US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4474

On July 26 2016 13:52 plasmidghost wrote:
America for a long time has tried to police the world and guide what it does. I want a candidate that gets America out of its self-imposed "global police" role and focuses on fixing our quickly deteriorating infrastructure (and invest hugely into technology like S Korea did in the 90s) and social issues (can we please have honest dialogues about race relations, gender relations, etc. Actual dialogues, not bullshit like "Oh, you're MRA/SJW/BLM/white, your opinion is invalid and you're an idiot/jackass/privileged/-phobic scum" or whatever. I also want a candidate that doesn't give into the sin of identity politics and "us vs them" mentality, who sees that the government should interfere as little as possible into a person's life, as long as they are not harming others. Those are my three most important issues I care about this election cycle (although the social issues and identity politics scene are kind of the same thing)

The Democratic National Convention was supposed to be the flawless, slickly-produced one where the establishment struck back. Now, it threatens to devolve into a mess, maybe not as untidy as Cleveland but probably not the celebratory coronation that the Hillary Clinton campaign has spent the seven weeks since California’s primary trying to orchestrate.

Stepping on the message of unity and competence, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned under pressure Sunday. She was forced aside after the emergence of thousands of internal emails that angered various constituencies within the party.

But the Florida congresswoman did not go quietly or without a fight. It took pressure from the White House – including a phone call with President Obama – to get her to finally see the writing on the wall. Two reliable sources say Wasserman Schultz was trying to make top aides take the fall, rather than take personal responsibility. Until the end, she struggled to understand what a lightning rod she’s become.

On July 26 2016 14:08 OtherWorld wrote:
Seeing how both conventions did/are doing, I think it's seriously time for the US to get new blood in politics if they want not to drown in corruption and incompetence in the next decades. Both Green and Libertarian parties need to get on a nationwide level, and both Republican and Democratic parties need to experience a schism between anti-establishment and establishment supporters.

Given current trends, with a few tweaks to his approach, the Republican nominee could win Pennsylvania for the first time in a quarter century. In recent years, the state of Pennsylvania has been pithily described as “Lucy’s Football” — as a place where, however favorable the winds might seem, the Republican party’s aspirations are always thwarted. In this piece, I will make the case that, while this trend has certainly been apparent for the last couple of decades, it is by no means destined to continue forever. In making this case, I will look at the recent electoral history of the state, examine recent changes in voter registration, analyze demographic data provided by the U.S. Census, hone in on primary-season participation at both the county and municipal levels, and take into account recent polling (as of July 16, 2016). In so doing, I shall demonstrate that not only is Pennsylvania a rare brightening prospect for the GOP, but that it may in fact prove uniquely fitting for the party’s 2016 nominee, Donald Trump.

On July 26 2016 13:45 plasmidghost wrote:

Honestly, every candidate has their good and bad policies. Boring answer, I know, but right now I'm favoring Gary Johnson

n July 26 2016 13:52 plasmidghost wrote:
America for a long time has tried to police the world and guide what it does. I want a candidate that gets America out of its self-imposed "global police" role and focuses on fixing our quickly deteriorating infrastructure (and invest hugely into technology like S Korea did in the 90s)

On July 26 2016 14:13 GreenHorizons wrote:

People seem not to realize a green/third party candidate getting 15-20% aren't wasted votes, it shows that if the Hillary folks who don't really like Hillary stopped believing the propaganda we would have more than enough votes to elect someone who actually wanted to represent us.

On July 26 2016 15:03 KwarK wrote:

The good thing about third party candidates is that you can sleep in on election day and know that it didn't hurt their chances.

On July 26 2016 16:55 Jaaaaasper wrote:
Also you have to take into account that for all intents and purposes, Americans only have two choices in a presidential election. Trump wasn't winning the majority of the votes in the republican primaries, (just the most), but most republicans would rather elect him than Hillary. Hillary won by a much bigger margin than Trump did, but there were dissenters, but most of them would rather she be elected than Trump. Then you have the people in the middle, who can vote either way, who are mostly favoring Hillary. Keep in mind that American voter turn out tends to be much lower in most places, and the madness of the electoral college, and talking about the average American in regards to politics is pretty dumb.