US General Election Thread III: Clinton vs. Trump

[Gauthier]

I don't believe him, to be honest.

Neither do I

"Bullshit Artist." -Fareed Zakaria

[Gauthier]

Reports are that Trump's Secret Service detail had to protect a CNN reporter from harm at the hands of his supporters when he blasted her from the stage for "dishonest" reporting.

Now I know what Trump's campaign reminds me of.

Network.

[USS Monitor]

Edit: To clarify, I know Trump didn't do anything he could be convicted for here. But he sure pissed all over the spirit of the law, and democracy, and human decency.

Just Trump being Trump. Pissing on human decency is his specialty.

[Myrensis]

The mental gymnastics displayed here beat Reddit's The Donad at times.

How so?

Trump set to outline plans to fight "homosexual totalitarianism" at Anti-LGBT event on Orlando anniversary

It's actually quite hilarious, given how his supporters have tried to point to his convention speech as proof of his acceptance of gays.

Trumps pitch to gay voters and supporters of gay rights is essentially "You accept second class citizenship, and I'll make loud, vague, but comforting noises bout keeping you safe from scary things. How is that not a great deal?!"

[USS Monitor]

I'm supporting the LP, but I can't mind-control other people to make them stop strategic voting for the "lesser of two evils."

No, you can't. But you could modify the system. There are several solutions.

In many European countries companies and individuals can't donate big money to a party or candidate. Instead they receive a limited sum from the government.

When money is less an issue, more people could jump into the debate. And what's more, these candidates are not tied to the wishes and desires of the donating companies.

Another solution could be randomly pick a president. Of course these people should have some minimal qualifications: being an adult, having no criminal record, attended at least high school, ... A bit how members of a jury are selected in a courtroom case.

And the picked one should have the right to refuse the offer.

There are other solutions as well to break the eternal oligopoly and bring more democracy into your country.

I don't have the authority to do any of that, and the people who are in positions of authority are too busy bickering about abortion and whatever.

[Nacesa Plana]

No, you can't. But you could modify the system. There are several solutions.

In many European countries companies and individuals can't donate big money to a party or candidate. Instead they receive a limited sum from the government.

When money is less an issue, more people could jump into the debate. And what's more, these candidates are not tied to the wishes and desires of the donating companies.

Another solution could be randomly pick a president. Of course these people should have some minimal qualifications: being an adult, having no criminal record, attended at least high school, ... A bit how members of a jury are selected in a courtroom case.

And the picked one should have the right to refuse the offer.

There are other solutions as well to break the eternal oligopoly and bring more democracy into your country.

I don't have the authority to do any of that, and the people who are in positions of authority are too busy bickering about abortion and whatever.

You don’t have the authority, but you still have the power to change things. But you need to unite.

Of course you can give another brainless vote to Hillary or Trump and go for the status quo. Whoever you elect, nothing will change much.

[USS Monitor]

I don't have the authority to do any of that, and the people who are in positions of authority are too busy bickering about abortion and whatever.

You don’t have the authority, but you still have the power to change things. But you need to unite.

Of course you give another brainless vote to Hillary or Trump and go for the status quo. Whoever you elect, nothing will change much.

And now we're back to that thing where I can't mind-control the rest of the American population.

[AiliailiA]

(Image)

The vast majority of Americans think they either pay "about enough" or too much taxes.

That's 2015 when tax rates were about the same as now. So the majority don't want a tax cut!

Trump is offering a tax cut, but HIS proposal wouldn't reduce the "pay more than my share" group much, because it would barely cut most people's taxes at all. Working and middle class would get a small tax cut BUT their share of all taxes paid would INCREASE.

You should probably source the whole article you know. One graph out of context doesn't say a lot.

might even get himself plugged by a nut on the far left who's had enough. blow back can be a bitch.

I wouldn't be upset.

I would!

(a) If he died of it, that would solve the Republicans problem for them and they could pick someone else. Or late in the process, they might have to stick with Pence, but either way the replacement candidate would very probably beat Clinton.

(b) If he didn't die of being shot, he'd get a sympathy bump and it might even make him less of a dick and thus more electable.

(a) is good for Republicans and (b) is good for Trump, so neither seems good to me.

[Nacesa Plana]

You don’t have the authority, but you still have the power to change things. But you need to unite.

Of course you give another brainless vote to Hillary or Trump and go for the status quo. Whoever you elect, nothing will change much.

And now we're back to that thing where I can't mind-control the rest of the American population.

No, we are not back. Present times, you can unite and influence people pretty fast and easy. We have the internet.

Currently, individuals with a lack of money make it possible that millions of people are visiting their websites.

[USS Monitor]

And now we're back to that thing where I can't mind-control the rest of the American population.

