2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

4,851 to 4,900 of 7,079 << first < prev | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If anyone missed all the talk about Michelle Obama's speech today, you should give it a listen. She really hits it home.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
If anyone missed all the talk about Michelle Obama's speech today, you should give it a listen. She really hits it home.

I wish her name was on the ballot.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
If anyone missed all the talk about Michelle Obama's speech today, you should give it a listen. She really hits it home.
I wish her name was on the ballot.

I can't blame her for not wanting to go through this meat grinder. There is 2020 or 2024 to consider as well.


Or 2036.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
except the fair share surcharge specifically covers capital gains income as well as payroll income...

Then you just put it all offshore, or "re-invest" it, or offset it with capital losses from previous years, or any of the zillion other things you can do with income that's not from a paycheck. It's seriously not even that hard to do.

The wealthy do not play by any rules that you or I would recognize.
Changing that fact is what Sanders campaigned on, and failed.

It all depends on how the rule is written.

Even as is, "income" doesn't mean "salary" in the tax code. Income is a broad term and applies to many sources and is typically broken down into different categories. Capital gains is a type of income and has it's own tax rate that is different from payroll/salary taxes.

We currently have a rule called the Alternative Minimum Tax, but that system still has numerous exemptions and deductions that make it possible to pay little to no tax, but it does increase the tax rate on the wealthy slightly, even as is.

Unless Republicans lose the house though, it's not going to pass. Paul Ryan wants to repeal the AMT and not bother to replace it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I came across another way of looking at Trump's Access Hollywood tape. Put aside the sexism, the lewd language, the potential admission of sexual assault. Instead, consider the justification he gives for his behavior. Because he's a celebrity, he's allowed to do whatever he wants.

Trump will abuse his power and privilege for his own personal gain. He will use whatever power he gains as president to abuse others, because he will consider himself entitled.

His admission on Howard Stern's show that he walks into the changing rooms at beauty pageants is similarly telling. Yes, the behavior is gross, invasive and predatory. Similar to above though, the most worrying aspect for him being president is that he considers it okay, because he's the pageant owner. He feels entitled to go where he wants, take what he wants and impose himself on others because he essentially owns them.

He reiterated this idea in the second debate. Saying that he would appoint a special prosecutor to put Hillary in prison, he considers his use of power to impose his will on others as normal and justified.

He doesn't respect other people. He only respects their ability to stop him from doing things to them.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

All I know is rich people apparently think they're different.

I think when the comet hits, their riches won't feed them.

And as they see that giant rock of ending fall from the sky, this is roughly what they will think...

"Ah, well, all good things come to an end. Since it wouldn't have mattered either way, I'm glad I got to live like a god for a few decades."

Will you have the luxury of thinking the same?

Meeting your end well does not require wealth. :)
"To conquer death you only have to die."
"That is not dead that can eternal lie"

"Oh, well. Who wants to live forever?"

"Onwaaard my brave Hawkmen!.
DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!!!!

♪♫♪♫do doo doodededoo diddly dideedidediddlydidedodoooooooo♪♫♪♫

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!

♪♫♪♫do doo doodededoo diddly dideedidediddlydidedodoooooooo♪♫♪♫


I'm a bit biased because I remember the clintons in office 20 years ago. Scandals after scandals, govt finally getting tired of Bill sexual harassments and rape made him lose his license, and also Bill signing the bill that allowed company's to go over seas and what tanked our economy. So no vote for Hillary because her hands were in a lot of that and also the things that gone on with this election (Wikileaks, rigging against Sanders, etc).
To me she's a piece of crap just like Bill.
Trump....well don't need to say anything he hasn't said him self. He's a big piece of a crap too.
It's gotten to the point where anything one candidate says or does, the other has done something equally awful. So many people are not voting for someone because they agree with them, but are voting because they don't want the other person in office.

How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A small change, that wouldn't require any Constitutional amendment, would be for individual states to stop sending their whole quota of electoral votes for one candidate, and split them proportionally to the state popular vote.

