|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 21 2016 10:58 Amarok wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 10:52 zlefin wrote:
amarok -> everyone who's studied the matter a fair bit, like most of us here; favors trying out some alternatives to FPTP; but the public at large isn't so aware of it; and the powers that be tend to prefer the system as it is, and that's hard ot change. Cheers. Out of curiosity, how would such a change be enacted theoretically? Would it just be a standard piece of legislature that had to pass through Congress? What role would the states have?
not entirely sure;
the presidential elections are spelled out a fair bit through the electoral college; so they'd probably require a constitutional amendment to be done.
for some of the other elections, maybe they could be done by legislation; though you'd probably want to get a lot of people agreeing to such a change given how momentous it'd be.
|
On September 21 2016 10:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 10:28 Mohdoo wrote:On September 21 2016 10:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol. Look back at the last few pages if you don't understand why Bernie supporters didn't hop on the Hillary bus.
We do know what she's done, that's one reason we don't support her. She's not going to have the house so she'll pass nothing Republicans wouldn't pass on their own. She's shown multiple times that she's willing to flat out lie to us for months on end. People convincing themselves she's going to push a liberal agenda with any success are deluding themselves. Pretending we had anything to do with it is silly. You feel comfortable not voting for Clinton because you aren't concerned with the differences between a trump and clinton presidency. The hell I am, I'm just more uncomfortable with the race to the bottom being cheered on by some here. You all are just a mirror of what I've seen in person. Hillary supporters were smug, telling us they didn't need us at their meetings, etc... Hillary says she "worked with Bernie" on the platform, that was Bernie's delegates going above and beyond even what the campaign wanted in fighting it out at the convention sub committee meetings. Like pulling teeth, just for her to 180 on things like $15 min wage as soon as she could. She's a serial liar and has you all convinced that she's going to be something she isn't. Several people repeated the "But she'll get you closer to what you want better than Bernie could have". Please tell me what policies you are imagining that she fought for against significant opposition and still got implemented?
First of all, I never said Clinton didn't need Bernie supporters. It would be impossible for her to win without 50% of democrats. I said that the type of voter who typically votes 3rd party and/or doesn't vote at all, who has historically never voted democrat anyway, would not be a massive blow to Clinton because they were voters that never played a significant role in the presidential race. They would either vote for a non-competitive candidate or not vote at all. Since that doesn't hurt and help either candidate, it wasn't a huge loss for people to just vote as they had previously. I was saying that things continuing as is was not a loss.
I don't pretend Clinton isn't a flawed candidate. I cheered for Kaine to replace her when she feinted. However, so long as Clinton is 0.00001% better than Trump, I will vote for her. If someone I really liked ran 3rd party, I would vote for Clinton, despite deeply favoring that person over Clinton. Even in an election that favors 3rd/4th party candidates more than ever before, neither Stein or Johnson came even close to 15%. It is hard to understate just how incredibly unlikely it is that a 3rd party candidate would ever win. I think it would feel nice to vote for someone I really believed in, but it doesn't have a concrete impact on anything. I can't do that.
|
On September 21 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of ways I agree with GH that it's been a race to the bottom. But the simple yet rather unpleasant reality is that it's stupid to sit these things out, and if Hillary's attitude is the problem, then Trump and the Republican Party is not only not the solution, but the problem on steroids. There is no solution right now and the best choice is simply to vote for status quo mediocrity and wait for a better chance.
If the 40+% of millennials actually abandon the 2 parties this election they will have no choice but to change, if they act like mindless sheep thinking they can only choose between the two, the parties will still change, but it will be toward two versions of Republicanism leaving the left to choose between who will screw them over less as so proudly proclaimed as the only sensible vote.
Some of these people have no idea how this all looks. It's like Fox News today railing on how some Americans shouldn't have constitutional rights. For sake of the argument right in front of your faces folks are abandoning their "sincere beliefs" for political expediency.