No, we are not back. Present times, you can unite and influence people pretty fast and easy. We have the internet.

Currently, individuals with a lack of money make it possible that millions of people are visiting their websites.

OK, prove it. Unite the American people to make one of your suggestions happen. Your choice which one. If all you need is the internet, then you should have no trouble.

[Nacesa Plana]

No, we are not back. Present times, you can unite and influence people pretty fast and easy. We have the internet.

Currently, individuals with a lack of money make it possible that millions of people are visiting their websites.

OK, prove it. Unite the American people to make one of your suggestions happen. Your choice which one. If all you need is the internet, then you should have no trouble.

There are countless websites of individuals which attract hordes of people every day. It's like asking evidence for water on Earth.

If YOU will attract enough people to get things done, I don’t know.
But you can wait in your chair and surely nothing will change.

[New Chalcedon]

Oh, so that's what you are, Nacesa Plana: Another "Look, they're both the same!" lazy-minded person, who pushes for "the revolution" to start up, but leaves all the work of actually building a movement (as opposed to a bunch of keyboard warriors posting memes) to someone else.

Damn, I guess you're just too edgy for me.

[AiliailiA]

I'm supporting the LP, but I can't mind-control other people to make them stop strategic voting for the "lesser of two evils."

No, you can't. But you could modify the system. There are several solutions.

In many European countries companies and individuals can't donate big money to a party or candidate. Instead they receive a limited sum from the government.

When money is less an issue, more people could jump into the debate. And what's more, these candidates are not tied to the wishes and desires of the donating companies.

That must be a cultural difference I think, rather than a legal structure difference.

In the US, substantially defunding party campaigns would simply cede the field of "debate" to whoever can pay for Political Action Committees. And you can't ban that unless you're going to take a big shit on the First Amendment.

Another solution could be randomly pick a president. Of course these people should have some minimal qualifications: being an adult, having no criminal record, attended at least high school, ... A bit how members of a jury are selected in a courtroom case.

And the picked one should have the right to refuse the offer.

Good luck with the extensive amendments to the constitution that would require.

I think it's a harebrained alternative and horribly undemocratic, but I wish you luck anyway. Because I am that confident it would never happen!

There are other solutions as well to break the eternal oligopoly and bring more democracy into your country.

The US is democratic, it's just not very representational.

After all, I advocate a change to the system too. But I always work within the limits of the constitution as it is now because changes to it which would disadvantage either of the two big partys are hugely unlikely to succeed.

Not to bang on too long about it, but only the US House can be practically reformed. The Senate and the Presidency are stuck the way they are, other than possibly the minor reform of first-past-the-post popular vote for President instead of electoral college. While I support that too, it's really a lot of bother for not much reform.

[Nacesa Plana]

Oh, so that's what you are, Nacesa Plana: Another "Look, they're both the same!" lazy-minded person.

Damn, I guess you're just too edgy for me.

They are basically the same. Only the package is a bit different.

Do you consider Hillary or Trump as strong candidates?

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, so that's what you are, Nacesa Plana: Another "Look, they're both the same!" lazy-minded person.

Damn, I guess you're just too edgy for me.

They are basically the same. Only the package is a bit different.

Do you consider Hillary or Trump as strong candidates?

"both weak" does not equal "the same".

You are either being intellectually lazy, or deliberately disingenuous.

And "the packaging" is as different as night and day. Clinton actually knows how to look, sound, and act like a fucking professional instead of a mob-raising bigoted lunatic/thug.

As to substance...

Clinton is status quo with incremental shifts Left or perhaps Right depending on the issue, for the most part.

Trump is a would-be fascist, bigoted despot.

[Nacesa Plana]

No, you can't. But you could modify the system. There are several solutions.

In many European countries companies and individuals can't donate big money to a party or candidate. Instead they receive a limited sum from the government.

When money is less an issue, more people could jump into the debate. And what's more, these candidates are not tied to the wishes and desires of the donating companies.

That must be a cultural difference I think, rather than a legal structure difference.

In the US, substantially defunding party campaigns would simply cede the field of "debate" to whoever can pay for Political Action Committees. And you can't ban that unless you're going to take a big shit on the First Amendment.

Another solution could be randomly pick a president. Of course these people should have some minimal qualifications: being an adult, having no criminal record, attended at least high school, ... A bit how members of a jury are selected in a courtroom case.

And the picked one should have the right to refuse the offer.

Good luck with the extensive amendments to the constitution that would require.

I think it's a harebrained alternative and horribly undemocratic, but I wish you luck anyway. Because I am that confident it would never happen!

There are other solutions as well to break the eternal oligopoly and bring more democracy into your country.

The US is democratic, it's just not very representational.

