accomplished this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp (That's 46 people.)

 

She lies.

 

And we have to stop her. #HillaryForPrison2016

She has NOT said that. She has said that later (not 40 week !) abortions should not be illegal. As they shouldn't. It can be late in the day that - for instance - anencephaly becomes clear on a scan - and surely to god you wouldn't force a women to carry a baby with no brain - LITERALLY no brain - to term ? As just one example.

 

You do realise that snopes is a website that exposes lies and hoaxes ?

 

From the site YOU linked: which does NOT, incidentally, say she has ever said any such thing; it's all about claims that Bill Clinton quietly did away with several dozen people who possessed incriminating evidence about him.

 

The bottom line on this piece of e-lore? It's a badly worked laundry list dressed up to appear significant. The promised damning connections to the Chief Executive are missing, with innuendo misinformation offered up in their place. Nothing ties Clinton to any of these deaths, something this list (and others of its ilk) conveniently glosses over. What evidence is offered that would compel a rational person to believe there was Clinton involvement in any of these deaths?

 

Clinton was acquainted with some people who died — that's about all one can make of this list. Indeed, that's far more than can be made of a number of the entries, specifically, that of Ives and Henry and all those supposedly tied to theirs.

 

Though it's clear from digging through numerous newspaper articles there was a thriving and dangerous drug culture in Little Rock, how or why this should be connected to Bill Clinton is left unanswered. Regrettably, Little Rock is akin to numerous other large cities: it has its share of drug dealers, murders, and violence. It also has one very famous citizen. And that's about as much of a connection as anyone can make.

 

and from that same site:

We shouldn't have to tell anyone not to believe this claptrap, but we will anyway. In a frenzied media climate where the Chief Executive couldn't boff a White House intern without the whole world finding out every niggling detail of each encounter and demanding his removal from office, are we seriously to believe the same man had been having double handfuls of detractors and former friends murdered with impunity?

Edited October 20, 2016 by fuzzbucket

[AppleMango]

That was not the main thing I was thinking of, no. I don't have my sources handy, sadly, I'll have to track them down again. but it's more related to Bill Clinton.

Well, if it's not the main thing you're thinking of, then hopefully you're doing your research more correctly than it seemed (which was your problem with people who like Hillary, which is why I was going to point that out.)

Like fuzz said though, she is not Bill.

 

I think it's so blindingly obvious that she is a better choice than Trump in any case though. Like no matter how terrible you think she is, she's less terrible than Trump.

You really have to go with the lesser of two evils.

[SullenCat]

She has NOT said that. She has said that later (not 40 week !) abortions should not be illegal. As they shouldn't. It can be late in the day that - for instance - anencephaly becomes clear on a scan - and surely to god you wouldn't force a women to carry a baby with no brain - LITERALLY no brain - to term ? As just one example.

 

You do realise that snopes is a website that exposes lies and hoaxes ?

 

From the site YOU linked: which does NOT, incidentally, say she has ever said any such thing; it's all about claims that Bill Clinton quietly did away with several dozen people who possessed incriminating evidence about him.

 

 

 

and from that same site:

We are lucky that we have several members that are able to think, in particular fuzzbucket. Thank you, lady, I really appreciate that.

[TCA]

I think it's so blindingly obvious that she is a better choice than Trump in any case though. Like no matter how terrible you think she is, she's less terrible than Trump.

You really have to go with the lesser of two evils.

Yeah, but imagine if we could just... have both parties have to find replacements who are actually decent. Wouldn't that just feel so much nicer? So, so much?

[Obscure_Trash]

Yeah, but imagine if we could just... have both parties have to find replacements who are actually decent. Wouldn't that just feel so much nicer? So, so much?

Okay, but that's never going to happen in a capitalistic two-party system...

[TCA]

Yeah, but I can wish. >.> I mean, this election is so bad it's borderline unbelievable and there are no viable third options.

[AppleMango]

Yeah, but imagine if we could just... have both parties have to find replacements who are actually decent. Wouldn't that just feel so much nicer? So, so much?

So much.

But it isn't going to happen unfortunately.

 

Even if there was a viable third party option, I still think Hillary would be the best option to vote for, because a third party option isn't going to win, and even if you don't like Hillary, she is so much better than Trump.

[TCA]

Well, by definition a viable third party candidate would be one that actually has a shot at winning. So, not possible with the way things are because third parties... aren't viable, but if there was one then they WOULD be the best choice by virtue of... not being Hillary or Trump and having a shot at winning.

Edited October 21, 2016 by TheCompleteAnimorph

[Bigbite]

I hope everyone registered to vote on Nov. 8 will take the time to go to their poll and vote. We keep hearing young voters are so turned off by both candidates,so they won't vote.

That is such a waste of your rights, I urge everyone that can vote to please do so.

