[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[cr47t]

Nothing would make my day more than her getting indited and STILL running. I can already hear Bernie's Supporter's Prayers that she get prosecuted so that he can swoop in and save the day :)

 

Fixed that for you. (To be sure, that doesn't apply to all of them)

 

Anyway, a nominated Clinton getting indicted would be a disaster (at least for me.) The country imo would be much more stabler is it happened either before the dem's convention or during a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency.

[Aerion Brightflame]

After a certain point in time though, the only thing Hilary could do to avoid Jail time is to be president and then use her control of the executive branch to give herself a full pardon. 

 

Or to get whoever takes her place to pardon her as part of a deal of some kind in exchange for her stepping down. Because if charges get levelled at her you can be sure that case is as watertight as it could possibly be. 

[Phantom Roxas]

After a certain point in time though, the only thing Hilary could do to avoid Jail time is to be president and then use her control of the executive branch to give herself a full pardon. 

 

Or to get whoever takes her place to pardon her as part of a deal of some kind in exchange for her stepping down. Because if charges get levelled at her you can be sure that case is as watertight as it could possibly be.

 

But she wouldn't be able to pardon herself, right? Ah well, between the indictment, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz getting sued, hopefully this month can have a decent turnaround before the convention.

[Aerion Brightflame]

 

But she wouldn't be able to pardon herself, right? Ah well, between the indictment, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz getting sued, hopefully this month can have a decent turnaround before the convention.

No idea if she could or not, it just sounds like something Hilary would do. 

 

There is bound to something she could enact that would either pardon herself, or render what she did in the first place not liable for criminal charges. There is bound to be something she could do in office that would serve getting her off. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

EDIT: Woops, wrong thread xD

 

For something somewhat relevent here, turns out Hilary treated her schedule with more secrecy than the actualthings she did with her time as Secretary of State. She would burn printed copies of her schedule so they wouldn't leak, but was still perfectly fine to communicate over unsecure lines. 

 

http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

 

It's hilarious because she shouldn't actually do this in the first place, because her schedules should be a matter of public record, and would be if she used a traditional government email as she was meant to. 

 

This woman is baffling. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

In non-Hillary news, Trump once again throws away easy gifts. Hillary and Obama took a hard stance countering BREXIT, yet the FTSE 100 has been rising the past couple of days. It's the Economy stupid. Hammer away on that. Predict a housing burst, and follow that up with real estate promises. 

 

Focus on the moderation w/ both Muslim and Hispanics, but retain strength. And for the love of god, proofread before posting tweets. 

 

That being said, Jodi Ernst, my home senator, or Bob Corker, my second home's senator would both cover weak sides for Trump. I'm just afraid he'll do something dumb like Christie

 

Also Bangladesh...why would you not use that more effectively. Daesh targeting non-muslims alone? That's pretty much validation of Trump's initial stance, but instead he lends credence to this stupid SoD thing

[Dad]

In non-Hillary news, Trump once again throws away easy gifts. Hillary and Obama took a hard stance countering BREXIT, yet the FTSE 100 has been rising the past couple of days. It's the Economy stupid. Hammer away on that. Predict a housing burst, and follow that up with real estate promises. 

 

Focus on the moderation w/ both Muslim and Hispanics, but retain strength. And for the love of god, proofread before posting tweets. 

 

That being said, Jodi Ernst, my home senator, or Bob Corker, my second home's senator would both cover weak sides for Trump. I'm just afraid he'll do something dumb like Christie

 

Also Bangladesh...why would you not use that more effectively. Daesh targeting non-muslims alone? That's pretty much validation of Trump's initial stance, but instead he lends credence to this stupid SoD thing

 

He funked up worse when he had to delete the damn tweet.  That's gonna leave a big ass scar.  Hilary's gonna pounce on that, call him out for weakness.  The irony in that.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

EDIT: Woops, wrong thread xD

 

For something somewhat relevent here, turns out Hilary treated her schedule with more secrecy than the actualthings she did with her time as Secretary of State. She would burn printed copies of her schedule so they wouldn't leak, but was still perfectly fine to communicate over unsecure lines. 

 

http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

 

It's hilarious because she shouldn't actually do this in the first place, because her schedules should be a matter of public record, and would be if she used a traditional government email as she was meant to. 

 

This woman is baffling. 

 

 

In non-Hillary news, Trump once again throws away easy gifts. Hillary and Obama took a hard stance countering BREXIT, yet the FTSE 100 has been rising the past couple of days. It's the Economy stupid. Hammer away on that. Predict a housing burst, and follow that up with real estate promises. 

