Elections Clinton vs. Trump Polls thread, v2

[J. Bernie Cunningham]

This along with all the readily available CT nonsense that "seems" true all over the internet aren't helping unite anyone.

When one major party makes it their #1 priority, in public, to never work with the president, that's not a good thing to see from our so-called leaders

It is kind of frightening to realize it's so divisive he could've made a bill to give babies free smiles and McConnel would've stopped it "on principle".

And very true on the CT shit. It's so obvious people are putting together youtube videos about the earth being flat just to joyously play into that faulty thought process. Imagine what opportunities those with real power see in that dynamic. Scary stuff.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's a fine time to raise objections about our system- and it would take the mother of all overhauls to change it (and even still, it might revert back to two parties). But this election is also a serious crisis. I noticed you're saying a lot that people just want Hillary in because of Trump, but that makes perfect sense. Our country hasn't faced a domestic threat like this in my lifetime.

This kind of highlights the emptiness of Petey's post. He genuinely believes that Clinton is some kind of evil monster and Trump just gets a bad rap from the media. So "let's drop our team jerseys" to him is more, "let's all agree to wear my team jersey." The obvious appeal is to the facts, but, well, he doesn't win that one.

 

[Fawlty]

The powers that be used to be fine just controlling the media, but now media is so widespread, and the means of creating it & sharing information is so readily available. That is a major, unprecedented change in human history. It's going to be an interesting next few decades.

How insane would it be if it turns out that the Citizens United ruling is actually a critical check on populism?

 

[Peteyandjia]

It's a fine time to raise objections about our system- and it would take the mother of all overhauls to change it (and even still, it might revert back to two parties). But this election is also a serious crisis. I noticed you're saying a lot that people just want Hillary in because of Trump, but that makes perfect sense. Our country hasn't faced a domestic threat like this in my lifetime.

I appreciate this more honest, openly strategic approach, even if I disagree with the scaremongering of its basis.

Trump is an egomaniacal goon, Hillary is a well-oiled corporate/banking slave & killing machine. I'm honestly not sure which is going to be worse. Not that it matters, since I think Hillary has this election on lockdown.

 

[Peteyandjia]

This kind of highlights the emptiness of Petey's post. He genuinely believes that Clinton is some kind of evil monster and Trump just gets a bad rap from the media. So "let's drop our team jerseys" to him is more, "let's all agree to wear my team jersey." The obvious appeal is to the facts, but, well, he doesn't win that one.

You have now relegated yourself to talking about me rather than to me, and still hearing some kind of support for Trump, where there is none. Too many years in the war room have broken you brother.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I've been honest. Stop crying just because we don't agree on everything.

See my response to Fawlty. You're crying because we don't agree.

I think due to the internet, people's relationship with politics is going to be more and more about issues, and less and less about who is in what party.

Isn't that pretty vacuous, though? The issues that are important to me--climate change, financial stability, economic growth, lifting lower-end living standards, promoting opportunity, etc.--are not the issues that are important to other people. The two parties, broadly, reflect the concerns of their voters.

I have a pet theory that the rise of Bernie was an example of the internet severely impacting the big game. He was not who the corporations wanted, and yet he almost made it. A guy like him would have been completely marginalized 20 years ago.

That's just not accurate. Obama, Dean, Bradley, Brown, Carter--these types of candidates are in every election. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose close, sometimes they lose big.

You have now relegated yourself to talking about me rather than to me, and still hearing some kind of support for Trump, where there is none. Too many years in the war room have broken you brother.

I'm doing both, big guy. You had no response to, for example, the point about Clinton's extremely high Politifact rating. You had no response to other points. Your hatred of Clinton isn't based on facts, is it? I get that you're making an honest effort to appear moderate or whatever, but you're not understanding the problem. It's easy to say, "everyone should just agree with me and stop being so partisan," but when you think about what that means in practice, you see that you're avoiding the problem rather than offering a fix for it.

 

[Fawlty]

This kind of highlights the emptiness of Petey's post. He genuinely believes that Clinton is some kind of evil monster and Trump just gets a bad rap from the media. So "let's drop our team jerseys" to him is more, "let's all agree to wear my team jersey." The obvious appeal is to the facts, but, well, he doesn't win that one.

Our good Petey is a middle way guy, imo. In my years of talking with him, he's been pretty consistent about having sides of an argument balanced (unless it involve Nick Diaz). I think that way of seeing things can be useful, but it finds problems when the argument itself is wildly unbalanced, and he finds himself in an intellectual position similar to how the media frames even the most outrageous one-sided stories as a debate, which you have been criticizing lately.

