[Discussion] 2016 Presidential Elections Vote-All

The US Presidential Elections catch-all. All discussion related to the ongoing campaigns can go here.

It is just really scary to think of the world we will be living in if Trump is elected. Even if he isn't elected, the precedent he has set for American politics will tarnish everything to come.

Wouldn't be surprised at this point if a Trump supporter who had pneumonia made a point of coming in contact with Clinton to get her sick. Any other election cycle I'd call myself crazy.

So I get a lot of Trump Robocalls at work, which is odd - I'm in NYC. There's no way he's going to win NY... Anyway, the call I got today is a lot different than his prior robocall and definitely seems pneumonia focused. Here is the transcript:

TRUMP: I am Donald Trump and this is my promise to all of you - We will be one American nation! it is time to break our ties with the bitter failures of the past and build an American future!

VO: Help Donald Trump defeat Crooked Hillary - Her lack of stamina and low energy can not make America Great Again.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

So I get a lot of Trump Robocalls at work, which is odd - I'm in NYC. There's no way he's going to win NY... Anyway, the call I got today is a lot different than his prior robocall and definitely seems pneumonia focused. Here is the transcript:

TRUMP: I am Donald Trump and this is my promise to all of you - We will be one American nation! it is time to break our ties with the bitter failures of the past and build an American future!

VO: Help Donald Trump defeat Crooked Hillary - Her lack of stamina and low energy can not make America Great Again.

Really?? "Her susceptibility to bacterial infection shows why she can't be president." #facepalm

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that "low energy" would be a criteria I base my presidential vote on.

Chaz wrote:

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that "low energy" would be a criteria I base my presidential vote on.

Clinton should make a 5-hour energy commercial, just to goad him.

As much as I'd love for Doctor Who to be real, Cheeto Benito had better not win via the Harriet Jones "Don't you think she looks tired" gambit.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Wouldn't be surprised at this point if a Trump supporter who had pneumonia made a point of coming in contact with Clinton to get her sick. Any other election cycle I'd call myself crazy.

Along those lines, she had a staged hug with a little girl outside Chelsea's apartment just a few hours after fainting. Back when the story was "overheating".

Interested to see how the thinking there went down.

I know I am a bit behind here, but I find it to be pretty worrying that somebody who does not know what Aleppo is somehow had 9%(ish) of the vote for president.

Kamakazi010654 wrote:

I know I am a bit behind here, but I find it to be pretty worrying that somebody who does not know what Aleppo is somehow had 9%(ish) of the vote for president.

I'd wager more than 10% of likely voters don't know what it is either. You'd probably get higher numbers if you said Aleppo, Syria. But as many surveys have shown for years, Americans aren't good at geography.

But the phrase "Syrian refugees" has been in the news enough that people would connect those dots at least.

This article shows that younger liberals seem to be embracing the concept of a third-party protest vote but postulates they'd swing back to supporting Hillary if push came to shove to prevent a Trump presidency.

For those in this thread currently planning to vote third-party, does that accurately describe your approach or are there really a lot of Obama supporters that will stay third-party even if it means a Trump presidency?

I just do not understand the mentality of supporting a third party candidate. I think it is a display of privilege more than anything. There are so many people that will be very negatively impacted by a Trump/Pence presidency. I don't understand how it can be justified. Dislike Hillary and the establishment all you want, but the fact remains that if she loses there will be very dark times ahead for a lot of people and those people are your friends and family.

I had a slightly troubling conversation with my 9 year old last night. Apparently his uncle has been giving him all sorts of information about the upcoming election. He said his uncle told him if Hillary is elected then we'll immediately go to war because she'll just let all the terrorists into the country and we'll be fighting for our lives. So there I am trying to convince a 9 year old that if Hillary is elected President he won't be hiding in the woods while terrorists bomb our neighborhood. I tried to reassure him that I knew far more about politics than his uncle did, that everything he had been telling him was completely wrong, and that at 9 years old he doesn't need to worry about politics and to just trust that nothing bad is going to happen to him.

