US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3782

On May 11 2016 00:13 ticklishmusic wrote:
howabout

improving healthcare access/cost by lowering drug prices and high insurance premiums
focus on early education and k-12 education
controlling the rising cost of college
reinvesting in heavy industry/ extraction communities
reducing emissions and investing in clean energy
regulating shadow banking, i e insurance, private markets and derivatives
increased research $ for alzheimers
creating an infrastructure bank + bond program to support development
criminal justice reform

etc

these are the ones off the top of my head/ the ones i care about the most

there are plenty of reasons to support hillary but people kind of try to ignore them and reduce it to a "well shes a dislikeable person and corrupt etc etc"

On May 11 2016 00:43 farvacola wrote:
Many women (and men, for that matter) also have a strong emotional response to Hillary's candidacy, so the notion that Trump is the only one campaigning on emotional appeal is rather misplaced.

Buckle up for the next six months: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are effectively tied in the swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to the results of a Quinnipiac University survey released Tuesday.

Split along lines of gender, race and age, the presumptive Republican nominee and the likely Democratic nominee appear poised for tight battles in those states, though Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders performs better against Trump than Clinton does and is also seen more favorably by voters in all three states. No presidential candidate has won an election since 1960 without winning at least two of the three states.

In Florida, Clinton leads Trump, 43 percent to 42 percent, while Sanders earned 44 percent to Trump's 42 percent. While Clinton holds a 13-point advantage among Florida women — 48 percent to 35 percent — Trump’s lead among men is equally large, at 49 percent to 36 percent. Independent Florida voters are split, 39 percent to 39 percent, while along racial lines, white voters said they would vote for the Republican candidate 52 percent to 33 percent. Among nonwhite voters, 63 percent to 20 percent said they would vote for the Democrat. Clinton’s favorability in Florida is a net negative 20 points (37 percent to 57 percent), though Trump earned the same numbers. For Sanders, 43 percent said they had a favorable opinion of him, 41 percent unfavorable and 14 percent said they did not know enough to have an opinion.

In Ohio, registered voters preferred Trump to Clinton, 43 percent to 39 percent, while Sanders edged Trump 43 percent to 41 percent. Trump leads among men in Ohio, 51 percent to 36 percent, while women prefer Clinton in the state 43 percent to 36 percent. While 49 percent to 32 percent of white voters go for the Republican candidate, a whopping 76 percent to 14 percent of nonwhite voters said they will go for the Democratic candidate. Among voters ages 18 to 34, Clinton leads 43 percent to 39 percent, while voters older than 65 preferred Trump 46 percent to 40 percent. Among independents, 40 percent said they would back Trump and 37 percent would go for Clinton.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads 43 percent to 42 percent, mirroring the gender and racial gaps in the other swing states. Among women, Clinton leads 51 percent to 32 percent, while Trump leads with men 54 percent to 33 percent. Clinton holds a 7-point lead among voters ages 18 to 34 (49 percent to 42 percent), while Trump commands the same level of support among voters 65 and older. White voters said they would support the Republican candidate 48 percent to 37 percent, while nonwhite voters said they would support the Democrat, 74 percent to 14 percent.

On May 11 2016 00:01 pmh wrote:
Off course its not morally wrong to not vote against the worst candidate,nor is it morally wrong to not vote at all.
The underlying principle of this is quiet trivial and it has backfired multiple time in international politics:my enemys enemy is my friend.
Voting for someone is seen as an act of support for the one you vote for. Not as an act of rebellion against the worst candidate. The more votes the more the elected official gets validated.
If I don't want to support the worst candidate,but at the same time want to send a message that I do not support the second worst candidate either then I would simply not vote at all.

Its a sign on the wall that the best arguments for the democrats in this election are not arguments in favor of Hillary and her policys, but arguments against trump. Its a negative approach,not a positive.
Trump on the other hand has his own message why people should vote for him. Fight for the middle class and America,build a wall and make good trade deals.
Honestly,how are the democrats trying to sell Hillary,what is her message?
Maybe its the media not giving it much attention. Other then the usual bla bla every politician says during elections i have no clue what her unique message is.
Democrats should start working on selling Hillary,instead of trying to convince people that trump will be a disaster.
Sanders as VP would be a good start. He has a clear message that sells and that does appeal to many people.

