Elections 2016 Presidential Election General Discussion v2

[Renard]

It's rigged in the sense that the debate commission isn't an independent body, the members are appointed by the DNC and RNC, and they make sure through the 15% rule that they prevent third parties from participating in debates. The media gives pretty much 0 publicity to third party candidates. The DNC and RNC conventions are essentially huge publicity stunts that third parties can't afford to have.

This shit will go on until you get money out of politics and put in place public funding of elections like in other western countries.

 

[mcveteran81]

Personally I don't care for the electoral system.

Every states electoral system should be based on popular vote leading to % of the electoral going to both parties respectively based on their % in each state.

This whole winner takes all bullshit is a rigged system that does not represent the choice of the people. (I.E if one party "A" wins 51% of the vote in state "x" and the other party "B" wins 49% in the same state party "A" *wins* all the electoral votes for state "x" is fucking stupid. How is that not rigged? That shit should be divided by both parties receiving the % of electoral based on who voted for them.... But of course that shit will never happen in this country)

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Personally I don't care for the electoral system.

Every states electoral system should be based on popular vote leading to % of the electoral going to both parties respectively based on their % in each state.

This whole winner takes all bullshit is a rigged system that does not represent the choice of the people. (I.E if one party "A" wins 51% of the vote in state "x" and the other party "B" wins 49% in the same state party "A" *wins* all the electoral votes for state "x" is fucking stupid. How is that not rigged? That shit should be divided by both parties receiving the % of electoral based on who voted for them.... But of course that shit will never happen in this country)

it all started with the original constitution, as you may be aware.

originally, there was no direct vote on senate members or president. the founders thought that the common man voting on house of rep was democratic enough. then the house of rep members, who were likely more educated than the common man, would select senate and pres.

id actually like to go back to this. the average person, no matter their political views, arent smart enough to elect people imo. it wasnt until andrew jackson needed the common man's vote, that he pushed for this change.

edit: and i just noticed that i misread your post. i thought you were talking about electoral college doing the selecting...

 

[JonnyRingo84]

It's rigged in the sense that the debate commission isn't an independent body, the members are appointed by the DNC and RNC, and they make sure through the 15% rule that they prevent third parties from participating in debates. The media gives pretty much 0 publicity to third party candidates. The DNC and RNC conventions are essentially huge publicity stunts that third parties can't afford to have.

This shit will go on until you get money out of politics and put in place public funding of elections like in other western countries.

but within the parties, there are many different factions that represent basically everyone. for example, republicans are where the neo cons, evangelicals, fascists, libertarians, tea party types all reside.

 

[Canned Tuna]

They aren't left to chance. Leaving them to chance would be flipping a coin. If you are saying they are rigged, well, you're just making excuses for Trump's inevitable ass whooping he will take in the general election. Wah wah wah.

What if I believed they were rigged prior to this election cycle?

 

[Broken arrow]

yes it's all predetermined.

We are talking about the top 1% most powerful in the world. There is no way we get to choose

 

[Blackened]

it all started with the original constitution, as you may be aware.

originally, there was no direct vote on senate members or president. the founders thought that the common man voting on house of rep was democratic enough. then the house of rep members, who were likely more educated than the common man, would select senate and pres.

id actually like to go back to this. the average person, no matter their political views, arent smart enough to elect people imo. it wasnt until andrew jackson needed the common man's vote, that he pushed for this change.

edit: and i just noticed that i misread your post. i thought you were talking about electoral college doing the selecting...

Long live the republic!

I agree. Apparently the average IQ in inner cities is around 85. Fucking crazy! Dumber than most sherdoggers, voting on the president. God help us.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Seriously - have someone talk about Clinton the same way you're talking about Palin and you'd have audiences lining up to decry how sexist you are - yet, that's pretty much par for the course when talking about Palin.

Can you think of any differences between the two that might account for reasonable people talking about them differently? Like, oh, intelligence, education, knowledge of issues, experience, accomplishments, maybe? Any differences there?

 

[ehtheist]

Can you think of any differences between the two that might account for reasonable people talking about them differently? Like, oh, intelligence, education, knowledge of issues, experience, accomplishments, maybe? Any differences there?

Absolutely. Why do you ask?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

it's not American Idol ffs (rigged, clearly if you didn't know)

 

[Mainez]

I may be called naive by some of you, but I still believe in the core integrity of voting. Yes, there are millions spent to sway our votes, but I do believe there is a genuine attempt to count every vote to produce a result that is accurate.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Absolutely. Why do you ask?

If so, it invalidates your point.

Are you going to play dumb for several posts again? If so, I'm not really interested.

 

[ehtheist]

If so, it invalidates your point.

Are you going to play dumb for several posts again? If so, I'm not really interested.

I'm not playing dumb at all. I am just finding it fruitful to preface discussions with you with questions which cut through your usual smokescreen and possibly get you to say what you're actually getting at. I thought your post was incredibly trite, seeming to be belaboring a virtual truism, so I thought I might poke a bit until you actually spit out what you were getting at - and here we are.

Anyways, I don't agree that it invalidates anything. Of course there are differences between the two individuals which have people talking about them differently. This is literally true of every single person to have ever existed, hence you belaboring a truism, from a comparative standpoint. Generally though, we don't predicate whether many things are sexist or not on a person's "intelligence, education, knowledge of issues, experience, accomplishments." Whether I agree with it or not, this tends to be how the popular dialogue of sexism and racism goes. Go figure it's still considered racist for a white person to call a black person a n***er, regardless of their education, intelligence, accomplishments, etc. Much like it's widely considered sexist to constantly pose questions to Hillary about her pantsuits in virtue of her sex, not her accomplishments.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not playing dumb at all. I am just finding it fruitful to preface discussions with you with questions which cut through your usual smokescreen and possibly get you to say what you're actually getting at.

