Elections 2016 Presidential Election General Discussion

[The Diplomat]

So you like Trump, but not Ryan? One of the few plausible Republicans who is fresh and can reason with Democrats?

 

[TheGreatA]

Pretty disgusting comment.

You may call it disgusting, but you would be a fool not to acknowledge that the comment has merit.

Trump's presidency may very well rely on how much havoc the Muslims are going to cause in Europe. If the rest of the year is relatively peaceful, then Trump's rhetoric won't be half as effective.

You're only as good as your last week in politics. One big incident, and it will come down to which party can exploit it better. Trump could easily bounce back as a result of a terrorist attack or a Hillary blunder, depending on his response, this is simply a fact.

 

[Rod1]

'smart' up until today .. she can't hide forever .. had a presser and from what I've read she was horrible .. of course you and everyone else have no idea about this presser because it's a clinton presser .. if it was trump, it would be all over the news .. as usual ..

she won't be able to hide in the debates when trump is picking apart her record, her criminal activity and all her lies .. her stupid smile and cackling laugh won't help her then ..

Trump is going to win .. some of you are going to be in shock in nov from the looks of it.. keep writing him off

Exactly nobody cares about a Clinton presser because nobody cares about a career politician being a career politician, all the heat she had was on the race against Sanders and thats over.

 

[Broken arrow]

Hillary has been next in line for the POTUS since she agreed to take the Secretary of State job. It didn't matter who ran against her. There's no way she'd be allowed to lose

 

[WalkenWouldOwn]

I love how Trump supporters are attributing this all to a left wing media conspiracy and not to the fact that they chose the star of the reality television The Apprentice as their presidential candidate,

It's the media, you just don't get it! Some might say "It's a nuanced thing so either you see it or you don't" lmfao.

 

[Lead]

In all likelihood our election process is rigged. That's a concept we all need to start warming up to so we can begin to change it.

What is this "in all likelihood" you speak of? Elaborate.

 

[Lead]

Are you saying you like Trump and not Ryan?

 

[7437]

What is this "in all likelihood" you speak of? Elaborate.

The candidates he likes arent going to be president, so the system is rigged.

 

[Lead]

The candidates he likes arent going to be president, so the system is rigged.

Sometimes, you don't need to put words in the other persons mouth to drown them

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

What is this "in all likelihood" you speak of? Elaborate.

In short.

The popular vote means absolutely nothing. We the people have very little to do with the outcome of our elections. Delegates and big business own and operate this country.

Call me the tin foil hat guy, but I don't buy that Hillary is supposedly doing as well as she is. I live in MN, a liberal hub in the heartland and I maybe know like 4-5 Hillary supporters. She has the most invisible following of any nominee I've ever seen. Her own Campaign page on youtube is a ghost town with a 3-1 dislike/like ratio on her ads.

I seriously hadn't even seen a Hillary bumper sticker until yesterday walking into the grocery store. How is it that I'm more likely to see a Ralph Nader sticker from 2000, than a 2016 Hillary sticker?

Apparently at the DNC Hillary had white noise/applause machines installed near where the Bernie delegates would be sitting. An effort to drown out their chants for the cameras.


This whole election in general just feels gross.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

The candidates he likes arent going to be president, so the system is rigged.

Right, because there is no further information to support the rigged claim...good work.

 

[lil billy]

This is a counterintuitive way of looking but I think that there is nothing wrong with the amount of "negative" coverage Trump receives. This is how a potential future President should be vetted. For better or for worse....

by the time election day comes around, you will know that Donald has been vetted in the pubic100%. Will you be able to say the same about Hillary? For example, what confidence should a former Bernie supporter have that this media will hold a President Clinton accountable based on the coverage of the DNC leaks and other scandals? Many of those people will vote for Stein who will receive 0 vetting.

So, while others will complain...I will say that I like the idea that if Trump is to get elected, you can bet this media will hold him accountable. And that will be better for this country. Because they have already proven this election that will not do the same for a Hillary Presidency just like they haven't for Obama.

It should let you know that they've really got nothing on him if all they are are able to do is follow his daily quotables. so please, carry on......

 

[7437]

Right, because there is no further information to support the rigged claim...good work.

Right, how could i forget, you havent seen many bumper stickers. Clearly it is the illuminati running the country and rigging the vote.

 

[Lead]

In short.