On May 10 2016 23:29 travis wrote:


I will not, because I don't support Hillary. I understand the logic behind voting for Hillary because you think she is better than other candidates (trump), but it's not the logic I use. It has nothing to do with being bitter, if Bernie never existed I still wouldn't be voting for Hillary. I do not vote for candidates that I do not believe hold general welfare above all else.

Some people strongly believe that it is morally wrong to not vote against the worse candidate. I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, it's one I have thought about a lot. It's not the conclusion I have come to.

On May 11 2016 01:33 Cam Connor wrote:
those bullish on trump's chances, what's your market on him winning
is he cheap at 40% where he is currently? where does he become rich? 60%? 75%?

On May 11 2016 01:17 oneofthem wrote:
there is a lot of emotional appeal to Hillary as representing rational, issue based politics. sandernistas clamoring for pogroms vs the rich might not understand

from Cicero to Washington to Obama really, reasonable politics in service of the people and functional democracy. lots of emotional appeal here

On May 10 2016 08:19 SK.Testie wrote:


"Illegals don't rape at a rate higher than the normal populace!" the left will cry. Actually, they do. By a lot.
Again, I need to post this again it seems. From an extremely leftist news source even. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/central-america-migrants-rape_n_5806972.html
So here is literal proof of saying, "Hey.. 4 out of 5 women are getting raped" and the left responds with righteous indignation, "omg how could you. They don't rape more than anyone else".
"Uhh.. but.. 4 out of 5.."
"You fucking racist bigot."
"No really.. this is a problem and I don't want this on our hands. This problem doesn't belong to us."
"RACISTTTTT."
Are we seriously to pretend that a country that doesn't solve 99% of its murders and is cartel country is really our loving, totally equal companion? Egalitarian fantasy much?

Also, it is the peoples country. And the polls suggest (even among democrats) that banning all Muslim entry temporarily is favorable. If the people of the country agree, how is that not acceptable? Poland is 100% against Muslim immigration and against Islam in general. That's their country, they are very free to do that. Germany and Sweden are not. Does anyone want to live in Malmo Sweden where grenades have gone off because they were top of the charts on tolerance? What did their tolerance get them?
Mexican government providing the manual. So yes, it's true for Trump to say, "When Mexico sends its people"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/world/americas/a-mexican-manual-for-illegal-migrants-upsets-some-in-us.html

So answer this after reading those. When Trump says, "When Mexico sends their people, they're not sending their best etc." Is he wrong? Is he wrong on that statement? Does Islam integrate well with western nations?

How is building a wall a terrible idea when Mexico is proven to be actively sending their poorest people and trying to get rid of them. Mexico itself treats illegal immigrants very harshly. Why should the US treat them with such tender love and care when these same people did not respect the law? Countries aren't shelters for the needy and you cannot take in all of the worlds poor and somehow give them a better life in America.

These are two very popular positions in the US. Since when does anyone else in the world have a right to move into your country against your peoples wishes? If the USA said, "alright, no more Canadians for a while until they say the word about properly" even as silly as that is, they could make that distinction because it is their country. They are 100% ok to make the silliest fucking laws they want if that's their peoples wish.

I've found Europeans especially pretentious and overly liberal about Americas problems. Comparing tiny Scandinavian countries to America is ludicrous. Even comparing the UK and Germany to America is ludicrous. I myself used to be on that European side. The left Jon Stewart side. I still am in many ways, but right now I think America desperately needs Trump. They have real issues that have been ignored. But not just ignored, completely ridiculed and then they themselves are ostracized.

And don't dodge the question on Mexican illegals up there. Someone from the left had better answer to it. 4 out of 5 women raped, and the mexican government has been proven to be helping them along to break the law to enter America. The question is: Is Trump wrong to be saying that they aren't sending their bests and that a lot of rape, crime, and drugs comes with them? Considering that they've all broken the law to enter the country, the crime rate is literally 100%.