End the idea of 'safe red states' and 'true blue states', which discourage so many people from voting.

That in itself doesn't end the two party system, but it means every vote in every state can make the difference to the final count.
Candidates have to speak for the whole nation, and can no longer fawn over a few swing states and tell the rest to piss up a rope.

And more people voting means more people interested in politics, means more people acting as checks and balances to keep the politicians honest, and keeping to their pledges.


Snorter wrote:

A small change, that wouldn't require any Constitutional amendment, would be for individual states to stop sending their whole quota of electoral votes for one candidate, and split them proportionally to the state popular vote.

End the idea of 'safe red states' and 'true blue states', which discourage so many people from voting.

That in itself doesn't end the two party system, but it means every vote in every state can make the difference to the final count.
Candidates have to speak for the whole nation, and can no longer fawn over a few swing states and tell the rest to piss up a rope.

And more people voting means more people interested in politics, means more people acting as checks and balances to keep the politicians honest, and keeping to their pledges.

That's brilliant


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Redneckdevil wrote:


How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

The two-party system is a result of the structure of the mathematics; when you use majority-rules voting with only one seat available, the most stable configuration is two parties. If you have more than two candidates, the third candidates will split votes away from the party that it's most like, and as a result hand the election to the other group. That's basically what's going on here The "sensible" party ran too many candidates in the Republican primaries, (Bush, Rubio, Christie, et cetera....). (Wikipedia: "This was the largest presidential primary field for any political party in American history.) The "silly" party really only ran one (Trump), and so he got a plurality because all of the wingnuts flocked to his camp, but the more traditional Republicans couldn't get their act together.

We got Clinton for the opposite reason; there weren't enough candidates. The Democrats don't have a very deep bench to begin with, and the candidates were Clinton or an unelectable lunatic and self-admitted socialist. (None of the other candidates even made it to the New Hampshire primary.)

If you want to prevent this BS, encourage good candidates to run.


Snorter wrote:

A small change, that wouldn't require any Constitutional amendment, would be for individual states to stop sending their whole quota of electoral votes for one candidate, and split them proportionally to the state popular vote.

End the idea of 'safe red states' and 'true blue states', which discourage so many people from voting.

That in itself doesn't end the two party system, but it means every vote in every state can make the difference to the final count.
Candidates have to speak for the whole nation, and can no longer fawn over a few swing states and tell the rest to piss up a rope.

And more people voting means more people interested in politics, means more people acting as checks and balances to keep the politicians honest, and keeping to their pledges.

But you can't actually get there because any state that does this basically would get ignored in the campaign. The states that hadn't switched would be kingmakers.

It might work if everyone signed on at once, but I prefer the National Popular Vote compact, where states agree to give all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, but only once enough states sign on to determine the election.


Redneckdevil wrote:
Snorter wrote:

A small change, that wouldn't require any Constitutional amendment, would be for individual states to stop sending their whole quota of electoral votes for one candidate, and split them proportionally to the state popular vote.

End the idea of 'safe red states' and 'true blue states', which discourage so many people from voting.

That in itself doesn't end the two party system, but it means every vote in every state can make the difference to the final count.
Candidates have to speak for the whole nation, and can no longer fawn over a few swing states and tell the rest to piss up a rope.

And more people voting means more people interested in politics, means more people acting as checks and balances to keep the politicians honest, and keeping to their pledges.

That's brilliant

Unfortunately it is a losing proposition for any state that implements it, because if your votes are split proportionally and others are not then you lose. It would need to be implemented with national coordination, which wont happen in this political environment any time soon.


Its bizarre the whole thing.

In the UK if Trump would have come out with half of what he has he'd have been lynched!!

And as for HC.... I just think she brings absolutely nothing to the table. I can emphatically guarantee she will pull another Obama... promise the world and deliver nothing (except water treading).

Such a shame the US system is a 2 party set up!


8 people marked this as a favorite.

If your options are tread water or "here hold this anchor" ... you tread water.