 

Focus on the moderation w/ both Muslim and Hispanics, but retain strength. And for the love of god, proofread before posting tweets. 

 

That being said, Jodi Ernst, my home senator, or Bob Corker, my second home's senator would both cover weak sides for Trump. I'm just afraid he'll do something dumb like Christie

 

Also Bangladesh...why would you not use that more effectively. Daesh targeting non-muslims alone? That's pretty much validation of Trump's initial stance, but instead he lends credence to this stupid SoD thing

 

Lovely, both candidates screwing up in their own way. The Washington Post had a story yesterday (iirc) on Hillary Clinton's trust problem (link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/can-hillary-clinton-overcome-her-trust-problem/2016/07/03/b12eeb52-3fd8-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html). The thing that baffles me is that she may get away with that trust issue considering just how badly Trump is doing recently. In any other election cycle, Clinton's trust problem would spell disaster for her. It just goes to show how, well, interesting this election cycle is.

 

As for Trump, it is mind boggling. He should know how to utilize the things that come to him on a silver platter. He is a businessman after all, and part of being a businessman is taking the things that come to him, especially in deals. *sigh* Trump needs to stop taking things for granted and work for the things that come to him and those things that need effort.

 

Welcome to Election Cycle 2016, right?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Lovely, both candidates screwing up in their own way. The Washington Post had a story yesterday (iirc) on Hillary Clinton's trust problem (link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/can-hillary-clinton-overcome-her-trust-problem/2016/07/03/b12eeb52-3fd8-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html). The thing that baffles me is that she may get away with that trust issue considering just how badly Trump is doing recently. In any other election cycle, Clinton's trust problem would spell disaster for her. It just goes to show how, well, interesting this election cycle is.

 

As for Trump, it is mind boggling. He should know how to utilize the things that come to him on a silver platter. He is a businessman after all, and part of being a businessman is taking the things that come to him, especially in deals. *sigh* Trump needs to stop taking things for granted and work for the things that come to him and those things that need effort.

 

Welcome to Election Cycle 2016, right?

The major problem is both candidate are showing weakness. Trump is showing an inability to attack the right issues. Which is ironic cause the man seems to have forgotten how he got to where he is now. The Economy, the Strongman. 

 

It's not even like the stuff we've seen in the Election cycle, because he used to go in for the kills more often. He brilliantly defended his support for planned parenthood and a more liberal healthcare proposal by going in on Cruz and Rubio by saying that unlike them, he wasn't willing to let his fellow Americans die for being less fortunate. He's forgetting his a populist in his own vanity and that might lose him the election he should have won.

 

As you said,

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/05/us/politics/donald-trump-ohio.html

 

This...he's just not taking it seriously and I'm really worried about the prospects of his negligence at this point

[Nathanael D. Striker]

TBH, this is why America needs a viable 3rd party. Both Clinton and Trump are showing weakness, and some of them are fatal ones in normal election cycles. Though since this isn't a normal election cycle, people seem to be willing to forgive those weaknesses instead of finding an alternative candidate to support. Now if a 3rd party (or multiple 3rd parties) were viable, would you vote for them or stay with the main two parties?

[Dad]

TBH, this is why America needs a viable 3rd party. Both Clinton and Trump are showing weakness, and some of them are fatal ones in normal election cycles. Though since this isn't a normal election cycle, people seem to be willing to forgive those weaknesses instead of finding an alternative candidate to support. Now if a 3rd party (or multiple 3rd parties) were viable, would you vote for them or stay with the main two parties?

 

The thing about third parties is that most of the time they have poor backing or no steam.  Getting a third party to run against two political powerhouses without being strong-armed into submission by a tag-team coup is almost impossible.  You'd have to abolish the two party system to really see this work.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

The thing about third parties is that most of the time they have poor backing or no steam.  Getting a third party to run against two political powerhouses without being strong-armed into submission by a tag-team coup is almost impossible.  You'd have to abolish the two party system to really see this work.

 

Perhaps the best solution for a 3rd party to be viable. Well, the the only solution tbh. Changing the election system to a proportional voting system that guarantees representation should a minimum threshold be reached and not a FPTP system should do nicely. Though assuming a 3rd party was viable, would you expect them to effectively compete against the dynamic duo?

[Dad]

Perhaps the best solution for a 3rd party to be viable. Well, the the only solution tbh. Changing the election system to a proportional voting system that guarantees representation should a minimum threshold be reached and not a FPTP system should do nicely. Though assuming a 3rd party was viable, would you expect them to effectively compete against the dynamic duo?