The popular vote means absolutely nothing.

This usually doesn't determine the outcome. We do have the 2000 race but it's been a very rare occurrence in the long run. Four times in our history and once in the past 100 years. Also, you should explain why our alternative somehow makes the system rigged. Where is the fraud deciding the outcome?

We the people have very little to do with the outcome of our elections.

The president directly gets into office via votes from the people. There are other indirect factors but they don't decide it outright.

Delegates and big business own and operate this country.

Are you complaining about the primary system here? Cause that's a separate discussion from the general election vote. The big business line is pretty broad. There are a lot of competing interests in the country.

Call me the tin foil hat guy, but I don't buy that Hillary is supposedly doing as well as she is. I live in MN, a liberal hub in the heartland and I maybe know like 4-5 Hillary supporters. She has the most invisible following of any nominee I've ever seen. Her own Campaign page on youtube is a ghost town with a 3-1 dislike/like ratio on her ads.

This is really bad evidence. Knowing/not knowing a number of supporters is anecdotal and shouldn't determine whats true or not. Also, even if you were to know the full population somehow, some supporters are far less optimistic/ outspoken about their choices then others. Also, the dislike/like ratio of a campaign youtube page hasn't shown much correlation with election results unless theres a study you have I'm not aware of.

I seriously hadn't even seen a Hillary bumper sticker until yesterday walking into the grocery store.

Again, anecdotal. You shouldn't come to such great assumptions off this.

Apparently at the DNC Hillary had white noise/applause machines installed near where the Bernie delegates would be sitting. An effort to drown out their chants for the cameras.

I wouldn't doubt this. Doesn't really have to do with your initial claim though. The existence of white noise at a convention doesn't really further a claim things are rigged. Divided, yes. Not rigged.

This whole election in general just feels gross.

Agreed

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

Right, how could i forget, you havent seen many bumper stickers. Clearly it is the illuminati running the country and rigging the vote.

Clearly I'm speaking about what I'm seeing in the twin cities, not nation wide. However MN is a liberal hub, where are all the Hillary Supporters?

The fact that we've been conditioned to think a third party vote is a wasted vote, is evidence of a rigged system.

The fact that if Hillary wins she'll be the only president to have multiple federal investigations open on them in US history indicates to me that we have a rigged system.

The popular vote seems to mean absolutely nothing as far as who wins the election, seems to indicate a rigged system.

The wikileaks DNC email scandal and the immediate hiring of wasserman-Schultz for the Clinton campaign...

Clinton Foundation accepting millions and millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia...

Hillary's employer George Soros being a nazi collaborator...

Are you someone who has 100% faith in the integrity of our election process?

Were you a good little propaganda consuming machine growing up?

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

This usually doesn't determine the outcome. We do have the 2000 race but it's been a very rare occurrence in the long run. Four times in our history and once in the past 100 years. Also, you should explain why our alternative somehow makes the system rigged. Where is the fraud deciding the outcome?




The president directly gets into office via votes from the people. There are other indirect factors but they don't decide it outright.




Are you complaining about the primary system here? Cause that's a separate discussion from the general election vote. The big business line is pretty broad. There are a lot of competing interests in the country.



This is really bad evidence. Knowing/not knowing a number of supporters is anecdotal and shouldn't determine whats true or not. Also, even if you were to know the full population somehow, some supporters are far less optimistic/ outspoken about their choices then others. Also, the dislike/like ratio of a campaign youtube page hasn't shown much correlation with election results unless theres a study you have I'm not aware of.


Again, anecdotal. You shouldn't come to such great assumptions off this.



I wouldn't doubt this. Doesn't really have to do with your initial claim though. The existence of white noise at a convention doesn't really further a claim things are rigged. Divided, yes. Not rigged.



Agreed

Yes that is just anecdotal evidence from the twin cities, but in a liberal hub like MN shouldn't Hillary's support be more visible?

My bringing up of the delegates is directly referring to the Bernie/Hillary/DNC WikiLeaks/Wasserman-Schultz scandal. the Electoral votes in the general election are more important than the popular vote, as we saw in the 2000 election cycle.

The installation of the white noise machines is especially creepy because to me it seems like a measure to cover up the fact that Hillary's support is much smaller than perceived.

Our population being programmed to think of a third party vote as a wasted vote also plays a role in the predictability of our elections. Severely narrows the choices down to two very similar candidates, "Paper" and "Plastic".