Why am I having to have this kind of conversation with 4th grader? What do people gain by freaking out little kids about some politician? And the fact that I know this guy believes, 100%, that Hillary is literally going to just invite terrorists into the US because she hates America... I don't get it. How do people honestly believe that? I think Trump would be horrible for our nation but I don't think he's honestly going in with the idea of "let me screw things over and wreck the country". I think he's honestly thinking he could "make America great again" but the America he wants is only great for a small percentage of people. I guess it would be easier if we just divided everyone up into good vs. evil and just didn't think about it any more.

BoogtehWoog wrote:

I just do not understand the mentality of supporting a third party candidate. I think it is a display of privilege more than anything. There are so many people that will be very negatively impacted by a Trump/Pence presidency. I don't understand how it can be justified. Dislike Hillary and the establishment all you want, but the fact remains that if she loses there will be very dark times ahead for a lot of people and those people are your friends and family.

For some people, idealism "trumps" everything else.

Kehama wrote:

I had a slightly troubling conversation with my 9 year old last night. Apparently his uncle has been giving him all sorts of information about the upcoming election.

So wait, is this your brother or brother in law? Actually, it doesn't matter. Granted, I am making some assumptions / leaps of logic here, but was this conversation done without your consent?

If any of my family were to have this type of conversation with my 9 yo daughter, there would be some pretty intense "family discussion" and then said family member would have their contact with my children severely curtailed.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsLC9ZrVUAALhBK.jpg:large)

Wow. That would be a "red line" conversation. No more contact with the kid until after the election. And no more unsupervised contact. Who knows what other kind of crazy he's telling the kid?

Our pre-school had a teacher who preached really fundy stuff to the kids at a secular pre-school. And then an elementary school bus driver did the same thing. And my son still has anxiety about them. It's kind of twisted, telling pre-schoolers if they didn't believe in Jesus they'd burn forever.

Kamakazi010654 wrote:

I know I am a bit behind here, but I find it to be pretty worrying that somebody who does not know what Aleppo is somehow had 9%(ish) of the vote for president.

All candidates make gaffes, and thus far this is the worst anybody has found to use against Johnson. I don't get how this is an actual talking point, except among partisans trying to ensure he is kept out of the debates.

If his statement a serious concern to you, try to apply the principal of charity, and ask yourself if you've ever forgotten the name of anything under pressure. Try to judge the man based on his actual platform and his past performance, not the worst moment he's had in an interview on live TV.

BoogtehWoog wrote:

I just do not understand the mentality of supporting a third party candidate.Dislike Hillary and the establishment all you want, but the fact remains that if she loses there will be very dark times ahead for a lot of people and those people are your friends and family.

Here's the problem - if Clinton is elected, there will be very dark times ahead for a lot of people and those people, while they may not be my friends and family, they also matter just as much to their friends and family. This is a woman who has no problem with her role in the destabilization of Libya and the ensuing (and ongoing) slaughter. This is a woman who has personally approved drone assassinations. This is a woman who strongly supported the escalation of the War on Drugs during her husband's administration, which lead to skyrocketing incarceration rates among minorities. This is a woman who has unequivocally stated that she would obliterate Iran if it attacked Israel - in other words, kill 71 million people because their government did something horrible. This is a woman who has called not for the cessation of pervasive surveillance, but an escalation, including forcing private entities to do the dirty work. In short, she's a foreign policy and civil rights nightmare.

Economically, she supports wage controls (raising the minimum wage), which is economically certain to suppress job growth, and likely to put more people out of work. Further, she has no concept of budgetary restraint - her plan includes spending $1 trillion more over the next ten years than the government is already spending, which is far beyond what the government can afford already (the deficit this year is $590 billion), and that doesn't include vague promises to vastly increase health care spending. Since she doesn't have a plan for overcoming guaranteed Republican resistance to tax increases, it's likely that all of her spending will be fueled by additional debt. She talks tough about getting more competition in health care markets and restraining Wall Street, but these are the same people who have paid her and her husband at least $153 million in speaking fees over the last two decades. In short, she's an economic inequality and crony capitalist nightmare.

This is a woman who has no problem whatsoever sacrificing the little people in service to the Greater Good. I would posit that she is actually more likely than Trump to get us into a war, not because of desire but due to ability - she's done it before and would more than happily do it again, and Congress has long since surrendered its ability to stop her.

