NationStates

Zurkerx wrote:

Trotza wrote:And, you know, Hillary's fault for not being able to beat Donald Trump of all people.

Which could tell us something: if he beat her, could you image what some of the other Republicans would of done to her? They probably win in a landslide.

Cetacea wrote:unfortunately it was the Democrats who are to blame for loosing the Presidency

they should have supported Bernie as their candidate instead of their 'safe' option

The Dragon Realms Empire wrote:

Cetacea wrote:unfortunately it was the Democrats who are to blame for loosing the Presidency

they should have supported Bernie as their candidate instead of their 'safe' option

Actually the Democrats depend on minorities who Bernie did very poorly with in the primaries, so while he might have won, I don't know that he would have.

Zurkerx wrote:

Trotza wrote:And, you know, Hillary's fault for not being able to beat Donald Trump of all people.

Which could tell us something: if he beat her, could you image what some of the other Republicans would of done to her? They probably win in a landslide.

Nerotysia wrote:

The Dragon Realms Empire wrote:Actually the Democrats depend on minorities who Bernie did very poorly with in the primaries, so while he might have won, I don't know that he would have.

You really think tons of minority voters would pick Trump over Bernie?

Galloism wrote:

Trotza wrote:There you go again with the unspecific "this". Name a single action he has taken as President of the United States. Obviously that's a bit of a loaded question because there is not a single one.

I'll give you an action he's done to hurt our national interests already, although he was only running for president at the time.

He's bolstered ISIS's recruitment numbers. They use clips of his speeches in their recruitment videos.

Hell, ISIS is celebrating now. They think this is the greatest thing ever. Seriously.

The Dragon Realms Empire wrote:

Nerotysia wrote:You really think tons of minority voters would pick Trump over Bernie?

No, but wasn't minority turnout lower in than in 2008/2012? I imagine if they don't like Bernie the turnout would be even lower.

Trotza wrote:

Galloism wrote:I'll give you an action he's done to hurt our national interests already, although he was only running for president at the time.

He's bolstered ISIS's recruitment numbers. They use clips of his speeches in their recruitment videos.

Hell, ISIS is celebrating now. They think this is the greatest thing ever. Seriously.

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not stumping for Trump, far from it. But one of the better things about having people in office as opposed to on the campaign trail is that we can judge them for their actions as a public official, not just their argued potential or promises. So feel free to criticize his policies as much as you want as soon as they start actually happening, I doubt you'll have to wait long.

Senkaku wrote:Half of Gary's voters (since I'm being generous to their whole "we pull equally" BS) + Stein's voters (since she was overtly courting dissatisfied Dems) would've closed the gap for HRC in a number of key states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and Pennsylvania. I believe they may have also put her within striking distance in Georgia (will check numbers).

Were they the only problem? Certainly not. Did they fuck shit up? Yep. And neither even achieved the 5% mark, so it really wasn't worth it.

Nerotysia wrote:

The Dragon Realms Empire wrote:No, but wasn't minority turnout lower in than in 2008/2012? I imagine if they don't like Bernie the turnout would be even lower.

From what I've seen, white rural voters made the difference this election, and Bernie would likely have performed far better with them.

The Dragon Realms Empire wrote:

Nerotysia wrote:From what I've seen, white rural voters made the difference this election, and Bernie would likely have performed far better with them.

I would agree that there would have been a difference between them; these were people who were feeling left behind by the system afterall and all they wanted were jobs who both Trump and Bernie talked about.

The thing is I don't know that this would make a difference in say, Pennsylvania for example. Many of the potential jobs come from fossil fuel related jobs which Bernie would never have supported (Not saying he should have; we SHOULD be looking for alternatives).

Then again it probably would have made differences in Florida and Michigan so maybe he could have won with his white appeal.

Trotza wrote:

Kubra wrote:Are there really people who think the libertarian vote would have went Clinton if they had to choose between two
Like cmon if anything dem voters should be playing up the libs if they think vote splitting is an issue

I think the argument was that it drew away young voters in particular, but that's just what some dems were saying.

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:

Free Missouri wrote:
I believe his/her point is that the Constitution DOES in fact, GUARANTEE, that, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It does indeed. Many of the Founders considered it a redundant piece of text, but all things considered, it's a good thing it's there.

