US General Election Megathread: Trump vs Clinton

[The House of Petain]

Of course not. The effect is greater though when it's coming from Sanders instead of Trump.

At the end of the day, we all know this primary is over. It's mathematically impossible for him to win. All he is doing is dragging effort and energy away from combating Trump to combating Trump and Sanders. Sanders should get over it. More Democrats favor Hillary over Sanders, sucks to be him.

More superdelegates certainly favoured Clinton over Sanders the last time they were polled. Nevada has shown that it doesn't really matter what voters want.

Even if the super delegates were proportionally awarded, Hillary would still be leading. Just not by as huge of a margin. She has 3 million more votes and 300 more pledged delegates. The point here is being missed: Democrats don't want Sanders.

As for Nevada. The only thing I saw was the inability of Sanders people to keep their cool and not resort to death threats and violence.

As for what the voters want, four words: Nebraska and Washington primaries.

[Unpredictable Galaxy]

More superdelegates certainly favoured Clinton over Sanders the last time they were polled. Nevada has shown that it doesn't really matter what voters want.

Even if the super delegates were proportionally awarded, Hillary would still be leading. Just not by as huge of a margin. She has 3 million more votes and 300 more pledged delegates. The point here is being missed: Democrats don't want Sanders.

As for Nevada. The only thing I saw was the inability of Sanders people to keep their cool and not resort to death threats and violence.

As for what the voters want, four words: Nebraska and Washington primaries.

Ahahaah, I think you misspelled Orange-Who-Shant-Be-Named.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/d ... ers-222302
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2611191
http://fortune.com/2016/04/22/trump-fans-death-threats/

[The House of Petain]

Even if the super delegates were proportionally awarded, Hillary would still be leading. Just not by as huge of a margin. She has 3 million more votes and 300 more pledged delegates. The point here is being missed: Democrats don't want Sanders.

As for Nevada. The only thing I saw was the inability of Sanders people to keep their cool and not resort to death threats and violence.

As for what the voters want, four words: Nebraska and Washington primaries.

Ahahaah, I think you misspelled The Republican Named Orange-Who-Shant-Be-Named.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/d ... ers-222302
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2611191
http://fortune.com/2016/04/22/trump-fans-death-threats/

And? It just shows that we have two ass clowns in the race and both have supporters that can't handle anything of short of their guy being crowned King of the populist revolution.

[West Verrica]

The Green Party is avowedly anti intervention in almost every single case.

I understand you may think their policies on drugs isn't as good as the Libertarians, but the Libertarians have economic positions antithetical to the left in almost every way.

I have fairly unique views on economics. I am a extreme leftist in that I think freedom for the few is a contradiction, and because of that I don't like the idea of private property, but I'm also an anarchist because I believe having government is a basic contradiction to the communist goal of dissolving hierarchical structures. This lead me too look for alternative ways to forming a communist (at least similar) society without the nationalizing step. What I end up deciding was the best way to promote my system is to have a classically liberal government that promoted unions to seize the means of production (in a syndicalist style) then take steps to dissolve money and increase interaction between unions.

[Unpredictable Galaxy]

Ahahaah, I think you misspelled The Republican Named Orange-Who-Shant-Be-Named.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/d ... ers-222302
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2611191
http://fortune.com/2016/04/22/trump-fans-death-threats/

And? It just shows that we have two ass clowns in the race and both have supporters that can't handle anything of short of their guy being crowned King of the populist revolution.

The difference between the two "ass clowns?" One ass clown actually condones the violence and believes that some protestors should be "roughed up" and the other alleged "ass clown" condemned the violence.

Edit: It goes to show that Drumpf supporters are the violent and vitriolic group after repeated events of violence at events, whilst the Bernie Sanders supporters at Nevada just blew a gasket at that time; a mistake we've all made.

[The House of Petain]

And? It just shows that we have two ass clowns in the race and both have supporters that can't handle anything of short of their guy being crowned King of the populist revolution.

The difference between the two "ass clowns?" One ass clown actually condones the violence and believes that some protestors should be "roughed up" and the other alleged "ass clown" condemned the violence.

Edit: It goes to show that Trump supporters are the violent and vitriolic group after repeated events of violence at events, whilst the Bernie Sanders supporters at Nevada just blew a gasket at that time; a mistake we've all made.

Rest assured I have not made death threats or resorted to physical violence against a person because my candidate didn't win. Nor did said candidate issue a pussy statement that essentially said "violence is bad, but this is the Nevada Democratic party's own fault..."