They would either vote for a non-competitive candidate or not vote at all. Since that doesn't hurt and help either candidate
Try explaining that to the math majors everywhere swearing up and down that +1 for Trump is the same thing as +1 for Stein or Johnson
|
On September 21 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of ways I agree with GH that it's been a race to the bottom. But the simple yet rather unpleasant reality is that it's stupid to sit these things out, and if Hillary's attitude is the problem, then Trump and the Republican Party is not only not the solution, but the problem on steroids. There is no solution right now and the best choice is simply to vote for status quo mediocrity and wait for a better chance. If the 40+% of millennials actually abandon the 2 parties this election they will have no choice but to change, if they act like mindless sheep thinking they can only choose between the two the parties will still change, but it will be toward two versions of Republicanism leaving the left to chooses between who will screw them over less as so proudly proclaimed as the only sensible vote. Some of these people have no idea how this all looks. It's like Fox News today railing on how some Americans shouldn't have constitutional rights. For sake of the argument right in front of your faces folks are abandoning their "sincere beliefs" for political expediency.
You are aware that age bracket rarely votes and always complains about felling left out of the system? The last person to capture that demographic was Obama. Before that, Bill in his first election, but only a little bit. This is nothing new with the exception of Obama.
|
|
|
On September 21 2016 11:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of ways I agree with GH that it's been a race to the bottom. But the simple yet rather unpleasant reality is that it's stupid to sit these things out, and if Hillary's attitude is the problem, then Trump and the Republican Party is not only not the solution, but the problem on steroids. There is no solution right now and the best choice is simply to vote for status quo mediocrity and wait for a better chance. If the 40+% of millennials actually abandon the 2 parties this election they will have no choice but to change, if they act like mindless sheep thinking they can only choose between the two the parties will still change, but it will be toward two versions of Republicanism leaving the left to chooses between who will screw them over less as so proudly proclaimed as the only sensible vote. Some of these people have no idea how this all looks. It's like Fox News today railing on how some Americans shouldn't have constitutional rights. For sake of the argument right in front of your faces folks are abandoning their "sincere beliefs" for political expediency. You are aware that age bracket rarely votes and always complains about felling left out of the system? The last person to capture that demographic was Obama. Before that, Bill in his first election, but only a little bit. This is nothing new with the exception of Obama.
That's why no one is suggesting they don't vote. Abandoning the two parties is pointless if one also abandons politics. But if millions of people vote outside of the parties then the "oh it's stupid to vote third party" begins turning into "hey if the people who didn't like Clinton but hated Trump more joined forces with the people who refused to vote for either of them we could pick someone who isn't so distasteful for everyone".
Writing off people under 35 because our education system is so pathetic they don't bother participating is remarkably shortsighted, elitist, and regressive.
Nearly all wealthy people vote, regardless of age, that's not a coincidence.
|
Donald Trump, in hot water over a report that his charity used donations to cover business-related legal fees, told a campaign rally crowd on Tuesday that “there’s nothing like doing things with other people’s money.”
The comment about “other people’s money” came during a campaign rally in North Carolina, where Trump pledged to keep refugees from the Middle East out of the U.S. and instead put them in “safe zones” that would be built with money from Gulf nations. It is a financial maneuver the real estate mogul said he has performed many times throughout his career.
“It’s called OPM. I do that all the time in business. It’s called other people’s money. There’s nothing like doing things with other people’s money,” Trump said. “Because it takes, the risk, you get a good chunk of it and it takes the risk. We’re going to do this, in this case, from a humanitarian standpoint. OPM: other people’s money.”
Under a Trump administration, the Gulf states would not be the only foreign countries on the hook to pay for the Manhattan billionaire’s proposals. From the very beginning of his campaign, Trump has pledged to build a wall along America’s southern border and force Mexico to pay for it. During Trump’s visit to Mexico last month, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said his nation would not pay for the wall. Trump said the subject of who would pay was not discussed during their meeting.
The former reality TV star made his promise to use “other people’s money” on the same day The Washington Post published a story accusing Trump of spending $258,000 from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his other businesses.