Redneckdevil wrote:

I'm a bit biased because I remember the clintons in office 20 years ago. Scandals after scandals, govt finally getting tired of Bill sexual harassments and rape made him lose his license, and also Bill signing the bill that allowed company's to go over seas and what tanked our economy. So no vote for Hillary because her hands were in a lot of that and also the things that gone on with this election (Wikileaks, rigging against Sanders, etc).

To me she's a piece of crap just like Bill.
Trump....well don't need to say anything he hasn't said him self. He's a big piece of a crap too.
It's gotten to the point where anything one candidate says or does, the other has done something equally awful. So many people are not voting for someone because they agree with them, but are voting because they don't want the other person in office.

How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

What you seem to have overlooked, is how important a role Hillary played in getting Bill to reverse his position on a disastrous bankruptcy bill, and the time she spent arguing for the healthcare reform we eventually got (albiet in diluted form) in the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Hillary Clinton did not rig the game against Sanders, she simply played it better than he did. And Sanders' game had some pretty severe built-in flaws, most notably his total lack of ability to communicate his message to minorities.. he got practically none of their votes. Nor did he really have much of a plan besides.. "burn the house down". His campaign approach wasn't really that much different from Trump's in it's relative lack of substance.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Redneckdevil wrote:


How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

There seems to be this impression that the two frontrunners are equally unqualified. I don't see how any rational person can come to this conclusion. On the one hand, we have a person who's been both a State and National First Lady, A United States Senator, AND a Secretary of State, she has more qualifications than any Presidential candidate to date.

And her opponent? Most noted for inheriting his way to wealth, and then leaving a string of bankruptcies, fraudulant companies and schools, and small buisnesses who've been stung badly by his refusal to pay for services rendered. And who also comes with packaged extras of racism, narcissism, and misogyny to boot.

And there are people who think that they are equally unqualified?!

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
doc roc wrote:

Its bizarre the whole thing.

In the UK if Trump would have come out with half of what he has he'd have been lynched!!

And as for HC.... I just think she brings absolutely nothing to the table. I can emphatically guarantee she will pull another Obama... promise the world and deliver nothing (except water treading).

Such a shame the US system is a 2 party set up!

I dunno, doc, the Leave faction for Brexit had similar nationalist rumblings and they still got their way. It basically meant the end of several political careers (I liked it better when Nigel Farage was the UK's problem, not ours), but they also blamed foreigners for the problems of the homeland. All they were missing were Union Jack hats that read "Make Britain Great Again".

And maybe Obama hasn't been spectacular in foreign policy, but dammit, his tenure has been pretty good here domestically. I'm hoping that Clinton can carry the ball further down the field in the direction that Obama has been setting up.

And, yeah. Duverger's Law be strong.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

I'm a bit biased because I remember the clintons in office 20 years ago. Scandals after scandals, govt finally getting tired of Bill sexual harassments and rape made him lose his license, and also Bill signing the bill that allowed company's to go over seas and what tanked our economy. So no vote for Hillary because her hands were in a lot of that and also the things that gone on with this election (Wikileaks, rigging against Sanders, etc).

To me she's a piece of crap just like Bill.
Trump....well don't need to say anything he hasn't said him self. He's a big piece of a crap too.
It's gotten to the point where anything one candidate says or does, the other has done something equally awful. So many people are not voting for someone because they agree with them, but are voting because they don't want the other person in office.

How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

What you seem to have overlooked, is how important a role Hillary played in getting Bill to reverse his position on a disastrous bankruptcy bill, and the time she spent arguing for the healthcare reform we eventually got (albiet in diluted form) in the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Hillary Clinton did not rig the game against Sanders, she simply played it better than he did. And Sanders' game had some pretty severe built-in flaws, most notably his total lack of ability to communicate his message to minorities.. he got practically none of their votes. Nor did he really have much of a plan besides.. "burn the house down". His campaign approach wasn't really that much different from Trump's in it's relative lack of substance.