[AppleMango]

Well, by definition a viable third party candidate would be one that actually has a shot at winning. So, not possible with the way things are because third parties... aren't viable, but if there was one then they WOULD be the best choice by virtue of... not being Hillary or Trump and having a shot at winning.

I'm a bit unfamiliar with the word 'viable' so I just guessed what it meant from context, sorry.

 

A third party option would almost definitely be better.

[Obscure_Trash]

I mean, this election is so bad it's borderline unbelievable and there are no viable third options.

 

Oh yeah, this election is a joke. And I mean that in the I-can't-believe-we're-forced-to-take-this-seriously way and not in the way that it's at all funny.

 

I'm a bit unfamiliar with the word 'viable' so I just guessed what it meant from context, sorry.

 

A third party option would almost definitely be better.

 

Viable means feasible or capable of working successfully. In this case, a viable 3rd party candidate would be a 3rd party candidate who could actually win the presidential election (which would mean having a completely different voting system than we do now). You said: "Even if there was a viable third party option, I still think Hillary would be the best option to vote for, because a third party option isn't going to win, and even if you don't like Hillary, she is so much better than Trump." to which TCA pointed out that viable means that the third party candidate would have to have a legitimate chance of winning, in which case, it wouldn't make sense to vote for Hillary just to avoid Trump. So if there were a viable 3rd party option, people wouldn't have to choose between Hillary or Trump for their vote to count.

 

Hope that clears things up!

 

~

 

(I've edited this response a bit but have left it up, as I do think it could be useful information.)

 

For anyone who is unclear on why 3rd party votes are basically wasted votes in the election...

 

The system is basically rigged against third party candidates (even ignoring the obvious barring third party candidates from even entering debates, which I believe Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, AND Sanders have talked about, ensuring that the majority of voters don't even realize there are more than two parties). Here's an explanation from teamironmanforever on tumblr:

 

Let me explain why they say a vote for a 3rd candidate or not voting for Hillary is voting for Trump:

 

The United States does not have a direct democratic voting system. We have an indirect system called the electoral college.The electoral college is  a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

 

To win the Presidency you do not need a popular majority; you need the majority of votes of the electoral college.

 

The way the college works is that the two parties select the delegates that will serve as electors, and the electors pledge to vote for the candidates, depending on their party affiliation, of either the democratic or republican party. So, when people go vote, they are actually going to vote for electors that have pledged to vote for a specific party/candidate.

 

Each state is allocated a different number of electoral seats, and so not every state is truly worth the same given that every candidate is racing to secure 270 seats (minimum required to win the election).

 

What’s important to note is that the electoral college is a winner take all vote in 48 of the 50 states, meaning that the candidate with the higher number of votes in a given state will get ALL of the seats. This is one of the reasons why third party candidates are a wasted vote.

 

Based on our country’s history, most States around the country have already been defined as either red or blue, because the majority of the people that go and vote in said states tend to stick to either one or the other no matter who is on the ballot. It becomes a bit of loyalism to a party or, more accurately, just a strong distaste towards the ideals of the other party. However, there are a few swing states that really define the elections, for each election cycle they tend to change depending on who is on the ballot.

 

Now, third party candidates, which is often used as a protest vote, have never worked because a) they are not written into every state ballot, meaning that there are states that don’t offer these candidates given that they did not qualify b) have rarely gotten enough votes to even be up for electoral seats c) ALWAYS end up hurting one of the two candidates, for, in close runs, they can make one of the other two candidates lose a SWING STATE.

 

This is what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000. The votes that he received hurt Gore in certain states, particularly florida, which led to Bush winning as he had the majority of electoral seats even though he did not have the majority in popular vote.

 

Now, in the latest poll, it shows that the race between Hillary and trump is very close, and, when third party candidates are involved, it actually HURTS Hillary’s chances.

 

Now, if it hurts her enough, Trump can obtain the much needed swing states. If he gets over 270 seats (and thus more than hillary) he WILL win the goddamn election.

 

This is not a year to vote for a third party candidate. This is not a man you want in the oval office of the most powerful country in the world.

 

There is nothing NOTHING you can pull out that will make Trump the lesser of two evils.

 

We live in a country that has a two party system, so yes, a vote for a 3rd party candidate or a non-vote IS actually a vote for trump.

 

It's not perfect, but people are right that if you want to have more of an impact in who is running this country and the types of laws upheld and enacted, you need to vote in your state elections and for congresspeople/senators/representatives. Third party candidates can and have been elected to these positions, including Sanders, who is the longest serving independent senator (and there's a reason he ran as a democrat in the primaries!).

 

EDIT: I went back and I had missed posts, hence my confusion.

Edited October 21, 2016 by SockPuppet Strangler

[AppleMango]

Viable means feasible or capable of working successfully. In this case, a viable 3rd party candidate would be a 3rd party candidate who could actually win the presidential election (which would mean having a completely different voting system than we do now). You said: "Even if there was a viable third party option, I still think Hillary would be the best option to vote for, because a third party option isn't going to win, and even if you don't like Hillary, she is so much better than Trump." to which TCA pointed out that viable means that the third party candidate would have to have a legitimate chance of winning, in which case, it wouldn't make sense to vote for Hillary just to avoid Trump. So if there were a viable 3rd party option, people wouldn't have to choose between Hillary or Trump for their vote to count.