So yeah, I'm a libertarian, and I'm definitely voting for Gary - but you don't have to be a libertarian or even agree with half of our positions to realize that both of the major candidates are nightmares, just for different reasons.

If Johnson is against wage control, that certainly does seem worse than forgetting Aleppo.
It is one big nightmare :/ Will someone kill Xavius already.

Aetius wrote:
BoogtehWoog wrote:

I just do not understand the mentality of supporting a third party candidate.Dislike Hillary and the establishment all you want, but the fact remains that if she loses there will be very dark times ahead for a lot of people and those people are your friends and family.

Here's the problem - if Clinton is elected, there will be very dark times ahead for a lot of people and those people, while they may not be my friends and family, they also matter just as much to their friends and family. This is a woman who has no problem with her role in the destabilization of Libya and the ensuing (and ongoing) slaughter. This is a woman who has personally approved drone assassinations. This is a woman who strongly supported the escalation of the War on Drugs during her husband's administration, which lead to skyrocketing incarceration rates among minorities. This is a woman who has unequivocally stated that she would obliterate Iran if it attacked Israel - in other words, kill 71 million people because their government did something horrible. This is a woman who has called not for the cessation of pervasive surveillance, but an escalation, including forcing private entities to do the dirty work. In short, she's a foreign policy and civil rights nightmare.

Economically, she supports wage controls (raising the minimum wage), which is economically certain to suppress job growth, and likely to put more people out of work. Further, she has no concept of budgetary restraint - her plan includes spending $1 trillion more over the next ten years than the government is already spending, which is far beyond what the government can afford already (the deficit this year is $590 billion), and that doesn't include vague promises to vastly increase health care spending. Since she doesn't have a plan for overcoming guaranteed Republican resistance to tax increases, it's likely that all of her spending will be fueled by additional debt. She talks tough about getting more competition in health care markets and restraining Wall Street, but these are the same people who have paid her and her husband at least $153 million in speaking fees over the last two decades. In short, she's an economic inequality and crony capitalist nightmare.

This is a woman who has no problem whatsoever sacrificing the little people in service to the Greater Good. I would posit that she is actually more likely than Trump to get us into a war, not because of desire but due to ability - she's done it before and would more than happily do it again, and Congress has long since surrendered its ability to stop her.

So yeah, I'm a libertarian, and I'm definitely voting for Gary - but you don't have to be a libertarian or even agree with half of our positions to realize that both of the major candidates are nightmares, just for different reasons.

On the other hand, her positions have become more reasoned with time, whereas Trump's have become more erratic. If she succeeds at accelerating our debt during a Republican-controlled congress, well I guess we should have more libertarians in Congress.

Gary Johnson seems like a great guy. I might even vote for him any other election year. But Trump is this once in a lifetime existential threat to people I know and me personally, so if I'm being honest then yes, I will vote for the candidate who can win, who will put all American lives above others, and who doesn't promise to say "papers, please" to anyone with an ounce of brown-skinned blood running through them.

And will she disappoint me? Of course. I don't expect the extrajudicial killings to stop, and I know she'll be hawkish on the middle east. I trust she'll continue the work Obama has done to improve relations with Iran and Cuba, however, and for the overly hawkish stuff I'm sure (ha. ha.) that Congress will keep her in check. Ted Cruz will do a stand up job.

On the hand, Trump has set the bar so low that after the nationwide Stockholm Syndrome settles in, we'll all be so thankful every time he accidentally does something not terrible for the country.

Convince us that Johnson is less dangerous than Clinton. For instance, that he's dumping the ideas that would take our economy back to the 19th century, destroy the social safety net and massively defund the Federal government. I like his social positions, in general, but his fiscal policies are downright dangerous. And he's demonstrated that foreign policy is not an interest of his. Literally, with 2 months left to go, he's not studied up on even the hot spots...

Just look at his time as governor in New Mexico, 1995 to 2003. He balanced the state budget *every year*. Because in New Mexico, all debt is "off the books" officially, and as long as the treasurer can wave hands and assure everyone it will be paid, that's fine. Every budget, therefore, is automatically "balanced". With his balanced budget, he entered office in 1995 with about $1.8B in state debt, and left with $4.6B eight years later. Spending? That went up by about 7.5% per year, almost double the rate of increase of the Federal government spending in the period. And he's going to cut Federal spending, right...