That's a ridiculous attack. Are you sure you have the right guy?

Anyways, I don't agree that it invalidates anything.

Of course it does. If people were talking about a person with Clinton's background the same way they talk about someone with Palin's background, that probably *would* indicate sexism, as they have almost nothing in common except that they are women. Everyone knows that Palin was simply not a serious candidate--her resume was nowhere near what you expect from someone on a presidential ticket. Conversely, Clinton is unusually well-qualified (regardless of what you think of her positions).

You're acting like people are just calling Palin the c-word or a bitch. That's not the case. They were saying that she was absurdly unqualified, which is factually the case.

 

[ehtheist]

That's a ridiculous attack. Are you sure you have the right guy?

Yes. I am absolutely 100% positive that I have the right guy. I mean, after all that posturing in your first post, my line of questioning did get me to what you were actually getting at - that you believe my point to be invalid.

Of course it does. If people were talking about a person with Clinton's background the same way they talk about someone with Palin's background, that probably *would* indicate sexism, as they have almost nothing in common except that they are women. Everyone knows that Palin was simply not a serious candidate--her resume was nowhere near what you expect from someone on a presidential ticket. Conversely, Clinton is unusually well-qualified (regardless of what you think of her positions).

You're acting like people are just calling Palin the c-word or a bitch. That's not the case. They were saying that she was absurdly unqualified, which is factually the case.

Honestly, I have trouble taking a word salad like this when you assume some sort of corporate knowledge - "Everyone knows that Palin was simply nota serious candidate" which it's painfully obvious you don't have. In a country where one of our most prestigious presidents of the last century was a B level actor, are you sure you want to talk about what kind of lack of accomplishments would make someone an acceptable president to the American public? Hell, I've actually seen Trump leading in the polls at least once, but I'm guessing you're sold on the narrative that a state governor is an impossibility as a presidential candidate?...

 

[IDL]

Predetermined meaning what though.. Between the two candidates is it already decided? Not necessarily although it can be heavily manipulated. What if one of them gets hit by a truck? There are always unknowns.

More importantly is the idea that both horses are a win to those in power already. Influencing the choices is just as good as influencing the outcome. In addition, the ability to control anyone in the POTUS position is the ace up the sleeve.

They are kept in the dark, and can be heavily manipulated by those already in the know.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes. I am absolutely 100% positive that I have the right guy. I mean, after all that posturing in your first post, my line of questioning did get me to what you were actually getting at - that you believe my point to be invalid.

Er, that was clear from the beginning, but it's apparent that your saltiness won't allow you to just discuss an issue normally for a while.

Honestly, I have trouble taking a word salad like this when you assume some sort of corporate knowledge - "Everyone knows that Palin was simply nota serious candidate" which it's painfully obvious you don't have.

There's no word salad, and you're playing dumb again. I get that you have an ideological affinity with Palin, but objectively, her qualifications were nowhere near what is expected.

In a country where one of our most prestigious presidents of the last century was a B level actor, are you sure you want to talk about what kind of lack of accomplishments would make someone an acceptable president to the American public?

Prestigious? Anyway, Reagan had been a two-term governor of the most populous state in the union and head of a major union. Palin had nothing like that to compare.

Hell, I've actually seen Trump leading in the polls at least once, but I'm guessing you're sold on the narrative that a state governor is an impossibility as a presidential candidate?...

Are you really guessing that or are you just saying it to try to misrepresent my position?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

so when leftists claim Hilary is 'unusually well qualified', are they forgetting about a literal litany of past presidents, such as GHW Bush? Nixon? Cleveland? Wilson? etc... or are they just comparing her to say Obama

If she's more qualified than most, than what was GHW Bush?

before president, he was:
WWII Vet, w/ distinguished flying cross and 3 air medals
President/CEO of successful oil company
US Rep from Texas
Ambassador to UN
Chairmen of RNC
Envoy to China (as we recognized Taiwan as China still then, no embassy)
Director of CIA
Bank Executive
Professor at Rice Univ
Director of Council of Foreign Relations
V.P for two terms

 

[Jack V Savage]

so when leftists claim Hilary is 'unusually well qualified', are they forgetting about a literally litany of past presidents, such as GHW Bush?

It's not just leftists. Shit, Rubio said something like that. And "unusually well-qualified" doesn't mean "most qualified ever" so your response misses the point.

 

[ehtheist]

Er, that was clear from the beginning, but it's apparent that your saltiness won't allow you to just discuss an issue normally for a while.

So it was clear to the person writing it? Well damn, who could have guess that? Thanks for clarifying.

There's no word salad, and you're playing dumb again. I get that you have an ideological affinity with Palin, but objectively, her qualifications were nowhere near what is expected.

I get that you "get" that... But I'm not sure you actually get what's going on here. Could you provide some evidence that I have an "ideological affinity with Palin"? As someone who actually knows who I have an ideological with, I find this statement baffling coming from someone who doesn't...

Now, what is "expected" here? I feel like you're doubling back to that corporate knowledge point that you ignored - I really didn't see that coming by the way - but who is expecting this? What kind of qualifications do you think the millions of Americans supporting Trump think he has, for instance?

Prestigious? Anyway, Reagan had been a two-term governor of the most populous state in the union and head of a major union. Palin had nothing like that to compare.

I daresay a one time governor is comparable in the sense that they were both governors, both elected officials. (calling it - Jack is going to fixate on this point to the exclusion of others)

Are you really guessing that or are you just saying it to try to misrepresent my position?

No, I'm not guessing that I've seen Trump leading in the polls.