Donald Trump

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

solwitch wrote:

I wonder how many scholars, doctors, engineers or anyone with a doctorate degree is actually voting for trump... None because they're mostly foreigners. When is the last time you've seen an pure bred American Caucasian Doctor at a hospital? I rest my case...

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-race-ethnicity/

Even has a statistic for non-US citizen. 1.9%.

Still resting?

bahahahah that was good.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/?tid=a_inl

The republican smear campaign labeling clinton as dishonest is the pot calling the kettle black.

"

SkyCore wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/?tid=a_inl

The republican smear campaign labeling clinton as dishonest is the pot calling the kettle black.

That's a fight the dems aren't going to win. While the two are now tied in their 'unfavorable' ratings, Hillary is still seen as less trustworthy. They're spinning their wheels with these kind of attacks (Tim Kaine's speech took this tact) - It's preaching to the (small) choir of people who already trust Clinton, and isn't going to convince a single person outside of that camp.

They should be sticking with the following two lines of attack:

Hillary is an adult, Trump is a child.

Adult Hillary has a plan (bullet point plan, direct people to website details), Baby Donald has no policy details; the most detail he goes into is 'believe me'.

Kaine, to his credit, did pick up on the last part - and it was the only part of his speech that was effective. I know the DNC can't control the message of every convention speaker, but that's what they need to do going forward: don't tell voters to 'trust Clinton', point them to an actual policy plan, that once they see is both real and infinitely more substantial than the Don's, voters will find their way to elements of trust organically.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Well, the story earlier this year was that forces within the RNC were trying to prevent Trump's nomination as well. Which may be true or not, but if true: it means Trump succeeded in the same situation wherein Bernie failed.

However, I think this more points towards illusion of choice. I doubt this is the first year where big shots in the DNC and RNC showed heavy bias towards a particular candidate, if not outright choosing the presidential nominee themselves. It's naive to assume the type of behavior revealed by the DNC leak is an isolated event, or to assume it's strictly a Democrat problem. Your primary process is being controlled by forces outside of democratic (lowercase) control - certainly if you identify as Democrat, probably still if you identify as Republican.

If your primary vote is irrelevant, why believe your vote in November is any different?

I was very apathetic towards voting this year, but I'm leaning Trump. There's a chance, albeit slim, that he wasn't the party machinery's chosen one, a chance he wasn't hand-picked by our elusive oligarchs. You cannot say that about Clinton.

Still pretty darn apathetic though.

It isn't that your vote doesn't matter. People just don't understand the system. In a winner take all system, the people have collectively only 1 vote, only majority vote matters. It is majority rule that put someone in charge, without the argument. You don't decide what they do, you decide who in charge. In this case you get to decide the lesser of the two evils. You can choose between bad or worse. It matters, people just don't understand it. Not voting doesn't mean it is the better option. Sure if you don't really care, don't vote. Not voting doesn't mean you don't get a bad government though. There is no refund.

You know what is wrong with election. It is like a popularity contest. It is all about pretty packaging, they don't know what is inside.

It doesn't mean that if trump isn't one of them he isn't unscrupulous businessman. You can dump your previous oligarchs, you just have new ones. Do you want oligarchs from the left, oligarchs from the right, new oligarchs from Donald Trump?

"

deathflower wrote:

It isn't that your vote doesn't matter. People just don't understand the system. In a winner take all system, the people have collectively only 1 vote, only majority vote matters. It is majority rule that put someone in charge, without the argument.

Off-off topic, I was reading an r/askreddit (or was it a politics sub?. can't remember) post the other day about "your deepest regret", and a gilded post read (paraphrasing):

"I voted third party, in a heavily contested county in Florida that went to Bush, in 2000. To this day, I can't help but feel that 2000 was a little bit my fault"

Paraphrasing another redditor, re: voting third party in "safe" states:

"I don't want Hillary to win, I want Trump to lose so fucking bad that the door he has opened is closed hard enough to never be pried open again"

Edit: forgot the most important bit in my first quote

Hillary should still win easily, but all these fears that Trump will ruin America are quite unfounded. Trump isn't an idiot. He's a showman and a jester and very un-PC to the point of hurting himself, but not really an idiot.

I also dont get the hooplah about corruption. Um, duh politicians are corrupt and can be sold or bought. Breaking fucking news. In fact, I respect prostitutes way more because you get what you paid for and at least they act like prostitutes in public instead of trying to appear as someone they're not

Anyhow, Scrotie is dead on about illusion of choice, but it goes way deeper than intraparty agenda. The whole two party system is an illusion of choice. America needs third (and fourth and fifth etc) party badly. Only then any kind of choice is more likely to appear.

