2016 Presidential Race

[Devildoc]

Regardless, I would like to do away with the entire electoral college issue and let my individual vote count. Yep...I would have to take the good with the bad, but at least my vote counts -- or should.

Then, we wouldn't have brokered conventions and idiocy like that. We vote for who we want, if it's not our guy...so be it...win some, lose some. The thought that a few individuals can pick "our" candidate against the will of the people is atrocious.

I appreciate and understand the frustration with the current system, but "one vote-one kill" is not the way to go. The electoral college pretty much ignores the voters of the lesser populated states, but a pure democracy would shut out probably 40 states.

 

[Grunt]

I hear what you are saying, Brother! I still don't like it and it still abuses individuals votes by not counting them. An individual's vote should count...not the delegates votes who can do what they want with your vote.

I'm close minded when it comes to that issue...

 

[DocIllinois]

Seriously? This is what you want to focus on as the problem with our current political system? How about focusing on the conditions that contributed to this state of angry voters that are being fleeced by the established power group on both sides, or angry voters fed up with the status quo from both parties? You have Republicans that are going to be pissed if Trump doesn't get the nomination when he played the game, or the Democrats that are pissed with the superdelegate bullshit being shoved at them.

Funny how you don't see the same angry and violent low educated Trump supporters/protesters at a Bernie or Hillary event, and causing trouble as was done to Trump. I don't see Trump supporters starting riots in low income cities, coming to events of the other party, and disrupting political rallies.

I guess tolerance is only ok if you believe what you are supposed to, and not what you want. Nothing personal towards you, but I can respect people not liking Trump within a policy context. Any of the other multitude of ridiculous reasons being cited is just crying at this point.

When a strong candidate decides to respond to potential rioting directly related to his candidacy and chooses that as his response?

When said candidate could hold an office wherein he will be expected to take full responsibility for the execution of his policies and administration, but hey, if it looks like something bad will happen as a result of them we'll probably just warn people about the potential damage then passively let it play out?

When the Economist Intelligence Unit calls Donnie's winning the Presidency one of the top 10 risks now facing the world?

Yep, seriously.

 

[AWP]

Slow golf claps.

The third party candidate cuts both ways; there was Ralph Nader in 2000. Had he not run, Gore would have won.

True, but that's 1 in 4 elections. History isn't kind to the GOP where third parties are concerned. With Perot you can argue Clinton would still win, but then we're still faced with two modern elections where the third option didn't matter and 2 old elections where it did and the Republicans lost.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a third party. I think it would provide a counterbalance to the establishment and serve to moderate their platforms. James Madison observed, "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" and I totally agree. Right now there's little we can do except pick a side and it is genuinely tearing this country apart.

 

[Devildoc]

True, but that's 1 in 4 elections. History isn't kind to the GOP where third parties are concerned. With Perot you can argue Clinton would still win, but then we're still faced with two modern elections where the third option didn't matter and 2 old elections where it did and the Republicans lost.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a third party. I think it would provide a counterbalance to the establishment and serve to moderate their platforms. James Madison observed, "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" and I totally agree. Right now there's little we can do except pick a side and it is genuinely tearing this country apart.

I would like multiple parties. I hate being buttonholed into a binary system. It's a classic example to 'to the victor goes the spoils', and as long as the Rs and Ds keep winning, they will continue to write the rules that will all but keep out third parties.

There are a lot of parties, many I had never heard of until I did a little research. And I have a degree in poli sci. Just goes to show how seriously (or not) they are taken.

List of political parties in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hear what you are saying, Brother! I still don't like it and it still abuses individuals votes by not counting them. An individual's vote should count...not the delegates votes who can do what they want with your vote.

I'm closed minded when it comes to that issue...

Perhaps if there was a rule that said the delegates are bound to a specific candidate unless no single candidate goes into the convention with a majority of the delegates....or some such rule. I agree with you. I hate that the delegates are "owned" (my word) by the party and not by the voters that send them to the convention.

 

[nobodythank you]

When a strong candidate decides to respond to potential rioting directly related to his candidacy and chooses that as his response?

When said candidate could hold an office wherein he will be expected to take full responsibility for the execution of his policies and administration, but hey, if it looks like something bad will happen as a result of them we'll probably just warn people about the potential damage then passively let it play out?

When the Economist Intelligence Unit calls Donnie's winning the Presidency one of the top 10 risks now facing the world?

Yep, seriously.

As mentioned earlier: "Not that they should riot, but there's plenty of precedent." Did he call for mass rioting? Not at all. He merely stated a possibility, that is understandable, given that people are mad. Funny use of the EIU as an accurate and credible gauge of what might happen when that publication, based out of the UK, is partly owned by private investors such as the Rothschild family and others. No conflict of interest there. It is amazing that BOTH the Republican and Democrat power circles are jumping on the anti-Trump bandwagon. Could it be that if both are scared of him, there is at least the possibility of positive change? No, because people want to believe the narrative fed to them on the nightly news. Sorry if this sounds all conspiracy theorish and anti establishment, but the current system in place is deadlocked and stagnant. It is the same back and forth game by both parties, and frankly I am sick of it.

If the world did not end because Clinton, Bush, and Obama were elected, neither will the world end if Trump is elected. We tried for hope and change and all we got was a dry plunge in the collective anus of America.

 

[Florida173]

Trump & Sanders are the 3rd party candidates.

This is an insurgent year.

 

[DocIllinois]

Funny use of the EIU as an accurate and credible gauge of what might happen when that publication, based out of the UK, is partly owned by private investors such as the Rothschild family and others. No conflict of interest there.

This would suggest a worldwide collusion and conspiracy of over 100 recognized country and economy experts, all of whom are well known for clarity and independence of thought, and professional rigor in the public and private sectors, supported by a huge network of contributors in nearly every country in the world.