 

No.  Not successfully.  Again, the duo parties hold so much power that things like the Green Party (and they're not as tiny as you would be led to believe) often get swept under the rug.  And just make sure I'm not being misunderstood, I'm not just talking about money in politics.  Cuz let's be honest, running for any kind of office is funking expensive.  But there's a sort of monopoly holding third parties in a vice that's choking the life of them.  It's hard to explain, but the left and right have one hand each around the Third Party's neck, and the other hand is pointing at their competition.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

No.  Not successfully.  Again, the duo parties hold so much power that things like the Green Party (and they're not as tiny as you would be led to believe) often get swept under the rug.  And just make sure I'm not being misunderstood, I'm not just talking about money in politics.  Cuz let's be honest, running for any kind of office is funking expensive.  But there's a sort of monopoly holding third parties in a vice that's choking the life of them.  It's hard to explain, but the left and right have one hand each around the Third Party's neck, and the other hand is pointing at their competition.

 

I am aware that the Green Party isn't small (hell, they are practically able to get on the ballots of every single state). I am imagining that the duopoly that both parties have is more historical than anything else. And wouldn't that description fit more with the FPTP system, or would it also apply to the proportional system that other countries tend to use?

[IQuitDolphin]

tbh, the current party system is fine, since 2 parties establishes 2 broad platforms rather than a bunch of mishmash parties running on various issues that fragments into Party X primarily supports this while Y supports this and Z supports...etc without any complete platform. I mean, look at Europe, there are like 20 *prominent* parties (maybe 8, might be over exaggerating) that bog you down with choices that only makes people want to get LESS into politics because the more choices the more time needed, and people just want to live their daily lives.

[Dad]

tbh, the current party system is fine, since 2 parties establishes 2 broad platforms rather than a bunch of mishmash parties running on various issues that fragments into Party X primarily supports this while Y supports this and Z supports...etc without any complete platform. I mean, look at Europe, there are like 20 *prominent* parties (maybe 8, might be over exaggerating) that bog you down with choices that only makes people want to get LESS into politics because the more choices the more time needed, and people just want to live their daily lives.

 

This is a fair example.  But looking at how long people have been using the two party system and how drastically things slow down because of it, it's unsurprising to see more people in favor of abolishing it.  While eight parties is funking absurd, I think two party monopoly is stupid too.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

This is a fair example.  But looking at how long people have been using the two party system and how drastically things slow down because of it, it's unsurprising to see more people in favor of abolishing it.  While eight parties is funking absurd, I think two party monopoly is stupid too.

 

I'm honestly a fan of three to four parties like Canada and the United Kingdom tbh. It'd give some room to force varying compromises and prevents one party from getting too much power, in theory. However, it'd also mean that FPTP must be abolished or we'd end up like Canada and the United Kingdom with two main parties and smaller parties.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

TBH, this is why America needs a viable 3rd party. Both Clinton and Trump are showing weakness, and some of them are fatal ones in normal election cycles. Though since this isn't a normal election cycle, people seem to be willing to forgive those weaknesses instead of finding an alternative candidate to support. Now if a 3rd party (or multiple 3rd parties) were viable, would you vote for them or stay with the main two parties?

I'm still solidly behind Trump on trade and a stronger immigration policy, so I'd need someone closer to those ideals for me to really change. 

 

Not impressed with how the guy has squandered the last month and half, but those two still remain

 

Also the more I've been thinking about it, the stronger I feel about Trump's abortion plan than I do for either traditional pro-life or choice. So the answer to your question is "maybe"

 

Depends on the platform really. I can atleast respect Trump for getting Ryan to back down on TPP and for going against citizen's united

The thing about third parties is that most of the time they have poor backing or no steam.  Getting a third party to run against two political powerhouses without being strong-armed into submission by a tag-team coup is almost impossible.  You'd have to abolish the two party system to really see this work.

Didn't Trump basically run 3rd party though? And Bernie to a degree? But Trump esp is so different than the typical republican in his message (forget about his delivery for the moment)

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Didn't Trump basically run 3rd party though? And Bernie to a degree? But Trump esp is so different than the typical republican in his message (forget about his delivery for the moment)

 

Not really, since both Trump and Sanders ran in the framework of the two major parties. If they truly ran 3rd party, they wouldn't have had the success that they did/do.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-chief-plans-remarks-to-media-amid-heightened-focus-on-clinton-email-probe/2016/07/05/a53513c4-42b9-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html

 

FBI is recommending that Clinton not be charged for her private server, yet criticizes Clinton and her office for being careless with sensitive data. Hopefully this ends the email drama and allows the election to achieve some normalcy. Thoughts?