Sorry Petey for talking about you right in front of you lol. I like the guy.

 

[Squarechoke]

wow, a hillary supporter calling someone a liar

I'm not a Hillary supporter. Not being American I'm at extra liberty not to take any side. What you posted just increases my point about that it's impressive to be named the most frequent liar out of the bunch, which is a statement by university professors focusing on this subject, not a statement from me.

 

[Peteyandjia]

The internet is sadly fueling it. This judgemental nature in people has exploded to the point where superficial supercedes importance.

Yeah, this is the downside for sure. I'm hoping it levels off favoring importance.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Our good Petey is a middle way guy, imo. In my years of talking with him, he's been pretty consistent about having sides of an argument balanced (unless it involve Nick Diaz). I think that way of seeing things can be useful, but it finds problems when the argument itself is wildly unbalanced, and he finds himself in an intellectual position similar to how the media frames even the most outrageous one-sided stories as a debate, which you have been criticizing lately.

Sorry Petey for talking about you right in front of you lol. I like the guy.

Fair enough, I suppose. The middle ground between a vicious lie and the truth isn't a desirable spot...

 

[panamaican]

Yeah, most of those things aren't scandals (did he use that term? I don't recall). They are things that are taken into consideration. If you think that serving on the board of a public company (which will, of course, try to minimize labor costs) is evil, you're going to have a problem with it. If not, not.

I was thinking that he was referring to stuff that the WR right has been pushing, which is mostly ridiculous.



There was no actual sabotage of Sanders. No actions taken. Just shit talking, pretty much. And Clinton was already cleared in both the email and Benghazi things. That's why people have been reduced to acting like not following best practices for email-server management is some kind of horrifying thing for which she should be imprisoned or executed.



You don't get the whole "elections" thing, do you?

You're right, he didn't use the word scandals. Criticisms.

I think when the mindset behind the DNC is what it was, it's sabotage in the sense that they were deliberately obstructing his candidacy. We can say there were no actions - but the emails suggest, to me, that Sanders probably had an uphill battle in getting cooperation from the DNC and probably had to clear more hurdles than his opponent. The sort of small hurdles that can add up over time and impact your ability to capitalize on momentum. Death by a thousand cuts sort of thing.

She was cleared in the emails and in Benghazi but it was tepid at best. Certainly no ringing endorsements of her behavior in those matters.

But I agree that there's nothing new out there and so it's just recycling the same stuff. Not enough to tank her chances. If you waited to for the formal rulings then she's clear. If you made up your mind before them...nothing's changed.

 

[Peteyandjia]

See my response to Fawlty. You're crying because we don't agree.

Hey cool, saying the same thing back to me.

Next thing you'll tell me, you know I am, but what are you.

Isn't that pretty vacuous, though? The issues that are important to me--climate change, financial stability, economic growth, lifting lower-end living standards, promoting opportunity, etc.--are not the issues that are important to other people. The two parties, broadly, reflect the concerns of their voters.

I think those things are important to a lot of people, on both sides*. The differences are what to do about them, and the challenge is how to better talk about them.

*not the climate change one though, lol. the right has a weird self-insisted blindspot on that one.

That's just not accurate. Obama, Dean, Bradley, Brown, Carter--these types of candidates are in every election. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose close, sometimes they lose big.

I don't think a guy with zero billionaire money has ever gotten that close to a major party nomination as the Berninator just did. I could be wrong. And even if I am, I think his particular 'movement' was a result of young voters (and potential voters) becoming a politically activated & unified force via the internet.

 

[ripskater]

With all the information at your disposal, is it possible the earth is flat? If you say yes, you're declaring an ignorance that would've been laughed at 1000 years ago.

Is it possible? I don't know. But I am open to the theory.

Saying Hilary's awkward attempt at physical comedy.is a symptom of epilepsy is suggesting people with epilepsy just deal with awkward, jokey movements, not full on cognitive deterioration. It's inconsiderate and insulting. Suggesting it makes a person less fit to do their job is saying they're lesser people.

You very clearly insulted people with epilepsy.

I've never mentioned the word epilepsy until my last post. If you're offended, I'm sorry to hear that.

]And if Hilary is influenced by a demon, where does the demon come from? Why does it power her to such evil yet fail at controlling a cough?