Source
|
On September 21 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 11:07 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of ways I agree with GH that it's been a race to the bottom. But the simple yet rather unpleasant reality is that it's stupid to sit these things out, and if Hillary's attitude is the problem, then Trump and the Republican Party is not only not the solution, but the problem on steroids. There is no solution right now and the best choice is simply to vote for status quo mediocrity and wait for a better chance. If the 40+% of millennials actually abandon the 2 parties this election they will have no choice but to change, if they act like mindless sheep thinking they can only choose between the two the parties will still change, but it will be toward two versions of Republicanism leaving the left to chooses between who will screw them over less as so proudly proclaimed as the only sensible vote. Some of these people have no idea how this all looks. It's like Fox News today railing on how some Americans shouldn't have constitutional rights. For sake of the argument right in front of your faces folks are abandoning their "sincere beliefs" for political expediency. You are aware that age bracket rarely votes and always complains about felling left out of the system? The last person to capture that demographic was Obama. Before that, Bill in his first election, but only a little bit. This is nothing new with the exception of Obama. That's why no one is suggesting they don't vote. Abandoning the two parties is pointless if one also abandons politics. But if millions of people vote outside of the parties then the "oh it's stupid to vote third party" begins turning into "hey if the people who didn't like Clinton but hated Trump more joined forces with the people who refused to vote for either of them we could pick someone who isn't so distasteful for everyone". Writing off people under 35 because our education system is so pathetic they don't bother participating is remarkably shortsighted, elitist, and regressive. Nearly all wealthy people vote, regardless of age, that's not a coincidence.
Except this is a problem in a lot of countries too. This isn't a problem with the parties or anything new this election. People under 35 don't vote because they don't feel politics represents them well enough. And it might not, but that is partly because they don't participate. And the parties have to court consistent voters because there is a limited window when the majority of voters are interested. If everyone under 35 that was mildly left leaning sucked it up and voted for Clinton this election, they would run the table. The only thing Democrats would care about is how to repeat that in the midterm election.
|
On September 21 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 11:07 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of ways I agree with GH that it's been a race to the bottom. But the simple yet rather unpleasant reality is that it's stupid to sit these things out, and if Hillary's attitude is the problem, then Trump and the Republican Party is not only not the solution, but the problem on steroids. There is no solution right now and the best choice is simply to vote for status quo mediocrity and wait for a better chance. If the 40+% of millennials actually abandon the 2 parties this election they will have no choice but to change, if they act like mindless sheep thinking they can only choose between the two the parties will still change, but it will be toward two versions of Republicanism leaving the left to chooses between who will screw them over less as so proudly proclaimed as the only sensible vote. Some of these people have no idea how this all looks. It's like Fox News today railing on how some Americans shouldn't have constitutional rights. For sake of the argument right in front of your faces folks are abandoning their "sincere beliefs" for political expediency. You are aware that age bracket rarely votes and always complains about felling left out of the system? The last person to capture that demographic was Obama. Before that, Bill in his first election, but only a little bit. This is nothing new with the exception of Obama. "oh it's stupid to vote third party" begins turning into "hey if the people who didn't like Clinton but hated Trump more joined forces with the people who refused to vote for either of them we could pick someone who isn't so distasteful for everyone".
Do you think there's any chance of an election better fit for a successful 3rd party than 2016? It is hard to imagine candidates having such high unfavorables, again, on both sides and allowing for a successful 3rd option. This is it. The democratic and republican parties have both shifted and changed over the years. This recently happened to be a time where it needed to change even faster than usual, creating a huge rift between Sanders/Clinton and Trump/Bush. But giving both parties 4 years to find equilibrium, leading to much better suited primary candidates, will create a situation where 3rd parties are significantly less able to capture support than 2016. I think 2020 primaries are going to look very different from 2016 or 2012.
|
On September 21 2016 11:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump, in hot water over a report that his charity used donations to cover business-related legal fees, told a campaign rally crowd on Tuesday that “there’s nothing like doing things with other people’s money.”
The comment about “other people’s money” came during a campaign rally in North Carolina, where Trump pledged to keep refugees from the Middle East out of the U.S. and instead put them in “safe zones” that would be built with money from Gulf nations. It is a financial maneuver the real estate mogul said he has performed many times throughout his career.