[Unpredictable Galaxy]

The difference between the two "ass clowns?" One ass clown actually condones the violence and believes that some protestors should be "roughed up" and the other alleged "ass clown" condemned the violence.

Edit: It goes to show that Drumpf supporters are the violent and vitriolic group after repeated events of violence at events, whilst the Bernie Sanders supporters at Nevada just blew a gasket at that time; a mistake we've all made.

Rest assured I have not made death threats or resorted to physical violence against a person because my candidate didn't win. Nor did said candidate issue a pussy statement that essentially said "violence is bad, but this is the Nevada Democratic party's own fault..."

Did I ever say you resorted to violence? And to condemn the violence was actually a step forward in the direction, unlike the toupee-wearing fruit that is on the other side. As far as calling it a pussy statement, by condemning the violent act of something but advocating that a system was still flawed means "Yes, the Nevada Democratic Party was at fault, but we cannot solve it through violence." You call it a pussy statement, I say it's an act of diplomacy and not stupidity that is shown from the Republican Candidate.

[The House of Petain]

Rest assured I have not made death threats or resorted to physical violence against a person because my candidate didn't win. Nor did said candidate issue a pussy statement that essentially said "violence is bad, but this is the Nevada Democratic party's own fault..."

Did I ever say you resorted to violence? And to condemn the violence was actually a step forward in the direction, unlike the toupee-wearing fruit that is on the other side. As far as calling it a pussy statement, by condemning the violent act of something but advocating that a system was still flawed means "Yes, the Nevada Democratic Party was at fault, but we cannot solve it through violence." You call it a pussy statement, I say it's an act of diplomacy and not stupidity that is shown from the Republican Candidate.

I'd say it wasn't enough and he should have been harsher. It's just sour grapes. My point is we have two candidates who have inspired a following to think if their guy isn't elected and their policies enacted, America as we know it is over. Sanders may not be as vicious as Trump, but he's just as populist and populism is always a dangerous thing.

[Unpredictable Galaxy]

Did I ever say you resorted to violence? And to condemn the violence was actually a step forward in the direction, unlike the toupee-wearing fruit that is on the other side. As far as calling it a pussy statement, by condemning the violent act of something but advocating that a system was still flawed means "Yes, the Nevada Democratic Party was at fault, but we cannot solve it through violence." You call it a pussy statement, I say it's an act of diplomacy and not stupidity that is shown from the Republican Candidate.

I'd say it wasn't enough and he should have been harsher. It's just sour grapes. My point is we have two candidates who have inspired a following to think if their guy isn't elected and their policies enacted, America as we know it is over. Sanders may not be as vicious as Drumpf, but he's just as populist and populism is always a dangerous thing.

Bernie Sanders did believe that the Nevada Party was at fault, that's why it wasn't as harsh as you wanted it to be. He still condemned the violence, that's my point. And I have absolutely no idea how you can come to the conclusion that Sanders is potentially as dangerous as Drumpf; it's like comparing a firecracker to a nuclear weapon. One can potentially do damage (as you believe) but can easily be amended, but the other will decimate a country.

Edit: Typos.

[West Verrica]

I'd say it wasn't enough and he should have been harsher. It's just sour grapes. My point is we have two candidates who have inspired a following to think if their guy isn't elected and their policies enacted, America as we know it is over. Sanders may not be as vicious as Trump, but he's just as populist and populism is always a dangerous thing.

Yo, man, I don't think populism is the issue here, every revolution has the ability to incite violence *puff cough cough*

[Novus America]

I'd say it wasn't enough and he should have been harsher. It's just sour grapes. My point is we have two candidates who have inspired a following to think if their guy isn't elected and their policies enacted, America as we know it is over. Sanders may not be as vicious as Drumpf, but he's just as populist and populism is always a dangerous thing.

Bernie Sanders did believe that the Nevada Party was at fault, that's why it wasn't as harsh as you wanted it to be. He still condemned the violence, that's my point. And I have absolutely no idea how you can come to the conclusion that Sanders is potentially as dangerous as Drumpf; it's like comparing a firecracker to a nuclear weapon. One can potentially do damage (as you believe) but can easily be amended, but the other will decimate a country.

Edit: Typos.

Trump is an empty suit. He is a shit candidate. But will not decimate the country. He sometimes pretends to be dangerous and his supporters like that. But he is not actually dangerous. He admitted His whole primary shtick was a lie just to get past the primary.