Like I said, sick and healthy people can be demonically possessed or influenced. And Hillary doesn't appear to be healthy.

Hilary's not my girl. I'm not voting for Hilary. So next time you're called out for desperately straddling the fence between troll and idiot, keep that in mind.

I won't. But I'm sure you'll be here to "call me out" and that's quite alright.

 

[panamaican]

I firmly believe the only thing that is going to unite the country is more honest communication. Both sides need to take off their team jerseys, and start to have real conversations. I'm hoping that the unprecedented connectivity made possible by the internet is going to start to facilitate that. I think we're already seeing big signs of that starting to happen. The 2-party system is beyond antiquated as a system to serve the People.

I agree that the internet will fuel more honest conversation.

The thing that it allows (and the detractors overlook) is that you can't hide from people and opinions you don't like. In the real world, we can choose to live amongst people who think like. Only enter social venues with like minded souls. We can curate our lives to the people least likely to disagree.

The internet, thankfully, blows that up. You say something on the net and anyone can respond. And suddenly you're forced to confront realities that you avoided or defend positions that you might not have thought through.

The people who disagree simply don't realize the extent to which some people never got heard.

 

[J. Bernie Cunningham]

Yeah, this is the downside for sure. I'm hoping it levels off favoring importance.

I don't know man, twitter is designed to intentionally dumb-down thought and it's now worthy of news reports. I feel like we may have hit the point where this vapid, image-first mentality has been cemented in our thoughts and activities to the point of no return.

If you told me the girl who blew Brandy's brother would turn her family into a successful brand covering an entire channel and a line of cheaply made shit that sells, I'd have pissed my pants laughing saying "are you crazy, kids aren't that stupid".

Yet here we are. It's terrifying.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hey cool, saying the same thing back to me.

Next thing you'll tell me, you know I am, but what are you.

I'm too lazy to look for a yawn gif now.

I think those things are important to a lot of people, on both sides*. The differences are what to do about them, and the challenge is how to better talk about them.

I don't think you're paying attention if you think that.

I don't think a guy with zero billionaire money has ever gotten that close to a major party nomination as the Berninator just did. I could be wrong. And even if I am, I think his particular 'movement' was a result of young voters (and potential voters) becoming a politically activated & unified force via the internet.

I don't know (or care) specifically what the top net worth of anyone who gave to the campaigns were, but the people I listed all ran similar campaigns. If you follow this stuff, there's nothing all that new about Bernie. Dean is probably the most similar.

 

[Peteyandjia]

I don't think you're paying attention if you think that.

Yeah, surely anyone who disagrees with you must simply not be paying attention.

I don't know (or care) specifically what the top net worth of anyone who gave to the campaigns were

Now who isn't paying attention.

 

[J. Bernie Cunningham]

Is it possible? I don't know. But I am open to the theory.

If you're open to it, its because you've swallowed bullshit and have literally no grasp of geometry.

So what you're saying is, you're uninformed and gullible. Not to mention severely uneducated.

I've never mentioned the word epilepsy until my last post. If you're offended, I'm sorry to hear that.

Here's your FIRST post in the thread...

I still don't count Trump out of this. Between Crooked Hillary's email problems, coughing fits, needing help up the stairs and her seizures, she may not get elected.

So by equating an out of context gif with a seizure disorder, you were insulting everyone with that very real condition. Insulting and inconsiderate.... doesn't sound Christian ....

Like I said, sick and healthy people can be demonically possessed or influenced. And Hillary doesn't appear to be healthy.

Oh! So you do believe Hilary is possessed by a demon? Oh ok just making sure.

I won't. But I'm sure you'll be here to "call me out" and that's quite alright.

....so you'll continue to be dishonest and make assumptions on my political stance? Yeah expect that bullshit to be called bullshit.

Insults people with severe medical issues. Admits to ignoring people's stances in order to generalize them. Isn't sure if the earth isn't flat and thinks Hilary is possessed by a demon.

And we're gonna pretend that's not a troll?

 

[Renard]

You very clearly insulted people with epilepsy.

I've read every post in this thread and you're the one who has brought up and keeps bringing up epilepsy. Inserting your personal problems in internet discussions is a bad habit. If you're looking for pity, you're not getting any. People who criticize Hillary aren't critizing you, obviously, don't fish for reasons to be offended.

 

[Hades86]

Its way too early to say polls change all the time. The debates are real gamechangers, I would only look at polls seriously after that.