“It’s called OPM. I do that all the time in business. It’s called other people’s money. There’s nothing like doing things with other people’s money,” Trump said. “Because it takes, the risk, you get a good chunk of it and it takes the risk. We’re going to do this, in this case, from a humanitarian standpoint. OPM: other people’s money.”
Under a Trump administration, the Gulf states would not be the only foreign countries on the hook to pay for the Manhattan billionaire’s proposals. From the very beginning of his campaign, Trump has pledged to build a wall along America’s southern border and force Mexico to pay for it. During Trump’s visit to Mexico last month, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said his nation would not pay for the wall. Trump said the subject of who would pay was not discussed during their meeting.
The former reality TV star made his promise to use “other people’s money” on the same day The Washington Post published a story accusing Trump of spending $258,000 from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his other businesses. Source
The master plan of convincing other people to give money to the US to solve the refugee problem. All of his plans come from convincing other people to pay for things. Expect that NY banks won't lend to him any more because he doesn't pay it back. I wonder if people realize that is how he is going to treat the national debt.
|
On September 21 2016 11:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 11:07 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of ways I agree with GH that it's been a race to the bottom. But the simple yet rather unpleasant reality is that it's stupid to sit these things out, and if Hillary's attitude is the problem, then Trump and the Republican Party is not only not the solution, but the problem on steroids. There is no solution right now and the best choice is simply to vote for status quo mediocrity and wait for a better chance. If the 40+% of millennials actually abandon the 2 parties this election they will have no choice but to change, if they act like mindless sheep thinking they can only choose between the two the parties will still change, but it will be toward two versions of Republicanism leaving the left to chooses between who will screw them over less as so proudly proclaimed as the only sensible vote. Some of these people have no idea how this all looks. It's like Fox News today railing on how some Americans shouldn't have constitutional rights. For sake of the argument right in front of your faces folks are abandoning their "sincere beliefs" for political expediency. You are aware that age bracket rarely votes and always complains about felling left out of the system? The last person to capture that demographic was Obama. Before that, Bill in his first election, but only a little bit. This is nothing new with the exception of Obama. That's why no one is suggesting they don't vote. Abandoning the two parties is pointless if one also abandons politics. But if millions of people vote outside of the parties then the "oh it's stupid to vote third party" begins turning into "hey if the people who didn't like Clinton but hated Trump more joined forces with the people who refused to vote for either of them we could pick someone who isn't so distasteful for everyone". Writing off people under 35 because our education system is so pathetic they don't bother participating is remarkably shortsighted, elitist, and regressive. Nearly all wealthy people vote, regardless of age, that's not a coincidence. Except this is a problem in a lot of countries too. This isn't a problem with the parties or anything new this election. People under 35 don't vote because they don't feel politics represents them well enough. And it might not, but that is partly because they don't participate. And the parties have to court consistent voters because there is a limited window when the majority of voters are interested.
Yeah... That's still shortsighted, elitist, and regressive.
On September 21 2016 11:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 11:07 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of ways I agree with GH that it's been a race to the bottom. But the simple yet rather unpleasant reality is that it's stupid to sit these things out, and if Hillary's attitude is the problem, then Trump and the Republican Party is not only not the solution, but the problem on steroids. There is no solution right now and the best choice is simply to vote for status quo mediocrity and wait for a better chance. If the 40+% of millennials actually abandon the 2 parties this election they will have no choice but to change, if they act like mindless sheep thinking they can only choose between the two the parties will still change, but it will be toward two versions of Republicanism leaving the left to chooses between who will screw them over less as so proudly proclaimed as the only sensible vote. Some of these people have no idea how this all looks. It's like Fox News today railing on how some Americans shouldn't have constitutional rights. For sake of the argument right in front of your faces folks are abandoning their "sincere beliefs" for political expediency. You are aware that age bracket rarely votes and always complains about felling left out of the system? The last person to capture that demographic was Obama. Before that, Bill in his first election, but only a little bit. This is nothing new with the exception of Obama. "oh it's stupid to vote third party" begins turning into "hey if the people who didn't like Clinton but hated Trump more joined forces with the people who refused to vote for either of them we could pick someone who isn't so distasteful for everyone". Do you think there's any chance of an election better fit for a successful 3rd party than 2016? It is hard to imagine candidates having such high unfavorables, again, on both sides and allowing for a successful 3rd option. This is it. The democratic and republican parties have both shifted and changed over the years. This recently happened to be a time where it needed to change even faster than usual, creating a huge rift between Sanders/Clinton and Trump/Bush. But giving both parties 4 years to find equilibrium, leading to much better suited primary candidates, will create a situation where 3rd parties are significantly less able to capture support than 2016. I think 2020 primaries are going to look very different from 2016 or 2012.