 

Hope that clears things up!

 

~

 

(I've edited this response a bit but have left it up, as I do think it could be useful information.)

 

For anyone who is unclear on why 3rd party votes are basically wasted votes in the election...

 

The system is basically rigged against third party candidates (even ignoring the obvious barring third party candidates from even entering debates, which I believe Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, AND Sanders have talked about, ensuring that the majority of voters don't even realize there are more than two parties). Here's an explanation from teamironmanforever on tumblr:

 

 

 

It's not perfect, but people are right that if you want to have more of an impact in who is running this country and the types of laws upheld and enacted, you need to vote in your state elections and for congresspeople/senators/representatives. Third party candidates can and have been elected to these positions, including Sanders, who is the longest serving independent senator (and there's a reason he ran as a democrat in the primaries!).

 

EDIT: I went back and I had missed posts, hence my confusion.

Thanks ^^

I get it now.

 

I just thought it meant like, a good candidate, haha. But yeah, since there is none people will have to vote for Hillary to avoid Trump. It really sucks.

 

 

As someone who lives where the voting is completely different, it's still very unlikely for third party options to be elected. I think how we do politics needs to be changed a lot.

I'm not sure how doing away with all parties and making everyone independent would work, but it would be much better. People will vote along their party lines when they are meant to vote for the views of the people in their electorate.

Like sure, voting for that party is saying you agree with their views, but you can agree with most and not all, idk it's confusing.

[Fuzzbucket]

Just some factual questions for US people who know. The primaries are insane (that's how you got these two awful candidates'; let's be blunt here - it was the US people who chose them !) - and you have to register for a party to vote, and in some states I gather even when you have done, you can vote for the other person (and how do they KJNOW how you voted - isn't it a secret ballet ? extra question there.) Does this actually mean in the end that if you don't register for one party or the other, you can't vote at all ?

 

SO:

 

1) can you register as independent ? Guess not, as there are only two parties in the primaries.

 

and

 

2) If someone wanted to set up a new party - how could that be done under the current system ?

[6Sigma]

Okay, but that's never going to happen in a capitalistic two-party system...

 

What exactly do you mean? Capitalism thrives on competition. Capitalism runs on sales! Despite what the gold bugs and other cranks say, deficit spending and a more equitable Gini coefficient can drive the mixed economy.

 

 

Oh yeah, this election is a joke. And I mean that in the I-can't-believe-we're-forced-to-take-this-seriously way and not in the way that it's at all funny.

 

Why?

 

1. Broom Hilda is similar to Barry Soetoro on the policies

 

2. Don the Con was a godsend. He has done severe damage to the GOP by fracturing the base, preventing them from having a good chance of taking back the presidency and likely preventing them from maintaining Senate control.

 

The system is basically rigged against third party candidates (even ignoring the obvious barring third party candidates from even entering debates, which I believe Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, AND Sanders have talked about, ensuring that the majority of voters don't even realize there are more than two parties). Here's an explanation from teamironmanforever on tumblr:

 

The electoral college isn’t the issue in regards to 3rd party candidates. It’s the plurality voting system. Your vote is simply the name of one candidate, which leads to issues such as strategic voting, etc.

 

“A plurality voting system is a voting system in which each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate, and the candidate who polls more votes than any other candidate (a plurality) is elected.”

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system

 

It’s why The Donald is even in the general, btw. Out of the large Republican field, he was unique in a number of ways: in personality, seen as “anti-establishment” and supportive of popular positions even among Republicans (e.g. don’t cut Medicare/SS) that differentiated him from the rest.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_criterion

 

it was the US people who chose them

 

FYI, Trump wasn’t a Condorcet winner. See image above.

 

As for Broom Hilda, do you have a problem with Obama? There is a lot of overlap between Barry Soetoro and Broom Hilda. Obama can be a feckless idiot at times with his aims of bipartisanship and compromising even when many times it's for nothing in return, btw. For example, he might not withdraw Garland even if the Democrats get a Senate majority. The Republicans are going to want to get him on the SC after Broom Hilda wins because it can only get worse if another person is nominated. Obama also was for the grand bargain.

 

 

[Infinis]

 

SO:

 

1) can you register as independent ? Guess not, as there are only two parties in the primaries.

Yes, you can, but independents can't vote in closed primaries; only members of the party running the closed primary can vote in it (f. ex., closed republican primary = only registered republicans can vote in the primary).

 

I'm an independent so I didn't vote in any primaries, but independents can vote in open primaries and general elections, so I did vote.

[Wahya]

My opinion regarding this election is simply that we're screwed, and I am scared for this country.