This is an oft spun yarn about Sanders. He won the most racially diverse state in the country. He had a number of very specific policy proposals, but because he threaded each of his policy positions back to his main themes people (wrongly) accused him of having a one topic candidacy. He was weak on foreign policy though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Redneckdevil wrote:

I'm a bit biased because I remember the clintons in office 20 years ago. Scandals after scandals, govt finally getting tired of Bill sexual harassments and rape made him lose his license, and also Bill signing the bill that allowed company's to go over seas and what tanked our economy. So no vote for Hillary because her hands were in a lot of that and also the things that gone on with this election (Wikileaks, rigging against Sanders, etc).

To me she's a piece of crap just like Bill.
Trump....well don't need to say anything he hasn't said him self. He's a big piece of a crap too.
It's gotten to the point where anything one candidate says or does, the other has done something equally awful. So many people are not voting for someone because they agree with them, but are voting because they don't want the other person in office.

How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

What you seem to have overlooked, is how important a role Hillary played in getting Bill to reverse his position on a disastrous bankruptcy bill, and the time she spent arguing for the healthcare reform we eventually got (albiet in diluted form) in the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Hillary Clinton did not rig the game against Sanders, she simply played it better than he did. And Sanders' game had some pretty severe built-in flaws, most notably his total lack of ability to communicate his message to minorities.. he got practically none of their votes. Nor did he really have much of a plan besides.. "burn the house down". His campaign approach wasn't really that much different from Trump's in it's relative lack of substance.

This is an oft spun yarn about Sanders. He won the most racially diverse state in the country. He had a number of very specific policy proposals, but because he threaded each of his policy positions...

If it's the state I'm thinking about, he won that state through caucus, which is where he got most of his victories. He generally lost all states where the primaries were general voting. And in those states he got a very low percentage of the minority vote. African Americans went for Clinton in a big way in the total vote where she got about 76 percent. In the White vote it was pretty much a hair-splitting draw.

While Sanders won big among Independents who voted Democratic, outscoring Clinton in a 2 to 1 majority, that proportion was flipped when it came to Democratic party voters who were always democratic and didn't just join the party to vote for Sanders.

Source.. Wall Street Journal

Overall she represents the choice of the Democratic body politic by the simple fact that she got 15 million votes vs Sanders 11 million. So by "popular vote" alone, she deserves and earned the victory fair and square.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Redneckdevil wrote:


It's gotten to the point where anything one candidate says or does, the other has done something equally awful.

This, as has been pointed out repeatedly, on this thread alone, is simply not true. I don't now how many times I need to drag out the phrase "false equivalence," but obviously at least once more.

Quote:
So many people are not voting for someone because they agree with them, but are voting because they don't want the other person in office.

Well, you can't pick your opponent, can you? Typically, I can vote in the Democratic primary, or I can vote in the Republican primary, but not in both. I could try to make sure that the Democrats nominate someone competent -- which, as Drahliana pointed out, they did -- but I can't make sure that the Republicans do as well. And I can't even make sure that the Republicans nominate someone competent when my vote is one of millions cast against the candidate who nevertheless gets the plurality, and in fact, majority, of the votes.

A lot of people are whinging -- and there's really no other word for it -- that they don't like either candidate, that there are no perfect candidates left standing, and that they have no incentive to vote. Well,..... surprise! There never were any perfect candidates, and even if there were, your assessment of "perfect" is not shared with the majority of your fellow beings. You'll never agree with anyone 100% except possibly with yourself, and you didn't even stand for office. But I'll bet there are some things about which you disagree more strongly than others.


Redneckdevil wrote:

I'm a bit biased because I remember the clintons in office 20 years ago. Scandals after scandals, govt finally getting tired of Bill sexual harassments and rape made him lose his license, and also Bill signing the bill that allowed company's to go over seas and what tanked our economy. So no vote for Hillary because her hands were in a lot of that and also the things that gone on with this election (Wikileaks, rigging against Sanders, etc).