I am curious how ineffective (in a progressive sense) Hillary could be and still get her current reluctant supporters to discourage a primary challenge.
Her silence on the recent killings by cops, the DAPL, constitutional rights of the NY/NJ terror suspect, etc... Has me skeptical to say the least.
|
On September 21 2016 09:30 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 09:17 Nevuk wrote:
The smug, condescending, "we don't need your vote anyways" attitude that Hillary's supporters took after the primary was near the end really didn't help. My position as a Clinton supporter has always been "we think there's a lot you here could be comfortable getting behind and would appreciate your vote and support, but if you're going to refuse to meet us halfway or listen then I'm not gonna bother."
I feel the same way. And honestly, I don't care too too much anymore. A trump presidency will hurt the poor young etc... people who make up the majority of the "never hillary" democrats, and will almost certainly hurt the rural types that want to vote for trump, much more than the normal people who are ok with the status quo. So if those people want to vote for a shitty president and hurt themselves more than the people that are trying to vote for the only reasonable option, it's on them and they will be complaining even louder.
|
On September 21 2016 11:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Donald Trump, in hot water over a report that his charity used donations to cover business-related legal fees, told a campaign rally crowd on Tuesday that “there’s nothing like doing things with other people’s money.”
The comment about “other people’s money” came during a campaign rally in North Carolina, where Trump pledged to keep refugees from the Middle East out of the U.S. and instead put them in “safe zones” that would be built with money from Gulf nations. It is a financial maneuver the real estate mogul said he has performed many times throughout his career.
“It’s called OPM. I do that all the time in business. It’s called other people’s money. There’s nothing like doing things with other people’s money,” Trump said. “Because it takes, the risk, you get a good chunk of it and it takes the risk. We’re going to do this, in this case, from a humanitarian standpoint. OPM: other people’s money.”
Under a Trump administration, the Gulf states would not be the only foreign countries on the hook to pay for the Manhattan billionaire’s proposals. From the very beginning of his campaign, Trump has pledged to build a wall along America’s southern border and force Mexico to pay for it. During Trump’s visit to Mexico last month, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said his nation would not pay for the wall. Trump said the subject of who would pay was not discussed during their meeting.
The former reality TV star made his promise to use “other people’s money” on the same day The Washington Post published a story accusing Trump of spending $258,000 from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his other businesses. Source
Because getting loans for your business is just like coercing a foreign leader whose political future rests on whether he gives in.
That leader will come to the table charmed by Donald Trump, just like in his business career.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
On September 21 2016 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 11:23 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 11:07 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of ways I agree with GH that it's been a race to the bottom. But the simple yet rather unpleasant reality is that it's stupid to sit these things out, and if Hillary's attitude is the problem, then Trump and the Republican Party is not only not the solution, but the problem on steroids. There is no solution right now and the best choice is simply to vote for status quo mediocrity and wait for a better chance. If the 40+% of millennials actually abandon the 2 parties this election they will have no choice but to change, if they act like mindless sheep thinking they can only choose between the two the parties will still change, but it will be toward two versions of Republicanism leaving the left to chooses between who will screw them over less as so proudly proclaimed as the only sensible vote. Some of these people have no idea how this all looks. It's like Fox News today railing on how some Americans shouldn't have constitutional rights. For sake of the argument right in front of your faces folks are abandoning their "sincere beliefs" for political expediency. You are aware that age bracket rarely votes and always complains about felling left out of the system? The last person to capture that demographic was Obama. Before that, Bill in his first election, but only a little bit. This is nothing new with the exception of Obama. That's why no one is suggesting they don't vote. Abandoning the two parties is pointless if one also abandons politics. But if millions of people vote outside of the parties then the "oh it's stupid to vote third party" begins turning into "hey if the people who didn't like Clinton but hated Trump more joined forces with the people who refused to vote for either of them we could pick someone who isn't so distasteful for everyone". Writing off people under 35 because our education system is so pathetic they don't bother participating is remarkably shortsighted, elitist, and regressive. Nearly all wealthy people vote, regardless of age, that's not a coincidence. Except this is a problem in a lot of countries too. This isn't a problem with the parties or anything new this election. People under 35 don't vote because they don't feel politics represents them well enough. And it might not, but that is partly because they don't participate. And the parties have to court consistent voters because there is a limited window when the majority of voters are interested. Yeah... That's still shortsighted, elitist, and regressive.