New Roma Republic wrote:On the book of faces, I have seen multiple posts from my Pro-Clinton friends blaming third party voters as the reason Clinton lost. They say things to the effect of "...third party voters: this wasn't the election to express your distaste in the political system" (That partial quote came from a friend of a friend on Facebook). I feel that this is an unfair generalization. Yes, I voted third party. Yes, I realized at the time I was throwing away my vote. And no, I did not vote as a protest to the system. I voted for the candidate who most closely represented my beliefs.

First, let me say that I am a freshman college student studying Aerospace Engineering, 18, and from a affluent area. I am a white, heterosexual male, and I lean center-left, politically. I come from a fairly conservative area, though it has small pockets of vocal liberals. I am registered as a Democrat, but I vote for whoever I like the best. So now that you know a little about me politically, here is why I voted third party:

I could not in good conscious vote for Donald Trump. I cannot get behind someone who says the stuff he says, even if he says it only to get attention.

As for Hillary Clinton, she just doesn't represent who I am. Sure, it would be nice to have the first woman president, however, there is so much corruption surrounding her that I could not vote for her in good conscious either. So I voted for an obscure third party that very few people had heard of. Why? Because he (mostly) represented my views.

Now, I can see why us third party candidates are being blamed; we always get blamed by the losing side. But you must understand, if I hadn't voted third party, I would not have voted for Clinton. Or Trump. I would have abstained from the Presidential election because the choices were so bad. And that is my right. I have the right to make any decision I want, and I made mine wholeheartedly. If I had the chance to do a do over, I would still vote for the person I voted for.

So, NS, what is your take on this? Are third parties to blame for the Trump Presidency? Do most people vote third party just to express their distaste in the electoral system? Please, give your thoughts below!

Socialist Nordia wrote:

Free Missouri wrote:Sorry, I don't quite like the idea of a handful (100-150ish) of urban areas being able to basically force us to accept a permanent democratic presidency because they can get a plurality.

I sure as hell don't want a Plurality system set up. I'll fight you to the death to avoid that.

That's not what I want either. Require an outright majority, but have instant runoff. And why are you rural voters so entitled that you demand your votes be worth more than ours?

New haven america wrote:While it did hurt, I don't think they're mainly to blame. The system, former Bernie or Bust voters, the Democratic Party's internal drama, Komy, etc... all had a hand in Trump's win.

I personally place most of my blame on the EC, it's an unneeded system that has lead to the loser of the Popular Vote (You know, the part that should matter) to win multiple times. (Trump is currently the 5th person to get away with this)

Karjin wrote:It certainly hurt. Didn't Utah have an independent actually gain more votes than HRC?

Senkaku wrote:Half of Gary's voters (since I'm being generous to their whole "we pull equally" BS) + Stein's voters (since she was overtly courting dissatisfied Dems) would've closed the gap for HRC in a number of key states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and Pennsylvania. I believe they may have also put her within striking distance in Georgia (will check numbers).

Were they the only problem? Certainly not. Did they fuck shit up? Yep. And neither even achieved the 5% mark, so it really wasn't worth it.

Trotza wrote:

Kubra wrote:Are there really people who think the libertarian vote would have went Clinton if they had to choose between two
Like cmon if anything dem voters should be playing up the libs if they think vote splitting is an issue

I think the argument was that it drew away young voters in particular, but that's just what some dems were saying.

Traxa wrote:

New haven america wrote:While it did hurt, I don't think they're mainly to blame. The system, former Bernie or Bust voters, the Democratic Party's internal drama, Komy, etc... all had a hand in Trump's win.

I personally place most of my blame on the EC, it's an unneeded system that has lead to the loser of the Popular Vote (You know, the part that should matter) to win multiple times. (Trump is currently the 5th person to get away with this)

Hillary clinton didnt win the popular vote so you can hate on the EC all you want, it doesn't change anything.

Tectonix wrote:It is possible you could blame them. After all, if the amount of votes Johnson received in Florida had went to HRC, she would've won. Same goes for Pennsylvania. Maybe not all of the blame, but a little, sure.