[Unpredictable Galaxy]

I'd say it wasn't enough and he should have been harsher. It's just sour grapes. My point is we have two candidates who have inspired a following to think if their guy isn't elected and their policies enacted, America as we know it is over. Sanders may not be as vicious as Drumpf, but he's just as populist and populism is always a dangerous thing.

Yo, man, I don't think populism is the issue here, every revolution has the ability to incite violence *puff cough cough*

And I'm fairly certain that populism has always been apart of politics; by it's definition, at least.

Definition of Populism:

noun
1.
the political philosophy of the People's party.
2.
(lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
3.
(lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
4.
(lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.:

What Sanders is suggesting is not unorthodox in the world, merely to the United States, and has been proven to work (Nordic Countries), not to mention he wants to be defined as a Democratic Socialist.

[Novus America]

Yo, man, I don't think populism is the issue here, every revolution has the ability to incite violence *puff cough cough*

And I'm fairly certain that populism has always been apart of politics; by it's definition, at least.

Definition of Populism:

noun
1.
the political philosophy of the People's party.
2.
(lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
3.
(lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
4.
(lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.:

What Sanders is suggesting is not unorthodox in the world, merely to the United States, and has been proven to work (Nordic Countries), not to mention he wants to be defined as a Democratic Socialist.

Which makes no sense as the Nordics are social democratic NOT democratic socialist...

And many of his policies are completely different than what the Nordics use. Like breaking up banks. The Nordics also have high ecnomic freedom. Yet he opposes that.

The problem with Sanders is he advocates the Nordic model in a cargo cult manner without understanding it at all.

[Unpredictable Galaxy]

Bernie Sanders did believe that the Nevada Party was at fault, that's why it wasn't as harsh as you wanted it to be. He still condemned the violence, that's my point. And I have absolutely no idea how you can come to the conclusion that Sanders is potentially as dangerous as Drumpf; it's like comparing a firecracker to a nuclear weapon. One can potentially do damage (as you believe) but can easily be amended, but the other will decimate a country.

Edit: Typos.

Drumpf is an empty suit. He is a shit candidate. But will not decimate the country. He sometimes pretends to be dangerous and his supporters like that. But he is not actually dangerous. He admitted His whole primary shtick was a lie just to get past the primary.

I wish to believe that this is true, but based on the campaign and words that have been said so far, I can't remove my fear until the general election is over and he loses.

[Jamzmania]

Yo, man, I don't think populism is the issue here, every revolution has the ability to incite violence *puff cough cough*

And I'm fairly certain that populism has always been apart of politics; by it's definition, at least.

Definition of Populism:

noun
1.
the political philosophy of the People's party.
2.
(lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
3.
(lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
4.
(lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.:

What Sanders is suggesting is not unorthodox in the world, merely to the United States, and has been proven to work (Nordic Countries), not to mention he wants to be defined as a Democratic Socialist.

The Nordic countries have only managed to maintain good-ish economies as a result of the resilience of the economies that grew from their earlier free market laws. Their economies have survived despite socialism, not benefited from it. And they are steadily declining.

[Novus America]

And I'm fairly certain that populism has always been apart of politics; by it's definition, at least.

Definition of Populism:

noun
1.
the political philosophy of the People's party.
2.
(lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
3.
(lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
4.
(lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.:

What Sanders is suggesting is not unorthodox in the world, merely to the United States, and has been proven to work (Nordic Countries), not to mention he wants to be defined as a Democratic Socialist.

The Nordic countries have only managed to maintain good-ish economies as a result of the resilience of the economies that grew from their earlier free market laws. Their economies have survived despite socialism, not benefited from it. And they are steadily declining.

They were never socialist. Social democratic instead. And they have a strong free market and high ecnomic freedom. Sanders knows nothing about the Nordic model.

[Unpredictable Galaxy]

And I'm fairly certain that populism has always been apart of politics; by it's definition, at least.

Definition of Populism:

noun
1.
the political philosophy of the People's party.
2.
(lowercase) any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies.
3.
(lowercase) grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism.
4.
(lowercase) representation or extolling of the common person, the working class, the underdog, etc.:

What Sanders is suggesting is not unorthodox in the world, merely to the United States, and has been proven to work (Nordic Countries), not to mention he wants to be defined as a Democratic Socialist.

Which makes no sense as the Nordics are social democratic NOT democratic socialist...

I did a bit of research and there is a difference between the two, like you've said. What Sanders is suggesting is that businesses should be run in a democracy way (I perceive this as bulk of unions) while retaining a socialistic aspect, while social democracies do allow private enterprises to be run independently. When he says that we should turn to an economic standards like Nordic countries, he means the socialist portion (healthcare benefits, maternity leave, higher pay, etc.).

