~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

[Willie71]

If Clinton was truly progressive, no one would refuse to vote for her.

What a Can-yuck-yuck-istanian.

Trump has as many voting supporters as Sanders does, roughly.
You are an idiot suffering terribly from Dunning-Kruger effect.

I am glad you are one of the idiots who is ineligible to vote in my country.
Tom

The multiple examples of pro war, pro corporate policy positions and votes doesn't mean anything to you? She's right wing through and through.

Ad hominem= no evidence to support your position.

[Columbus]

Ad hominem= no evidence to support your position.

Doubtless, you believe that is a true statement.
It is not, but I have come to understand some things about Bernie Sanders supporters.
Tom

[Willie71]

Ad hominem= no evidence to support your position.

Doubtless, you believe that is a true statement.
It is not, but I have come to understand some things about Bernie Sanders supporters.
Tom

You should be a trump supporter. You share at least one of the same logical fallacies.

[Oldskeptic]

Ad hominem= no evidence to support your position.

Doubtless, you believe that is a true statement.
It is not, but I have come to understand some things about Bernie Sanders supporters.
Tom

Me too. I've come to learn that some Sanders supporters simply toss any lie or distortion against Clinton into any argument if they think others will believe it. And it's getting to a point where it seems like they're buying into the Goebbels', Neo-Consertative, Reagan and Bush administration's strategy that If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. That combined with a belief that the more lies you tell the more truth there will be to all of them.

[Columbus]

Ad hominem= no evidence to support your position.

Doubtless, you believe that is a true statement.
It is not, but I have come to understand some things about Bernie Sanders supporters.
Tom

You should be a trump supporter. You share at least one of the same logical fallacies.

In a way, I am.
I think he is in cahoots with her. I think he is blowing up the GOP to make way for her election. Practically everything he says and does on the campaign trail increases her likelihood of winning, and reduces the likelihood of any GOP winning, including Trump. All down the line, to state government levels. The GOP is in a frenzy right now, because Trump is destroying the brand. And a bunch of career politicians are going down with him.
I don't believe that she is just lucky that way. I think she planned it.
Tom

[willhud9]

If Clinton was truly progressive, no one would refuse to vote for her.

What a Can-yuck-yuck-istanian.

Trump has as many voting supporters as Sanders does, roughly.
You are an idiot suffering terribly from Dunning-Kruger effect.

I am glad you are one of the idiots who is ineligible to vote in my country.
Tom

The multiple examples of pro war, pro corporate policy positions and votes doesn't mean anything to you? She's right wing through and through.

Sure if hawk-like policies automatically push someone to the right.

I don't buy that.

I am liberal in many, many things, but I also am not into the whole non-intervention movement. The United States is a world power. One of the richest countries in the world, with a self-sustaining agriculture, and a very disciplined and efficient military. I believe that those with power should use power responsibly, but also should use said power to make a difference in the world. Warlords in Africa? Do something about it. Civil war in Syria which is spilling into Western Society? Do something about it.

You may moan and groan about how right wing that makes someone, but I simply do not give a fuck what you think constitutes a left-wing individual vs a right wing individual.

Furthermore, and I think this is a point many people ignorant of politics overlook, many ideological candidates (Obama) get into office with these bright ideas and those ideas don't come to fruition in their presidency. You can say that they are broken promises, but in all honesty, especially in regards to foreign policy, you have no idea what the Joint Chiefs of Staff briefed the new President on as soon as the take office.

Clinton knows first hand both as a first lady of a husband who was in plenty of JCS briefings, and as Secretary of State where she was directly involved with them what kind of things the JCS would brief the new President on and she is quite aware of what issues plague foreign policy. Her policies and views of foreign policy are shaped from her experience working with top military/diplomatic officials whose job it is to be informed and knowledgeable on foreign affairs and the condition of other states.

Ad hominem= no evidence to support your position.

False equivocation.

[laklak]

Whoever gets elected must deal with Congress. And perhaps more importantly, inherits a vast, unelected bureaucracy that in real terms wields more power than elected officials. Congress may pass laws, but the faceless bureaucrats in the EPA and IRS implement them. We are far more affected by the rules and regulations promulgated by those bureaucrats than we are by the actual laws. If you don't believe that just try dealing with the morons at the ACA portal. This is the real stumbling block, the inherited government. It's very resistant to change and very jealous of it's power.

[willhud9]

This is why I laugh when I hear Ted Cruz talk about abolishing the IRS and implementing a flat tax. Ain't gonna happen.

[Scot Dutchy]

In a way, I am.
I think he is in cahoots with her. I think he is blowing up the GOP to make way for her election. Practically everything he says and does on the campaign trail increases her likelihood of winning, and reduces the likelihood of any GOP winning, including Trump. All down the line, to state government levels. The GOP is in a frenzy right now, because Trump is destroying the brand. And a bunch of career politicians are going down with him.
I don't believe that she is just lucky that way. I think she planned it.
Tom

Nice conspiracy Tom but in the twisted politics of America who knows. What would have happened if Trump had not appeared?