[Goose]

tbh, the current party system is fine, since 2 parties establishes 2 broad platforms rather than a bunch of mishmash parties running on various issues that fragments into Party X primarily supports this while Y supports this and Z supports...etc without any complete platform. I mean, look at Europe, there are like 20 *prominent* parties (maybe 8, might be over exaggerating) that bog you down with choices that only makes people want to get LESS into politics because the more choices the more time needed, and people just want to live their daily lives.

But politics doesn't play out like that in Europe.  Voter turnout is higher than in the US (especially the US turnout in non-presidential elections)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-chief-plans-remarks-to-media-amid-heightened-focus-on-clinton-email-probe/2016/07/05/a53513c4-42b9-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html

 

FBI is recommending that Clinton not be charged for her private server, yet criticizes Clinton and her office for being careless with sensitive data. Hopefully this ends the email drama and allows the election to achieve some normalcy. Thoughts?

Trump said that the an inside source in the FBI said this was gonna happen...like 3 days ago.

 

I wasn't expecting much

 

She's got too much pull for it to go to anything beyond this. Truth be told though, her server was honestly safer than a state department server. 

 

Due to it being private it wouldn't have been as well known and the # of attacks on it would be far less relative to the state department which gets multiple attacks a minute

Not really, since both Trump and Sanders ran in the framework of the two major parties. If they truly ran 3rd party, they wouldn't have had the success that they did/do.

Well the goal behind a 3rd party is a new message right? I think both Trump and Sanders did that

[Aerion Brightflame]

The flaw in the US two party system isn't FPTP - That ensures that you'll have a fixed two party system unless you fight to change it. Theflaw in the US system is that you are encouraged to think that there is a winner and a loser, and that being the winner is what matters. Which means you'll most likely only ever be representing the will of like 50% of the population at very best. Usually more like 40% in FPTP. 

 

And having more parties is almost always better than having less more encompassing parties - Political views varying hugely even across the left and right wings. More parties means you can in theory represent more people, which means the laws you end up enacting represent more of the population, which is great. 

 

The issue is of course, Dem's and Republicans kinda have a stranglehold and the elections that really matter for 3rd party are generally the ones no one but die hard party supporters give a f*** up, so it's irrelevant. You have to get a third party in congress before you can get a third party into the presidency. 

 

 

 

And bullshit, her server was not more safe than a government server, nor was it more concealed because it meant her email was 'Clintonemail.org' or something along those lines. And I think part of the issue was that she used a blackberry to do this sort of stuff, which is an unsecure device. From what I've read, the set up sounds so laughable that other countries intelligence agencies would have to be plain incompetent to not get s*** from it. 

 

Even if by any chance it were more secure, it doesn't change that she violated national security procedure, destroyed things that should be a matter of public record (In burning her schedules), and declassified material for purposes of convenience.Things that no one in her position should ever consider doing, let alone get away with. She should not be allowed a security clearance given how much she violated national security in her time at the bare minimum. Anyone other than Clinton would be f***ing crucified - Hell Obama would be f***ing crucified if he did even half the s*** he'd done, he'd probably be threatened with impeachment. 

 

If I had to guess though, I would say she'll get away with it because the FBI assumes she's the presumptive president and decide that having a massive favour like this is worth not dealing justice - Probably in the form of off the books money or access to NSA equipment say. Julian Assange (Wikileaks founder) has said that the FBI does have enough to get an indictment, but are choosing not to in exchange for concessions. 

 

It's stupid.

[Dad]

Due to it being private it wouldn't have been as well known and the # of attacks on it would be far less relative to the state department which gets multiple attacks a minute.

 

I think what most people are upset about is that what Clinton did jeopardized a number of people's lives, not just a handful of secrets she kept to herself.  And that's why they wanted her locked up.  Because she's an idiot.

 

 

Well the goal behind a 3rd party is a new message right? I think both Trump and Sanders did that

 

 Meanwhile, Clinton's still trying to figure out what her message actually is.  So far, I haven't heard anything outside of "I'm a woman", and "9/11 was bad".

[IQuitDolphin]

But politics doesn't play out like that in Europe.  Voter turnout is higher than in the US (especially the US turnout in non-presidential elections)

 

And we aren't Europe. Our culture and political standards are far different than Europe, and we were founded on the principle of small government so people can have the most freedom to live their lives normally. And another thing, voter turnout is actually higher when taking into account registered voters, rather than the entire population.