[West Verrica]

What Sanders is suggesting is not unorthodox in the world, merely to the United States, and has been proven to work (Nordic Countries), not to mention he wants to be defined as a Democratic Socialist.

I don't think Democratic Socialist is accurate. Socialism implies the workers owning the means of production which he doesn't advocate for. Also, I feel his campaign would have gone a little better had he called himself a populist.

[Unpredictable Galaxy]

What Sanders is suggesting is not unorthodox in the world, merely to the United States, and has been proven to work (Nordic Countries), not to mention he wants to be defined as a Democratic Socialist.

I don't think Democratic Socialist is accurate. Socialism implies the workers owning the means of production which he doesn't advocate for. Also, I feel his campaign would have gone a little better had he called himself a populist.

Sanders does identify himself as a Socialist (he runs as an Independent senator in Vermont), but labeled himself as a Democratic Socialist for his campaign. The population would never pick a Socialist ("Dem commies gon destroy our country"). Who knows, however, what it would be like if he did call himself a populist.

[Cymrea]

Sanders does identify himself as a Socialist (he runs as an Independent senator in Vermont), but labeled himself as a Democratic Socialist for his campaign. The population would never pick a Socialist ("Dem commies gon destroy our country"). Who knows, however, what it would be like if he did call himself a populist.

Anyone equating socialism with communism is grossly uninformed. Reminding them that the military they (and I) strongly support is a socialist programme doesn't appear to help.

[Khadgar]

Sanders does identify himself as a Socialist (he runs as an Independent senator in Vermont), but labeled himself as a Democratic Socialist for his campaign. The population would never pick a Socialist ("Dem commies gon destroy our country"). Who knows, however, what it would be like if he did call himself a populist. :o

Anyone equating socialism with communism is grossly uninformed. Reminding them that the military they (and I) strongly support is a socialist programme doesn't appear to help.

An informed electorate is an annoying electorate better for those in a position of power to keep them confused.

[West Verrica]

Sanders does identify himself as a Socialist (he runs as an Independent senator in Vermont), but labeled himself as a Democratic Socialist for his campaign. The population would never pick a Socialist ("Dem commies gon destroy our country"). Who knows, however, what it would be like if he did call himself a populist.

I guess we'll never know. :'(

[The House of Petain]

I'd say it wasn't enough and he should have been harsher. It's just sour grapes. My point is we have two candidates who have inspired a following to think if their guy isn't elected and their policies enacted, America as we know it is over. Sanders may not be as vicious as Trump, but he's just as populist and populism is always a dangerous thing.

Yo, man, I don't think populism is the issue here, every revolution has the ability to incite violence *puff cough cough*

It absolutely has everything to do with it. Populism plays into the fears and desires of people, often usually through a scapegoat, whether it be poor undocumented immigrants or individuals that happen to work on Wall Street. It's easy to say free this, they'll pay for it, etc., takes a bit more balls to say "let's be realistic here...."

But because its plays into those fears and desires, people act that if it doesn't happen, the world as we know it will be over.

[West Verrica]

It absolutely has everything to do with it. Populism plays into the fears and desires of people, often usually through a scapegoat, whether it be poor undocumented immigrants or individuals that happen to work on Wall Street. It's easy to say free this, they'll pay for it, etc., takes a bit more balls to say "let's be realistic here...."

But because its plays into those fears and desires, people act that if it doesn't happen, the world as we know it will be over.

I mean at its core isn't populism just advocating for policy that benefits the common man. It's understandable to say that some populist candidates use a particular type of rhetoric so that the common man understand them, but to say an ideology that has nothing to do with violence is the reason for violence is ridiculous.

Edit: still bad with words

[Unpredictable Galaxy]

Yo, man, I don't think populism is the issue here, every revolution has the ability to incite violence *puff cough cough*

It absolutely has everything to do with it. Populism plays into the fears and desires of people, often usually through a scapegoat, whether it be poor undocumented immigrants or individuals that happen to work on Wall Street. It's easy to say free this, they'll pay for it, etc., takes a bit more balls to say "let's be realistic here...."

But because its plays into those fears and desires, people act that if it doesn't happen, the world as we know it will be over.

Considering how the individuals on Wall Street are what CAUSED the problem and have not even been convicted for it (ONE banker, and the rest were able to walk off free), I would hardly call that a scapegoat. The way you're labeling it is like there never WAS a problem on Wall Street to begin with, and that challenging it is actually a demagogues approach.