[crank]

I see the candidates like this: We want fish and chips.

Cruz will take away any extant fish and chips because they're immoral.
Trump understands (and channels) our frustration, and will make Mexico buy us a cheeseburger and pay for a wall.
Sanders has promised us fish AND chips.
But Sanders' supporters are reticent to vote for Clinton because she's only offering the chips.

If you want your fish and chips, and if Sanders doesn't make it through the primaries, fucking vote for Clinton. Getting part of what you want is better than losing ground with Cruz or Trump.

She may be offering chips, but she's also actively working to destroy all the fish.

[crank]

If Clinton was truly progressive, no one would refuse to vote for her.

What a Can-yuck-yuck-istanian.

Trump has as many voting supporters as Sanders does, roughly.
You are an idiot suffering terribly from Dunning-Kruger effect.

I am glad you are one of the idiots who is ineligible to vote in my country.
Tom

The multiple examples of pro war, pro corporate policy positions and votes doesn't mean anything to you? She's right wing through and through.

Sure if hawk-like policies automatically push someone to the right.

I don't buy that.

I am liberal in many, many things, but I also am not into the whole non-intervention movement. The United States is a world power. One of the richest countries in the world, with a self-sustaining agriculture, and a very disciplined and efficient military. I believe that those with power should use power responsibly, but also should use said power to make a difference in the world. Warlords in Africa? Do something about it. Civil war in Syria which is spilling into Western Society? Do something about it.

You may moan and groan about how right wing that makes someone, but I simply do not give a fuck what you think constitutes a left-wing individual vs a right wing individual.

Furthermore, and I think this is a point many people ignorant of politics overlook, many ideological candidates (Obama) get into office with these bright ideas and those ideas don't come to fruition in their presidency. You can say that they are broken promises, but in all honesty, especially in regards to foreign policy, you have no idea what the Joint Chiefs of Staff briefed the new President on as soon as the take office.

Clinton knows first hand both as a first lady of a husband who was in plenty of JCS briefings, and as Secretary of State where she was directly involved with them what kind of things the JCS would brief the new President on and she is quite aware of what issues plague foreign policy. Her policies and views of foreign policy are shaped from her experience working with top military/diplomatic officials whose job it is to be informed and knowledgeable on foreign affairs and the condition of other states.

Ad hominem= no evidence to support your position.

False equivocation.

Does history not inform your positions? Do you think our decades of interventions in the MidEast have turned out well? Or those in C. America, how have those gone? Are all of those in Laos still dying from old cluster bombs a sign of how 'responsible' our interventions went? Is the creation of ISIS the kind of difference you want a world power to make? These interventions have been used to aid business interests, not stability, not the welfare of the citizens of any country, maybe in the 'we had to destroy the village in order to save it' way.

[OlivierK]

What would have happened if Trump had not appeared?

Rubio would be heading for the nom, and the Democrats would be worried by him polling ahead of Clinton.

[Mike_L]

The United States is a world power. One of the richest countries in the world, with a self-sustaining agriculture, and a very disciplined and efficient military. I believe that those with power should use power responsibly, but also should use said power to make a difference in the world. Warlords in Africa? Do something about it. Civil war in Syria which is spilling into Western Society? Do something about it.

...just as long as it advances the interests of said world power.

[laklak]

That's par for the course when it comes to world powers. In an historical context very few consciously act against their own interests. The Brits didn't decide to give up The Empire on humanitarian grounds, for instance.

[crank]

"That's the way things have always been done" This really isn't ever justification for anything.

[proudfootz]

But we've always had slaves!

Pie in the sky to imagine they'd ever be free!

[thaesofereode]

Thousands of voters "lost" from the rolls in New York: all of them Democrats.

http://usuncut.com/politics/new-york-br ... ter-purge/

W - T - F !

See also: http://patch.com/new-york/brooklyn/1260 ... ter-list-0

[crank]

The weird thing about that story is a lot of it appears tailored to go against Bernie, but is overall harmful to Dims generally in the long run. If it was not incompetence, then it was incompetent nonetheless. They're not called Dims for nuthin'.

[thaesofereode]

The weird thing about that story is a lot of it appears tailored to go against Bernie, but is overall harmful to Dims generally in the long run. If it was not incompetence, then it was incompetent nonetheless. They're not called Dims for nuthin'.

Hm. Except that I do believe it's the Board of Elections, which is part of the local government and not the political party people who are responsible for maintaining the voter registration rolls, which means that they have responsibility for the maintenance of the voter rolls for BOTH parties, not just for one party or the other. The parties don't maintain their own voter registration lists ... at least not those that are actually used when administrating elections.

[proudfootz]

The weird thing about that story is a lot of it appears tailored to go against Bernie, but is overall harmful to Dims generally in the long run. If it was not incompetence, then it was incompetent nonetheless. They're not called Dims for nuthin'.

Apparently the Democratic Party (these old pros are in charge of all this stuff, right?) doesn't know how elections work.

Maybe Clinton and Trump are working to make sure Cruz gets elected...