Sounds like a real fiscally responsible guy, based on his actual record, not on guessing what he'd do. And if you want to fix social problems, it's essential that the economy is ticking along nicely. He's demonstrated in NM that he isn't capable of managing that aspect of things.

Aetius wrote:

This is a woman who has unequivocally stated that she would obliterate Iran if it attacked Israel - in other words, kill 71 million people because their government did something horrible.

"If you use nukes, you will get nuked" has been US foreign policy for 60 years. Aside from the obvious hypocrisy (being the only nation that's used nukes against another country), I don't see what's unusual about it being applied to Iran. The article isn't just about "if Iran attack Israel", it's a reference to Iran using nuclear weapons.

Shadout wrote:

If Johnson is against wage control, that certainly does seem worse than forgetting Aleppo.
It is one big nightmare :/ Will someone kill Xavius already.

If it makes you feel any better, decades of economic illiteracy and the political unpopularity of getting rid of wage controls pretty guarantee that the only thing Johnson will be able to do is head off an increase.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

... who will put all American lives above others, and who doesn't promise to say "papers, please" to anyone with an ounce of brown-skinned blood running through them.

And will she disappoint me? Of course. I don't expect the extrajudicial killings to stop, and I know she'll be hawkish on the middle east.

The problem for me is that that logic boils down to the choice being 60% bombing people with brown skin in other countries and 40% abusing them at home, versus 60% abusing them at home and 40% bombing them in other countries. Both of those scenarios are terrible, just in slightly different ways.

You should also consider that Trump is likely to piss off every sitting Congressman and Senator in the first 90 days, as well as every foreign head of state he meets. His odds of accomplishing anything significant - in particular, serious disasters or large-scale wars - are extraordinarily low due to his abrasive personality and general incompetence. Hillary will, by contrast, appear politically reasonable and have support in Congress right up to the point where she presses the button - and probably afterwards, too.

Aetius wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

... who will put all American lives above others, and who doesn't promise to say "papers, please" to anyone with an ounce of brown-skinned blood running through them.

And will she disappoint me? Of course. I don't expect the extrajudicial killings to stop, and I know she'll be hawkish on the middle east.

The problem for me is that that logic boils down to the choice being 60% bombing people with brown skin in other countries and 40% abusing them at home, versus 60% abusing them at home and 40% bombing them in other countries. Both of those scenarios are terrible, just in slightly different ways.

Those percentages seem... seem completely arbitrary to me. If I were to do the same, I'd put Trump at 100% bad for brown people in the US, and 110% bad for those outside the US who might happen to want to visit the US, even if they are US citizens.

You should also consider that Trump is likely to piss off every sitting Congressman and Senator in the first 90 days, as well as every foreign head of state he meets. His odds of accomplishing anything significant - in particular, serious disasters or large-scale wars - are extraordinarily low due to his abrasive personality and general incompetence. Hillary will, by contrast, appear politically reasonable and have support in Congress right up to the point where she presses the button - and probably afterwards, too.

I dunno, Obama has a pretty great personality and the GOP didn't mind obstructing pretty much everything he tried to do. Clinton might have gotten away with much more in the 90s, but I don't see that happening now. Given how much the GOP has tried to do to play down Trump's incoherent positions and volatility, I see no reason they would suddenly move against him any harder once he's president. I suppose the upshot is we get a Democrat controlled congress in 2018, so yay?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

"If you use nukes, you will get nuked" has been US foreign policy for 60 years.

I would say ... not quite. The policy was "if you use nukes on us, you will get nuked in return", which was what MAD was all about. It was much less certain what would happen if someone else used a nuke somewhere else - I very much doubt, for example, that the United States would have done anything if Pakistan or India had used a nuke during the Kargil War in 1999.

Clinton, on the other hand, extended our nuclear umbrella to Israel, which is a nuclear-armed state itself, and has a history of threatening Iran with pre-emptive strikes and invading its neighbors (and yes, also being invaded).