The best part about a Trump victory would be the massive slice of humble pie liberals, democrats, and the republican establishment would have to eat. I almost wouldn't even care what Trump did with the presidency after winning. I just want to savor that moment when he clinches victory.
|
On September 21 2016 11:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 11:23 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 11:07 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of ways I agree with GH that it's been a race to the bottom. But the simple yet rather unpleasant reality is that it's stupid to sit these things out, and if Hillary's attitude is the problem, then Trump and the Republican Party is not only not the solution, but the problem on steroids. There is no solution right now and the best choice is simply to vote for status quo mediocrity and wait for a better chance. If the 40+% of millennials actually abandon the 2 parties this election they will have no choice but to change, if they act like mindless sheep thinking they can only choose between the two the parties will still change, but it will be toward two versions of Republicanism leaving the left to chooses between who will screw them over less as so proudly proclaimed as the only sensible vote. Some of these people have no idea how this all looks. It's like Fox News today railing on how some Americans shouldn't have constitutional rights. For sake of the argument right in front of your faces folks are abandoning their "sincere beliefs" for political expediency. You are aware that age bracket rarely votes and always complains about felling left out of the system? The last person to capture that demographic was Obama. Before that, Bill in his first election, but only a little bit. This is nothing new with the exception of Obama. That's why no one is suggesting they don't vote. Abandoning the two parties is pointless if one also abandons politics. But if millions of people vote outside of the parties then the "oh it's stupid to vote third party" begins turning into "hey if the people who didn't like Clinton but hated Trump more joined forces with the people who refused to vote for either of them we could pick someone who isn't so distasteful for everyone". Writing off people under 35 because our education system is so pathetic they don't bother participating is remarkably shortsighted, elitist, and regressive. Nearly all wealthy people vote, regardless of age, that's not a coincidence. Except this is a problem in a lot of countries too. This isn't a problem with the parties or anything new this election. People under 35 don't vote because they don't feel politics represents them well enough. And it might not, but that is partly because they don't participate. And the parties have to court consistent voters because there is a limited window when the majority of voters are interested. Yeah... That's still shortsighted, elitist, and regressive. The best part about a Trump victory would be the massive slice of humble pie liberals, democrats, and the republican establishment would have to eat. I almost wouldn't even care what Trump did with the presidency after winning. I just want to savor that moment when he clinches victory.
even if he were to win; I don't think that'd cause much humble pie; unless he actually turns out to do a really good (or at least decent) job. if things crash n burn, then they'll have a massive I told you so.