To me she's a piece of crap just like Bill.
Trump....well don't need to say anything he hasn't said him self. He's a big piece of a crap too.
It's gotten to the point where anything one candidate says or does, the other has done something equally awful. So many people are not voting for someone because they agree with them, but are voting because they don't want the other person in office.

How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

Yawn


doc roc wrote:

Its bizarre the whole thing.

In the UK if Trump would have come out with half of what he has he'd have been lynched!!

orly??


1 person marked this as a favorite.

President Obama on this:

Quote:
"If a guy's spent 70 years on this earth showing no regard for working people, there's no record that he's supported (the) minimum wage or supported collective bargaining, invested in poor communities, and then suddenly he's going to be the champion of working people? Come on," Obama said.

-Source

Meanwhile, Pence responded to a body image question from a kid by talking about foreign policy and blaming Hillary Clinton. At this point, I am genuinely wondering if Trump or Pence could say the sky was blue without pivoting to an attack.


Rednal wrote:
At this point, I am genuinely wondering if Trump or Pence could say the sky was blue without pivoting to an attack.

Oh sure, they spend time with their noses in the air looking up at the heavens instead of dealing with the problems of ordinary americans.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

President Obama on this:

Quote:
"If a guy's spent 70 years on this earth showing no regard for working people, there's no record that he's supported (the) minimum wage or supported collective bargaining, invested in poor communities, and then suddenly he's going to be the champion of working people? Come on," Obama said.

-Source

Meanwhile, Pence responded to a body image question from a kid by talking about foreign policy and blaming Hillary Clinton. At this point, I am genuinely wondering if Trump or Pence could say the sky was blue without pivoting to an attack.

There's no reason to do so. Attacking Clinton is literally the only path to 270 left for the Trump camp, as far as I can tell.

* They can't convincingly campaign on Trump's leadership qualities and business acumen, since the press finally got around to looking into those and have pretty much trashed them.
* They can't convincingly campaign on Trump's moral superiority after the past week's revelations.
* They can't convincingly campaign on how Obama has ruined the economy, because the economy has actually been picking up noticeably over the past year. The people who are going to be convinced by that argument are already in the Trump camp; the Hillary camp know that argument is rhino manure.
* They can't campaign on policy issues, because they have none. Actually, the Republicans haven't been able to campaign effectively on policy issues for years, because the facts have a stubborn liberal bias, and 2+2 keeps refusing to equal 7. Furthermore, Trump and Pence don't actually agree on policy, and any policy Pence supports is likely to drive away Trump voters and any policy Trump supports is likely to draw away Pence supporters. So they're better off saying nothing beyond empty slogans.
* They can't start taking positions on local issues along with local candidates, because the local candidates in the battleground states recognize that Trump/Pence are toxic waste and don't dare risk getting any on themselves.

That leaves,.... what? About the only thing that the crowds agree on is that Clinton sucks.

A lot of commentators said, after the second debate, that Trump appears to have shifted strategies again. He's no longer trying to expand the Republican base, because he seems to have more or less hit his ceiling. (And, of course, every time he opens his mouth, the ceiling moves down by a percent.) Anything that he says that might be viewed as conciliatory will be jumped on by the Cilnton campaign (and probably a fair amount of the media) as further proof of his perfidy and disregard for the truth. And it will piss off the very fragile base that he's built, possibly discouraging them from coming out to the polls.

So his only way to win is to get every Republican voter left in this spiral arm of the galaxy, and to fire them up so that they show up and vote for him as many times as possible, while at the same time discouraging Clinton supporters from doing the same. At the end of the day, voter turnout has always been a weak spot of the Democrats; a simple rainy day can drop turnout by a percent or more, with most of the missing votes being Democratic. If he can reduce Clinton's turnout by 3% through any means, foul or fair, he will probably walk away with the election.