After all, I advocate a change to the system too. But I always work within the limits of the constitution as it is now because changes to it which would disadvantage either of the two big partys are hugely unlikely to succeed.

Not to bang on too long about it, but only the US House can be practically reformed. The Senate and the Presidency are stuck the way they are, other than possibly the minor reform of first-past-the-post popular vote for President instead of electoral college. While I support that too, it's really a lot of bother for not much reform.

According me, constitutions can change as well.

In many European countries it was allowed in the past to donate big money to political parties. They changed this.

I don't see why it can't be possible in USA.

[Grave_n_idle]

Hard times for America. In the red corner you have Trump, a bad troll. In the blue corner you have Hillary, a certified liar.
USA is having two of the worst candidates since ever.

Why don’t you all give your vote to the Libertarians, the Greens or another party?
They can’t be worse as Hillary and Trump.

Clinton scores surprisingly well on 'truth' meters. Trump doesn't. It constantly surprises me that people pretend Clinton is the more deceptive one running.

Voting for Stein might not be a bad protest vote. Voting for Johnson would be worse than voting for any of the others EXCEPT Trump.

The USA has had far worse candidates than Clinton. Reagan, for example. And he won by a landslide. Apparently, dumpster fires are what America likes.

[Nacesa Plana]

They are basically the same. Only the package is a bit different.

Do you consider Hillary or Trump as strong candidates?

"both weak" does not equal "the same".

You are either being intellectually lazy, or deliberately disingenuous.

And "the packaging" is as different as night and day. Clinton actually knows how to look, sound, and act like a fucking professional instead of a mob-raising bigoted lunatic/thug.

As to substance...

Clinton is status quo with incremental shifts Left or perhaps Right depending on the issue, for the most part.

Trump is a would-be fascist, bigoted despot.

Clinton is a professional liar. Trump is a liar too. But only not that professional. But that's a package issue.

And yes they are basically the same. They might have other ideas about minor issues, in the end they both serve not you, but the super riches.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hard times for America. In the red corner you have Trump, a bad troll. In the blue corner you have Hillary, a certified liar.
USA is having two of the worst candidates since ever.

Why don’t you all give your vote to the Libertarians, the Greens or another party?
They can’t be worse as Hillary and Trump.

Clinton scores surprisingly well on 'truth' meters. Trump doesn't. It constantly surprises me that people pretend Clinton is the more deceptive one running.

Some people seem to mistake "being an unapologetic scumbag" for "honest candidate who speaks his mind". Like they mistake "arrogant bully" for "strong leader".

Of course, that may be being too generous. They may just want a fascist lunatic as President.

Voting for Stein might not be a bad protest vote. Voting for Johnson would be worse than voting for any of the others EXCEPT Trump.

Stein is a bad joke, her VP pick is a nut, and vote splitting on the Left aids Trump and the Republicans.

The USA has had far worse candidates than Clinton. Reagan, for example. And he won by a landslide. Apparently, dumpster fires are what America likes.

Reagan is the worst you can come up with?

Presidents (never mind candidates) gives us W. Bush, Nixon, Wilson, Jackson, fucking Buchanan...

All of those are arguably, at least, worse than Reagan.

[Nacesa Plana]

Hard times for America. In the red corner you have Trump, a bad troll. In the blue corner you have Hillary, a certified liar.
USA is having two of the worst candidates since ever.

Why don’t you all give your vote to the Libertarians, the Greens or another party?
They can’t be worse as Hillary and Trump.

Clinton scores surprisingly well on 'truth' meters. Trump doesn't. It constantly surprises me that people pretend Clinton is the more deceptive one running.

Voting for Stein might not be a bad protest vote. Voting for Johnson would be worse than voting for any of the others EXCEPT Trump.

The USA has had far worse candidates than Clinton. Reagan, for example. And he won by a landslide. Apparently, dumpster fires are what America likes.

Stop the Presses! Breaking news! Clinton isn't a liar! She scores well on Truth meters. lol

There are countless videos on Youtube were she said x in the past and y present times. And what's much worse, she denies that she once said x.

I’m not sure if Hillary is aware she’s lying or not. If she’s aware, she’s a pathological liar. If she doesn’t know she’s lying then she’s a pseudologic fantasist.

None of them are good. You are both times f*cked anyway.

[Grave_n_idle]

Reagan is the worst you can come up with?

Presidents (never mind candidates) gives us W. Bush, Nixon, Wilson, Jackson, fucking Buchanan...

All of those are arguably, at least, worse than Reagan.

I didn't say Reagan was worst. I said he was an example of someone far worse than Clinton.

But Reagan is worse than you're allowing for. Nixon just gave us Watergate, but it broke him. Reagan gave us Iran-Contra, and got away with it.