 

[7437]

Clearly I'm speaking about what I'm seeing in the twin cities, not nation wide. However MN is a liberal hub, where are all the Hillary Supporters?

The fact that we've been conditioned to think a third party vote is a wasted vote, is evidence of a rigged system.

The fact that if Hillary wins she'll be the only president to have multiple federal investigations open on them in US history indicates to me that we have a rigged system.

The popular vote seems to mean absolutely nothing as far as who wins the election, seems to indicate a rigged system.

The wikileaks DNC email scandal and the immediate hiring of wasserman-Schultz for the Clinton campaign...

Clinton Foundation accepting millions and millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia...

Hillary's employer George Soros being a nazi collaborator...

Are you someone who has 100% faith in the integrity of our election process?

Were you a good little propaganda consuming machine growing up?

Lead Salad tore up half these arguments already.

And you seem to have issue with Hillary as a candidate, no valid complaints against the system.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

Lead Salad tore up half these arguments already.

And you seem to have issue with Hillary as a candidate, no valid complaints against the system.

Its evident that the system is thrusting Hillary forward as the favorable candidate. I have problems with both. Hillary and Trump at the end of the day are actually pretty similar. A vote for one, may as well be a vote for the other.

Its evident that its not Hillary's accomplishments or merit that's earned her the nomination. Of which, she has none.

What of the other half of the points I bring up, you're not going to take a swing at them?

You didn't actually answer my question either....Are you a person that has 100% faith in the integrity of our election process?

 

[Lead]

Important to keep in mind here what the original claim was.

In all likelihood our election process is rigged.

Yes that is just anecdotal evidence from the twin cities, but in a liberal hub like MN shouldn't Hillary's support be more visible?

I don't know whether it really needs to be more or less visible. I do know that such a factor hasn't shown a correlation with election results which we don't even have yet. The bumper stickers comment makes even less sense because I don't see how it determines a rigged system. Do you posts already assume Hillary will be elected so you're trying to show things that makes this seem less possible and thus, a rigged system? If so, bumper stickers isn't going to get anyone from that point A to B.

My bringing up of the delegates is directly referring to the Bernie/Hillary/DNC WikiLeaks/Wasserman-Schultz scandal.

Okay. This is a party/primary issue however. The primary system is run by the each party and they establish the rules for how they decide a nominee. Though it's clear there was favoritism to Clinton during the primary, Clinton won both the popular vote (by a large margin) and the major of ELECTED delegates as well as super delegates.

the Electoral votes in the general election are more important than the popular vote, as we saw in the 2000 election cycle.

Yes, we saw that the system we have in place had a nominee win without the popular vote four times in history and once in the past 100 years. Even if it were to me more frequent, this doesn't help your claim the election process is rigged because that would just be the system we have in place which everyone knows about beforehand. I just decided to go a step further and show that the difference in our system and a straight popular vote has varied in the result hardly ever.

The installation of the white noise machines is especially creepy because to me it seems like a measure to cover up the fact that Hillary's support is much smaller than perceived.

I would mean there is division within the party still, yes. It doesn't mean anything is rigged however. You can win 90% of the popular vote and have very adamant supports of the other 10% disrupt a convention. In this years case, it was 55% for Hillary and some of Bernie's 43% disrupting.

Our population being programmed to think of a third party vote as a wasted vote also plays a role in the predictability of our elections. Severely narrows the choices down to two very similar candidates, "Paper" and "Plastic".

A two party favored system isn't rigged though. It's just a type of system. Some countries have ones that allow for easier entrance of multiple parties and others have ones similar to ours. There are pros and cons to both but neither is inherently rigged.

None of these points really defend your claim.

 

[7437]

Its evident that the system is thrusting Hillary forward as the favorable candidate. I have problems with both. Hillary and Trump at the end of the day are actually pretty similar. A vote for one, may as well be a vote for the other.

Its evident that its not Hillary's accomplishments or merit that's earned her the nomination. Of which, she has none.

What of the other half of the points I bring up, you're not going to take a swing at them?

You didn't actually answer my question either....Are you a person that has 100% faith in the integrity of our election process?

The other half of your points were that Hillary is kinda shady. That does not mean that the system is broken. If you think she would be a bad president, dont vote for her. If enough people feel the same way, then she will lose.