If we're going the unfounded conspiracy/ conflict route in this thread, I'm out.

 

[nobodythank you]

This would suggest a worldwide collusion and conspiracy of over 100 recognized country and economy experts, all of whom are well known for clarity and independence of thought, and professional rigor in the public and private sectors, supported by a huge network of contributors in nearly every country in the world.

If we're going the unfounded conspiracy/ conflict route in this thread, I'm out.

Fine, take your toys and go home, but it is hardly an unfounded conspiracy theory when the short report does nothing but offer supposition. Something strange if an august organization such as The Economist is supposed to deal in clarity, independence of thought, and professional rigor. It is well known that the "civilized" Europeans have a distaste for Trump and conservatives in general.

The main point here is the conflict of interest. The organization is biased and not a neutral source within this context. Just as biased as a site like motherjones or rightwingews.

 

[Brill]

This is an insurgent year.

We need a UW campaign!!!

 

[Red Flag 1]

Not that they should riot, but there's plenty of precedent. IF he gets into the convention with the preponderance of delegates and the GOP/RNC pull some underhanded bullshit and some other candidate gets the magical number of delegates to receive the nomination, I would understand the riots. Not I advocate it, mind you, but I understand.

It is refreshing to see this amount of fire in the GOP. For the past several conventions, the GOP was a yawn, why did I waste my time watching. Then going to bed knowing their GOP is still on the fail track. This GOP race has been different, and I am glad to see it.

 

[AWP]

I don't know what to think of the article, and it is TLDR territory, but it raises some interesting points. Something I had to consider is that how we view the world and how the masses view the world can be very different.

The rise of American authoritarianism

 

[Red Flag 1]

I don't know what to think of the article, and it is TLDR territory, but it raises some interesting points. Something I had to consider is that how we view the world and how the masses view the world can be very different.

The rise of American authoritarianism

One could quibble over the terms Leadership-v-Authoritarianism. We have had zero leadership for the past eight years, and I see Trump as a leader.

 

[Brill]

I don't know what to think of the article, and it is TLDR territory, but it raises some interesting points. Something I had to consider is that how we view the world and how the masses view the world can be very different.

The rise of American authoritarianism

How does Trump espouse a central authority that takes power from the people? Fundamentally change America...one EO at a time doesn't really seem to be his politics.

(some) Americans just want a guy who rides horses, uses a chainsaw while clearing fences, chews Redman, etc.

 

[CQB]

To make America great again...sorry to say (and it's been a live issue here at SS way before I've brought it to the fore here now) it's not going to happen. The slogan means nothing, as does most of the other rhetoric Trump spouts, and believe it or not, we follow it here in Oz semi-closely in part due to ANZUS.
There is always a gap between what the potential incumbent will say pre-election as opposed to what the successful incumbent does post-election.

 

[Gunz]

Trump supporters have a right to be angry. They see the GOP Kingmakers trying to derail the campaign of arguably the only person who has a chance of winning the White House for the "party"... if in name only. And if they manage to sabotage Trump and nominate Cruz or Kasich, they've thrown the election away and may weaken the party to the point of political insignificance. Then what are you left with?

A One-Party State and Hillary for 8 years.

 

[DA SWO]

I appreciate and understand the frustration with the current system, but "one vote-one kill" is not the way to go. The electoral college pretty much ignores the voters of the lesser populated states, but a pure democracy would shut out probably 40 states.

or make their votes importent.
Big state can have a minimal turnout and the person winning those states wins the election.

Electoral college needs to be modified (most votes wins vice needing a set number to win) or just let the popular vote decide.

 

[Gunz]

I don't know what to think of the article, and it is TLDR territory, but it raises some interesting points. Something I had to consider is that how we view the world and how the masses view the world can be very different.

The rise of American authoritarianism

This may be a point of aim for Democrats if Trump is nominated, and there is some truth in it, but as @Red Flag 1 has stated above the word authority is supplanted for Leadership. One could also argue that the liberal agenda for Big Government is blatant authoritarianism, force-fed social change whether the country votes on it or not, strict gun control, socialized healthcare, redistribution of wealth, the list goes on. (See Obama's use of EOs etc.)

 

[Devildoc]

There is always a gap between what the potential incumbent will say pre-election as opposed to what the successful incumbent does post-election.

Agreed, and part of this is necessity because during campaigning one promises everything in order to get elected, and part of this is reality because once one is elected he sees the impossibility of actually getting those pie-in-the-sky wishes actually implemented.

 

[Stephen]

This video may sound like it contains some liberal bias, which it may very well, but the message is still the same. We're heading down an authoritarian path with both Trump and Clinton...

I hate to say this, but Trump is very popular among those I work with. I feel like I'm some political extremist when I'm with them, when in fact, I've taken plenty of political spectrum tests telling me that I'm a moderate libertarian. This no shit scares the crap out of me. I'm sure when Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini took power, their supporters never thought of themselves as authoritarians either. While Trump is certainly no Hitler, partly because you just can't get away with that stuff anymore, I believe that he's as close as you can get these days in America. Clinton is not weak either. She's an authoritarian in the essence of Stalin, who will lie and undercut behind secrecy and closed doors to achieve her ambitions.

Honestly, I think America is the greatest country in the world. I genuinely believe that. We don't need anybody to, "take it back," or "make it great again." All America needs is someone to better balance our budget, and solely in my opinion as a libertarian, expand civil liberties.

On a side note, why the hell have we not legalized marijuana? There's so much crime revolved around it through the illegal drug trade. I find it absolutely ridiculous. Would I smoke it if it were legalized, no. Would I care if other people smoked it, no. Would it cause more people to smoke it, probably, but I don't give a damn, they can do what they want as long as it's not hurting anyone else. -Rant over.