And bluntly, the U.S. use of nuclear weapons (and firebombing) during World War II were absolutely war crimes. I'm not reassured by a President who promises to commit more of them due to another country - one quite capable of defending itself - being attacked. Two nuclear attacks don't make a right, they just make more of a mess.

Robear wrote:

Convince us that Johnson is less dangerous than Clinton.

Okay.

Just look at his time as governor in New Mexico, 1995 to 2003. He balanced the state budget *every year*. Because in New Mexico, all debt is "off the books" officially, and as long as the treasurer can wave hands and assure everyone it will be paid, that's fine. Every budget, therefore, is automatically "balanced". With his balanced budget, he entered office in 1995 with about $1.8B in state debt, and left with $4.6B eight years later. Spending? That went up by about 7.5% per year, almost double the rate of increase of the Federal government spending in the period. And he's going to cut Federal spending, right...

You've been reading James Spiller. I'll respond with a link to a rebuttal by Paul Gessing also published by National Review. While he was unable to actually cut spending and debt (he did veto a budget, but the veto was overridden by the Democratic legislature), he did reduce the state deficit to the point where, in 2003, there was virtually no deficit.

In short, Johnson's record as governor should reassure you - he's not a libertarian extremist, and he was able make progress despite the adamant opposition of a legislature that was 60% Democrat. He essentially kept New Mexico from making a lot of stupid spending decisions that would have come back to haunt them five years after he left office. About the only thing he did that was a mistake was the film credit, and he himself will admit that was mistake and he's pressed current legislators to get rid of it. And while you may dismiss his ideas as 19th century, he pretty much proved that they work in New Mexico, even against opposition.

In short, if you're a fiscal conservative of any kind, Johnson is by far the best candidate in the race - both Trump and Clinton have been profligate with their spending promises.

Aetius wrote:

You should also consider that Trump is likely to piss off every sitting Congressman and Senator in the first 90 days, as well as every foreign head of state he meets. His odds of accomplishing anything significant - in particular, serious disasters or large-scale wars - are extraordinarily low due to his abrasive personality and general incompetence.

I wonder how many times that has been said about terrible leaders through history.
One thing he can accomplish even if doing nothing, is continued inaction on any Climate Change agreements. Which to be fair only makes him a tiny bit worse than most other state leaders.

Aetius wrote:
Shadout wrote:

If Johnson is against wage control, that certainly does seem worse than forgetting Aleppo.

If it makes you feel any better, decades of economic illiteracy and the political unpopularity of getting rid of wage controls pretty guarantee that the only thing Johnson will be able to do is head off an increase. :)

I guess I don't actually have to care too much. Unlike the stuff Trump might do, Johnson could at most lead to slow disaster for the US economy (of course dragging everyone else down with it for a while). No doubt that Johnson would be better than Trump. A significant number of breathing and non-breathing entities on Earth could probably do the same. If only it was an election between Trump and Johnson.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Those percentages seem... seem completely arbitrary to me.

They are.

If I were to do the same, I'd put Trump at 100% bad for brown people in the US, and 110% bad for those outside the US who might happen to want to visit the US, even if they are US citizens.

And is there any evidence that Clinton will improve race relations in the United States - given her "tough on crime" record and actual record vs. immigration? At best, she represents the status quo, which we're familiar with from Ferguson and elsewhere. Yes, Trump would be worse domestically, particularly for Hispanics, but I think it's pretty clear that Hillary would be worse on foreign policy. Trump may bluster, but he doesn't have the political competence or interpersonal skills to maintain support for a war machine ... and Clinton does.

I dunno, Obama has a pretty great personality and the GOP didn't mind obstructing pretty much everything he tried to do. Clinton might have gotten away with much more in the 90s, but I don't see that happening now. Given how much the GOP has tried to do to play down Trump's incoherent positions and volatility, I see no reason they would suddenly move against him any harder once he's president.

They don't have to move against him - they just have to not support him. And you can already see that happening, before he's even President, because of his personality. And Obama had the Democrats with him - Trump will have lukewarm, reluctant Republicans "with" him and flaming-poison-cloud-breathing Democrats against him.