And we're still trying to recover from Reagan's damage to the social and political fabric that he sacrificed for his own short-term advantage.

[Dahon]

I think Trump has a far higher chance of winning than the OP suggests. It all depends on a good strategy and campaign.

If you ignore what he's been doing to himself since the end of the Republican convention, if you're in love with the way Trump is driving well near everyone else into Clinton's or Johnson's or freaking Stein's hands, then yes, Trump's running the greatest campaign we've ever seen since some schmuck tried his hand at selling fucking sliced bread.

I don't think the guy can take a hint

I do know that I am a trump supporter, but I think He need to know that ISIS was founded in 1999 by Jordanian radical Abu Musab al-Zarqawi under the name Jamāʻat al-Tawḥīd wa-al-Jihād!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_S ... nt#History

That's a wrong fact and you know that. Right facts support Donald J. Trump; wrong facts are neutral or support people other than Donald J. Trump.

[Grave_n_idle]

Stop the Presses! Breaking news! Clinton isn't a liar! She scores well on Truth meters. lol

It's not news to anyone that has been paying any attention for the last few years.

I'm not sure why you think factchecking organisations are a bad thing. It seems to me like they are a useful tool.

There are countless videos on Youtube were she said x in the past and y present times.

That's not what a 'lie' is.

Your rhetoric is so 2004. Changing positions is not actually bad.

None of them are good. You are both times f*cked anyway.

*shrugs*

Some options are worse than others. It's nonsense to pretend otherwise.

[New Chalcedon]

Oh, so that's what you are, Nacesa Plana: Another "Look, they're both the same!" lazy-minded person.

Damn, I guess you're just too edgy for me.

They are basically the same. Only the package is a bit different.

Do you consider Hillary or Trump as strong candidates?

I don't consider them remotely similar. One's a mildly left-of-centre candidate who largely believes in "business as usual" but can be pushed toward progressive policies on at least some issues; the other's an out-and-out Fascist. And no, I'm not just throwing around the term for the fun of it. Trump is, both in style and (such as there is any to him) substance, a Fascist along the lines of Benito Mussolini. Someone who is scapegoating a small, impotent fraction of the population for the ills suffered by the nation, and whose policy prescriptions completely ignore any pretense of reality in favour of punishing those scapegoats.

In a previous election cycle, I might have agreed with you. Certainly, Gore was unable to differentiate himself enough from "compassionate conservative" Bush in 2000 (although we see how that turned out...), and Bill Clinton's chief selling-point over Bob Dole was that he was younger, abler and more energetic, not that he was markedly to Dole's left (he wasn't, at least on some issues). But the rise of the Tea Party - and in particular, its growing influence over (and now, overt dominance of) the Republican Party - has changed that.

Has Hillary moved to the left of where she was a decade ago? Some, I think. Not as far as I'd have liked her to, but some. Do I think she'll even try to carry out her policy platform? I say give her a chance - she was once very liberal before being convinced that America wasn't interested in liberalism, and we know that the alternative is worse than business-as-usual. People like you, who encourage disillusioned left-of-center voters to vote for spoiler candidates, are effectively supporting Donald Trump. Is that nice or fair? No. But it's the reality of a first-past-the-post system.

If you want to change that electoral method, or the system built on it? Build a movement. And I mean, seriously, build a movement. Articulate a set of policymaking principles you want adopted, find (or persuade people into becoming) supporters, recruit candidates to run at all levels of government - right down to school-district supervisory elections and - eventually - start primarying Democrats who aren't up to snuff by your standards. In short, can the edgier-than-thou "They're really both the same" crap, and actually work to make the country better, starting at the local level.

[New Chalcedon]

Clinton scores surprisingly well on 'truth' meters. Trump doesn't. It constantly surprises me that people pretend Clinton is the more deceptive one running.

Voting for Stein might not be a bad protest vote. Voting for Johnson would be worse than voting for any of the others EXCEPT Trump.

The USA has had far worse candidates than Clinton. Reagan, for example. And he won by a landslide. Apparently, dumpster fires are what America likes.

Stop the Presses! Breaking news! Clinton isn't a liar! She scores well on Truth meters. lol

There are countless videos on Youtube were she said x in the past and y present times. And what's much worse, she denies that she once said x.

I’m not sure if Hillary is aware she’s lying or not. If she’s aware, she’s a pathological liar. If she doesn’t know she’s lying then she’s a pseudologic fantasist.

None of them are good. You are both times f*cked anyway.

Can the "edgier than thou" crap, and read this - it's an analysis of the ways the two lie, and the areas in which they have the highest propensity to. Who knows, you might actually learn something. Maybe.