|
On September 21 2016 11:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 11:23 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 11:07 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of ways I agree with GH that it's been a race to the bottom. But the simple yet rather unpleasant reality is that it's stupid to sit these things out, and if Hillary's attitude is the problem, then Trump and the Republican Party is not only not the solution, but the problem on steroids. There is no solution right now and the best choice is simply to vote for status quo mediocrity and wait for a better chance. If the 40+% of millennials actually abandon the 2 parties this election they will have no choice but to change, if they act like mindless sheep thinking they can only choose between the two the parties will still change, but it will be toward two versions of Republicanism leaving the left to chooses between who will screw them over less as so proudly proclaimed as the only sensible vote. Some of these people have no idea how this all looks. It's like Fox News today railing on how some Americans shouldn't have constitutional rights. For sake of the argument right in front of your faces folks are abandoning their "sincere beliefs" for political expediency. You are aware that age bracket rarely votes and always complains about felling left out of the system? The last person to capture that demographic was Obama. Before that, Bill in his first election, but only a little bit. This is nothing new with the exception of Obama. That's why no one is suggesting they don't vote. Abandoning the two parties is pointless if one also abandons politics. But if millions of people vote outside of the parties then the "oh it's stupid to vote third party" begins turning into "hey if the people who didn't like Clinton but hated Trump more joined forces with the people who refused to vote for either of them we could pick someone who isn't so distasteful for everyone". Writing off people under 35 because our education system is so pathetic they don't bother participating is remarkably shortsighted, elitist, and regressive. Nearly all wealthy people vote, regardless of age, that's not a coincidence. Except this is a problem in a lot of countries too. This isn't a problem with the parties or anything new this election. People under 35 don't vote because they don't feel politics represents them well enough. And it might not, but that is partly because they don't participate. And the parties have to court consistent voters because there is a limited window when the majority of voters are interested. Yeah... That's still shortsighted, elitist, and regressive. The best part about a Trump victory would be the massive slice of humble pie liberals, democrats, and the republican establishment would have to eat. I almost wouldn't even care what Trump did with the presidency after winning. I just want to savor that moment when he clinches victory.
Did you finish analyzing Hillary's eye movements?
|
|
|
On September 21 2016 11:56 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2016 11:49 xDaunt wrote:On September 21 2016 11:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 11:23 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 11:07 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2016 11:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 21 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
In a lot of ways I agree with GH that it's been a race to the bottom. But the simple yet rather unpleasant reality is that it's stupid to sit these things out, and if Hillary's attitude is the problem, then Trump and the Republican Party is not only not the solution, but the problem on steroids. There is no solution right now and the best choice is simply to vote for status quo mediocrity and wait for a better chance. If the 40+% of millennials actually abandon the 2 parties this election they will have no choice but to change, if they act like mindless sheep thinking they can only choose between the two the parties will still change, but it will be toward two versions of Republicanism leaving the left to chooses between who will screw them over less as so proudly proclaimed as the only sensible vote. Some of these people have no idea how this all looks. It's like Fox News today railing on how some Americans shouldn't have constitutional rights. For sake of the argument right in front of your faces folks are abandoning their "sincere beliefs" for political expediency. You are aware that age bracket rarely votes and always complains about felling left out of the system? The last person to capture that demographic was Obama. Before that, Bill in his first election, but only a little bit. This is nothing new with the exception of Obama. That's why no one is suggesting they don't vote. Abandoning the two parties is pointless if one also abandons politics. But if millions of people vote outside of the parties then the "oh it's stupid to vote third party" begins turning into "hey if the people who didn't like Clinton but hated Trump more joined forces with the people who refused to vote for either of them we could pick someone who isn't so distasteful for everyone". Writing off people under 35 because our education system is so pathetic they don't bother participating is remarkably shortsighted, elitist, and regressive. Nearly all wealthy people vote, regardless of age, that's not a coincidence. Except this is a problem in a lot of countries too. This isn't a problem with the parties or anything new this election. People under 35 don't vote because they don't feel politics represents them well enough. And it might not, but that is partly because they don't participate. And the parties have to court consistent voters because there is a limited window when the majority of voters are interested. Yeah... That's still shortsighted, elitist, and regressive. The best part about a Trump victory would be the massive slice of humble pie liberals, democrats, and the republican establishment would have to eat. I almost wouldn't even care what Trump did with the presidency after winning. I just want to savor that moment when he clinches victory. How inspiring.
He lives to feel the superiority the "liberals" his whines about feel. He wants it more than anything. And then he will watch people deal with that and sort of not give a fuck. And if all Trump claims comes true and we are in the throws of deporting 11 million people in 2 years, 450K a month, he might feel a little bad. But only a little.
|
Actually, I'd be quite pleased if Trump managed to deport 450k illegal aliens per month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ronald-450x265.jpeg)