So he's praying for bad weather all across the country, and pleading with his supporters to show up as "election observers" and intimidate the hell out of minority voters, and working as closely as he dares with the Russian hackers to rig the election. And publicly attacking Clinton as much as he can, in the hopes that people will say things like "they're both bad" instead of thinking hard enough to do a real comparison and realize there's a difference between "bad" and "much, much worse."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really didn't mind who won the democratic primary. In fact, Sanders' platform matches better with my bleeding heart liberal views. However, saying Hilary won unfairly is a little ridiculous.

Surprise surprise: an atheist with a heavy leaning towards 'socialism' isn't going to capture as much favor from the Democratic Party as a middle of the road candidate. The party doesn't only consist of whole foods employees, college students, or even atheists for that matter. Furthermore, when Sanders supporters cried foul because they couldn't get to the convention in time (wow parking takes time apparently) I lost a lot of sympathy for them. You can't claim the party is rigged because a thing starts at a time and you were late.

She won by 4 million+ votes. She had overwhelming support from delegates. Yes, there was leaked messages between leadership that they liked Hilary better. However, they're allowed to have personal opinions and if members of the party want impartial leaders they should push for that change.

Im glad the Democratic Party had energized a new demographic of voters with Bernie but it seems many are simply naive to the way the party functions. I'm not saying it's a crime to be upset your candidate didn't win, but some of the grief I've seen from this camp is borderline delusional. The lesson here is that impacting your party before the presidential election occurs is your best bet to getting your candidate in there. Oh, and please register so you can actually vote in the primary. Nearly every Bernie supporter I've run into is registered independent.


I understand the need for closed primaries but not being able to hop into the new york primary with less than a year notice was more than a little offputting.


Spastic Puma wrote:

I really didn't mind who won the democratic primary. In fact, Sanders' platform matches better with my bleeding heart liberal views. However, saying Hilary won unfairly is a little ridiculous.

Surprise surprise: an atheist with a heavy leaning towards 'socialism' isn't going to capture as much favor from the Democratic Party as a middle of the road candidate. The party doesn't only consist of whole foods employees, college students, or even atheists for that matter. Furthermore, when Sanders supporters cried foul because they couldn't get to the convention in time (wow parking takes time apparently) I lost a lot of sympathy for them. You can't claim the party is rigged because a thing starts at a time and you were late.

She won by 4 million+ votes. She had overwhelming support from delegates. Yes, there was leaked messages between leadership that they liked Hilary better. However, they're allowed to have personal opinions and if members of the party want impartial leaders they should push for that change.

Im glad the Democratic Party had energized a new demographic of voters with Bernie but it seems many are simply naive to the way the party functions. I'm not saying it's a crime to be upset your candidate didn't win, but some of the grief I've seen from this camp is borderline delusional. The lesson here is that impacting your party before the presidential election occurs is your best bet to getting your candidate in there. Oh, and please register so you can actually vote in the primary. Nearly every Bernie supporter I've run into is registered independent.

Closed primaries in your state, Puma? In Rhode Island we have open primaries, but (twist!) you are automatically affiliated with your candidate-of-choice's party. I have found it pleasantly expedient to vote my conscious in the primary and just take the party affiliation, thereby avoiding a ton of general election season phone calls from unaffiliated nut-job candidates. (No insult to any nut-jobs reading this.)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I understand the need for closed primaries but not being able to hop into the new york primary with less than a year notice was more than a little offputting.

Yeah, that's true. Especially for younger first time voters.


Hitdice wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:

I really didn't mind who won the democratic primary. In fact, Sanders' platform matches better with my bleeding heart liberal views. However, saying Hilary won unfairly is a little ridiculous.

Surprise surprise: an atheist with a heavy leaning towards 'socialism' isn't going to capture as much favor from the Democratic Party as a middle of the road candidate. The party doesn't only consist of whole foods employees, college students, or even atheists for that matter. Furthermore, when Sanders supporters cried foul because they couldn't get to the convention in time (wow parking takes time apparently) I lost a lot of sympathy for them. You can't claim the party is rigged because a thing starts at a time and you were late.