Since my vote doesn't count anyway (better chance of me waking up with Jessica Alba rubbing my scrotum than Hillary losing California), I might just say fuck it and vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Not because I like them but because 5% gets third party some legs to stand on. It will be a slow process but it should be started asap.

"

Antnee wrote:

"I voted third party, in a heavily contested county that went to Bush, in 2000. To this day, I can't help but feel that 2000 was a little bit my fault"

Antnee quoting someone else here...

This. If someone is willing to vote for Stein e.g. , he/she will very likely support Trump by doing so. I would not want to risk that. If you have proportional representation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation) in a country, it´s different, parties have to form coalitions. So unless any party has an absolute majority, no vote is really lost.

"my vote doesn´t count anyway"

I once saw a comedian making his whole audience say: " I alone can´t do anything " :-).

"

deathflower wrote:

It isn't that your vote doesn't matter. People just don't understand the system. In a winner take all system, the people have collectively only 1 vote, only majority vote matters. It is majority rule that put someone in charge, without the argument. You don't decide what they do, you decide who in charge. In this case you get to decide the lesser of the two evils. You can choose between bad or worse. It matters, people just don't understand it.

You are trying to tell me that a choice of "Coke or Pepsi?" is important to a person who hates soda. The core of the problem isn't the 1-winner quality of the system, but the 2-choices quality, allowing the people who really control things to limit the American people to two great evils for a measuring contest.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

deathflower wrote:

It isn't that your vote doesn't matter. People just don't understand the system. In a winner take all system, the people have collectively only 1 vote, only majority vote matters. It is majority rule that put someone in charge, without the argument. You don't decide what they do, you decide who in charge. In this case you get to decide the lesser of the two evils. You can choose between bad or worse. It matters, people just don't understand it.

You are trying to tell me that a choice of "Coke or Pepsi?" is important to a person who hates soda. The core of the problem isn't the 1-winner quality of the system, but the 2-choices quality, allowing the people who really control things to limit the American people to two great evils for a measuring contest.

In any other election, I would agree with you Scrotie. Romney/McCain/Obama would realistically offer very little separation of policy, save for social issues. I wasn't the least bit afraid of them, I just saw them as yet another church-humping trickle-down-worshipping Winger in a long line of Wingers. BFD.

Trump is talking ridiculous shit like abandoning NATO, and allowing Russia to just roam around the European countryside.

He would factually, literally make my family in Europe less safe. This isn't coke vs Pepsi anymore, it's Coke vs room-temperature raw milk.

"

Antnee wrote:

Trump is talking ridiculous shit like abandoning NATO, and allowing Russia to just roam around the European countryside.

He would factually, literally make my family in Europe less safe. This isn't coke vs Pepsi anymore, it's Coke vs room-temperature raw milk.

I didn't see his original comments, perhaps you have a link to them, but the only thing I've heard Trump say about NATO was "Some countries pledge to spend X and contribute Y in other ways, and they only meet half of those commitments at best. Who foots the bill for the shortfall? We do. We're gonna tell them to start paying their fair share, or we'll reduce our commitments to NATO"

In that context, it's pretty unfair to characterize it as just 'he wants to abandon NATO'. Now, he may have said just that at first, and what I heard was him walking it back (he loves to do that). Or, it could have been the media taking him out of context and quote mining + sensationalizing (they love doing that). Either way, based on what I said, I don't think that's an unfair position. From the Washington Post (who despise Trump):

"

“To the extent that NATO is a collective security pact, the Europeans pay less than their fair share,” said Andrew Bacevich of Boston University, who said there is “merit to Trump’s claim” despite his imprecise language. “Are Europeans free-riders when it comes to security, counting on the U.S. to pick up the slack? Yes, without a doubt.”

Daalder, however, notes that mismatch in overall defense spending occurs in large part because the U.S. military projects its might across the globe. “Our proportion includes spending for our entire military, which of course has global responsibilities, whereas Luxembourg does not,” he said.

Now, Daalder is question begging: "which of course has global responsibilities" That has been true, but it's not an immutable fact - there's no reason it has to be this way.

This is where it circles back to what you said. Trumps position is much more isolationist than Clinton's, and would probably dispute Daalder's priors. You're saying a Trump presidency would make you less safe. Here's a counter thought: if Europeans don't want Putin roaming around the European countryside, how about...idk...the sackless Europeans do something about it? When he takes France call us, we'll rally the Canadians and Aussies and bail you out again.