She won by 4 million+ votes. She had overwhelming support from delegates. Yes, there was leaked messages between leadership that they liked Hilary better. However, they're allowed to have personal opinions and if members of the party want impartial leaders they should push for that change.

Im glad the Democratic Party had energized a new demographic of voters with Bernie but it seems many are simply naive to the way the party functions. I'm not saying it's a crime to be upset your candidate didn't win, but some of the grief I've seen from this camp is borderline delusional. The lesson here is that impacting your party before the presidential election occurs is your best bet to getting your candidate in there. Oh, and please register so you can actually vote in the primary. Nearly every Bernie supporter I've run into is registered independent.

Closed primaries in your state, Puma? In Rhode Island we have open primaries, but (twist!) you are automatically affiliated with your candidate-of-choice's party. I have found it pleasantly expedient to vote my conscious in the primary and just take the party affiliation, thereby avoiding a ton of general election season phone calls from unaffiliated nut-job candidates. (No insult to any nut-jobs reading...

Yeah, good old Florida...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I understand the need for closed primaries but not being able to hop into the new york primary with less than a year notice was more than a little offputting.

In New Jersey, I was able to declare my party affiliation right at the poll, as I'd never been affiliated with a party before.


Remember even after the debacle in 2000, in 2008 florida couldn't figure out a winner either. It was just irrelevant

Dear florida

You can be crazy

You can be relevant

You cannot be both at the same time this year, k?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
I have found it pleasantly expedient to vote my conscious in the primary and just take the party affiliation, thereby avoiding a ton of general election season phone calls from unaffiliated nut-job candidates. (No insult to any nut-jobs reading...

So THAT'S why I couldn't get ahold of you... and no offense taken. ^^


Sounds like somebody had a case of the Mondays. ^-^


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And in more of today's news, Ben Carson says it doesn't matter if the women accusing Trump of lewd behavior are lying or not. Essentially, he seems to be saying that it is a distraction not worth talking about when there are other issues (like... blaming Clinton and Obama for literally everything, going by the Trump campaign's normal playbook).

*Sips a bit of tea*

Y'know, I was younger then, but I still remember Republicans kicking up a fuss over a mutually-willing affair that then-president Bill Clinton had. They certainly seemed to think sexual indiscretion was a pretty big deal then. Do they think we don't notice when they only get upset about what others do, and how it's suddenly okay when their guy is the one doing it?


Rednal wrote:

And in more of today's news, Ben Carson says it doesn't matter if the women accusing Trump of lewd behavior are lying or not. Essentially, he seems to be saying that it is a distraction not worth talking about when there are other issues (like... blaming Clinton and Obama for literally everything, going by the Trump campaign's normal playbook).

I recall Newt Gingrich saying pretty much the same thing. I guess it's part of the overall Trumpiness trumping Truthiness.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I understand the need for closed primaries but not being able to hop into the new york primary with less than a year notice was more than a little offputting.

Offputting, perhaps, but not unfair. Clinton supporters face the same deadline and somehow managed to cast their votes.

Politics favors the prepared.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Y'know, I was younger then, but I still remember Republicans kicking up a fuss over a mutually-willing affair that then-president Bill Clinton had.

You weren't that much younger. It was September 29.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I understand the need for closed primaries but not being able to hop into the new york primary with less than a year notice was more than a little offputting.

Offputting, perhaps, but not unfair. Clinton supporters face the same deadline and somehow managed to cast their votes.

Politics favors the prepared.

That's what makes it a conspiracy, C'MON!! :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
No insult to any nut-jobs reading this.

None taken.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I understand the need for closed primaries but not being able to hop into the new york primary with less than a year notice was more than a little offputting.

Offputting, perhaps, but not unfair. Clinton supporters face the same deadline and somehow managed to cast their votes.

Politics favors the prepared.

Arguably because Clinton supporters were more likely to be Democrats in the first place.

OTOH, Sanders definitely benefited from the caucus states, which are even more of a hassle though in different ways. Arguably less democratic.

It's quite clear that various parts of the primaries were biased. It's not clear which way that leaned overall.

Honestly, I'm quite fond of the mix of approaches to primaries we have - some open, some closed, some semi-open. Some caucuses, some just voting. The different types help make sure single tactics and single demographics can't easily dominate.

But the primaries are over. And were basically over in March. Sanders has accepted it. We don't need to keep rehashing them.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Y'know, I was younger then, but I still remember Republicans kicking up a fuss over a mutually-willing affair that then-president Bill Clinton had.
You weren't that much younger. It was September 29.

"You're older than you've ever been.

And now you're even older.
And now you're older still." -- TMBG


thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I understand the need for closed primaries but not being able to hop into the new york primary with less than a year notice was more than a little offputting.

Offputting, perhaps, but not unfair. Clinton supporters face the same deadline and somehow managed to cast their votes.

Politics favors the prepared.

Arguably because Clinton supporters were more likely to be Democrats in the first place.

Not surprising, given that she's been building her core of supporters as part of the Democratic party (in New York, particularly) since 2000. Which is to say, politics favors the prepared.

It's hardly "unfair" that I can't roll out of bed tomorrow morning and hope to win the 2016 Democratic nomination for president. What, just because the convention was held several months ago? As a candidate, I'm rather expected to know (and follow) the deadlines.


Hitdice wrote:


That's what makes it a conspiracy, C'MON!! :P

Its not a conspiracy by any means, but the party shills for the DINO's have appealed to hillary types all along as opposed to an actually progressive candidate being offered.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


That's what makes it a conspiracy, C'MON!! :P

Its not a conspiracy by any means, but the party shills for the DINO's have appealed to hillary types all along as opposed to an actually progressive candidate being offered.

That's not surprising. She's been working for and with those same party shills since at least 2000. (She probably mentored some of them!) You're not going to win an election without building a base of support.

Or, to put it in a uniquely imaginative way, a way that has never been said or written before this instant --- politics favors the prepared.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

And in more of today's news, Ben Carson says it doesn't matter if the women accusing Trump of lewd behavior are lying or not. Essentially, he seems to be saying that it is a distraction not worth talking about when there are other issues (like... blaming Clinton and Obama for literally everything, going by the Trump campaign's normal playbook).

*Sips a bit of tea*

Y'know, I was younger then, but I still remember Republicans kicking up a fuss over a mutually-willing affair that then-president Bill Clinton had. They certainly seemed to think sexual indiscretion was a pretty big deal then. Do they think we don't notice when they only get upset about what others do, and how it's suddenly okay when their guy is the one doing it?

From Facebook

Quote:

Republicans running against Bill Clinton:

Character Counts!

Republicans running against Hillary Clinton:
It's not sexual assault if they let you do it!


Interesting argument for them to make, since it's not supported by the DOJ's definition. o wo Not resisting is not the same thing as giving explicit consent.


Disrupted Terrorist Plot
Will the same people who condemned Obama for attacks on the police blame Trump for the next Oklahoma City bombing?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Redneckdevil wrote:

I'm a bit biased because I remember the clintons in office 20 years ago. Scandals after scandals, govt finally getting tired of Bill sexual harassments and rape made him lose his license, and also Bill signing the bill that allowed company's to go over seas and what tanked our economy. So no vote for Hillary because her hands were in a lot of that and also the things that gone on with this election (Wikileaks, rigging against Sanders, etc).

To me she's a piece of crap just like Bill.
Trump....well don't need to say anything he hasn't said him self. He's a big piece of a crap too.
It's gotten to the point where anything one candidate says or does, the other has done something equally awful. So many people are not voting for someone because they agree with them, but are voting because they don't want the other person in office.

How did we get here with the illusion that are only choices are 2 people who are the bottom of the barrel? What do we do to prevent this same BS next year and the years to come?

I also remember the Clintons in office 20 years ago,. It wasn't anything like what you wrote. Every point you wrote was completely untrue. I mean that literally, everything you wrote was untrue.

4,851 to 4,900 of 7,079 << first < prev | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards