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

[Aerion Brightflame]

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.

 

Doesn't mean you can't aspire to a better, more representative system. 

 

You can retain that freedom and have more parties, have a better system than FPTP, have a system that's not based around ideas of winning and losing.

[vla1ne]

not trying to call anybody out here, i prefer to stay out of politics, but this is just my two cents on the matter of adding parties to the system:

 

there are far more than two parties already. they have been running for years, yet nobody ever wants to vote for them, because no matter how much they want more than two parties, they hate losing more than they want growth among the american political system. after going back a few years, many of the third parties have been legit candidates, who would have been stronger candidates than the people who actually made it into the offices. the conclusion this has brought me to is that we will never have a legit third party. not because there aren't enough third and fourth parties running, but because not enough people are willing to take the one or two guaranteed losses required to promote said parties into the spotlight. take enough votes away from the two party system, and the third and fourth parties will finally become visible to the public, but until then, they will be ignored by the majority o the people. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm ambivalent about this news

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/286451-gop-senator-to-stump-with-trump-tuesday

 

If Corker goes VP I'm gonna lose a  senator from home, I really like lol

 

I honestly have 0 problem with the two party system. Trump and Sanders have shown that a 3rd party candidate with a strong message can high-jack the party and push their platform.

 

I think super-delegates and caucuses should go though...

[Aerion Brightflame]

Anyone fancy a fun read about Hilary's lies about the emails? 

 

[spoiler=It's entertaining s***]

CLINTON: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.” (Hillary Clinton, press conference, 3/10/15)

COMEY: “110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning [government] agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. … Separate from those, about 2,000 additional emails were up-classified to make them confidential. Those emails had not been classified at the time that they were sent or received… [some] chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about [top-secret-level] matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters.”

 

 

CLINTON: “I take classified information seriously.” (Hillary Clinton, CNN interview, 2/1/2016)

COMEY: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

 

 

CLINTON: “Nothing I sent was marked classified or that I received was marked classified.” (Hillary Clinton, Democratic Presidential Town Hall on Fox News, 3/7/2016)

COMEY: “It’s also important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the emails here containing classified information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

 

 

CLINTON: “I have directed that all my emails on Clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done” (Hillary Clinton, sworn statement filed in U.S. District Court, 08/10/15)

COMNEY: “The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not among the group of 30,000 emails returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.”

 

 

CLINTON: Asked if she “wiped” the server, “What, like with a cloth or something? Well, no. I don’t know how it works digitally at all.” (Hillary Clinton, press conference, 8/18/2015)

COMEY: Clinton’s lawyers “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

 

 

CLINTON: “The Secretary’s office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types,” (HillaryClinton.com, “The Facts About Hillary Clinton’s Emails”)

COMEY: “She also used her personal email extensively while outside of the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

 

 

 

 

External source for it here - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/05/he-saidshe-said-hillary-clinton-vs-james-comey-on-her-email-practices/

 

But it's basically a pre-written attack ad against Hilary. That is actually true. And I am amazed that they could not use this sort of stuff to get a solid argument for intent, which is the thing that was allegedly lacking in the case. Hell, the FBI only got the emails because the storage company for this information contacted the FBI over fears of destroying evidence, so at the very least you should be able to prove intent to commit a cover-up. 

 

I know that the investigation is over, so this s*** is more for my personal entertainment than anything else, but it's such a major thing that so long as this woman is involved in politics it should never be left to lie. 

[cr47t]

not trying to call anybody out here, i prefer to stay out of politics, but this is just my two cents on the matter of adding parties to the system:

 

there are far more than two parties already. they have been running for years, yet nobody ever wants to vote for them, because no matter how much they want more than two parties, they hate losing more than they want growth among the american political system. after going back a few years, many of the third parties have been legit candidates, who would have been stronger candidates than the people who actually made it into the offices. the conclusion this has brought me to is that we will never have a legit third party. not because there aren't enough third and fourth parties running, but because not enough people are willing to take the one or two guaranteed losses required to promote said parties into the spotlight. take enough votes away from the two party system, and the third and fourth parties will finally become visible to the public, but until then, they will be ignored by the majority o the people. 

 

I've actually been thinking about starting a third party for a while, or working to boost an already existing one. I will try and keep this in mind if/when I do.

[vla1ne]

I've actually been thinking about starting a third party for a while, or working to boost an already existing one. I will try and keep this in mind if/when I do.

well, if you could rally support for one of the third parties in your area, it would be a strong start. all it would take is one sufficient win (like mayor, or a senate seat, ect) for a third party to get a legit stance of power. the problem is people have grown so comfortable in choosing one of two parties, the third parties are almost always looked over by default.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/05/sen-bob-corker-a-veep-finalist-spends-the-day-at-trumps-side/

 

As much as I'm afraid of losing my home senator, this would really help Trump. Having a Veep who is the chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee would help balance out claims that Trump would be a danger to the foreign policy like Hillary makes it sound.

[vla1ne]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/05/sen-bob-corker-a-veep-finalist-spends-the-day-at-trumps-side/

 

As much as I'm afraid of losing my home senator, this would really help Trump. Having a Veep who is the chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee would help balance out claims that Trump would be a danger to the foreign policy like Hillary makes it sound.

so put the balls in front and the brains in back? as long as he's got somebody who can balance him out and help direct his plans, he'll remain an incredibly strong contender. after the judge issue, i strongly doubt that trump knows much about tact. he's definitely been right on may issues, but he's got to get his overall appeal in order before anything else. hillary isn't the type of opponent who's safe to sleep on. sure, there's people who'll never vote for her, but the same goes for him, and those who will vote for and against him are as liable to switch from one side to the other in any case.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

well, if you could rally support for one of the third parties in your area, it would be a strong start. all it would take is one sufficient win (like mayor, or a senate seat, ect) for a third party to get a legit stance of power. the problem is people have grown so comfortable in choosing one of two parties, the third parties are almost always looked over by default.

IIRC, Minnesota had a farmers party around the 1930s. They eventually merged with the Democrats, but they were a legitimate 3rd party that got Sears.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Yeah if you really want a third party to be relevent, this is not to time to work to it. Because a 3rd party president without any other members across any other parts of the government is a sure way to get nothing done. 

 

Start with congress and those elections, or say mayoral and governors, push third party candidates and get some level of ground support before you hope to make the president. 

 

You have to start with the small areas that hold actual influence. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/06/trump-raises-51-million-with-gop-in-june-including-26-million-for-his-campaign/

 

Finally, the man is starting to be serious. I'm glad he's taking notes from Sander's brilliant method of raising money though. Happy to say I sent in my 27$

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/06/trump-saddam-and-why-people-mistrust-the-media/

 

Trump raised $51 Million with over 400,000 donations under $200 and an average donation of $55 

 

I know this is a little off tangent and more personal than I normally like to go - But look at yourself Winter. Two days ago you were lambasting Trump because of his idiotic actions. And now you are suddenly back behind him with full force because of incorrect comments and assumptions people made about this case. You've seemingly let this instance of violence, and the fear resulting from that to drive back behind Trump because of Trump's grand instances of Bravado about the subject. When all he has done is insult the President for no reason, and push an irrelevant narrative. All because you rushed to assign blame before all the evidence was in.  

I would like to address this point. Trump is far from perfect. And I certainly don't agree with him on everything. (Hell wasn't my highest match 85% with him?)

 

The point being, I was being critical of him for throwing away the Jobs Report, and the State Department Report in favor of going after some Indiana judge for a civil case.

 

Furthermore, he played monday morning quarterback w/ regard to the attack and didn't even mention La Raza until about 5 days in and STILL hasn't file a recusement order. That was stupid as funk. I'm not gonna stand behind him on that.

 

I will stand behind him when he says Obama is being too tolerant of terrorism or when people are suddenly calling him an anti-Semite cause of one star or when Hillary tries to paint Trump as pro-Saddam because Trump made the one comment that Saddam kept terrorist groups down.

 

I can disagree with the man I support at the end of the day

[Aerion Brightflame]

I made that point like a month ago. In a different thread. And you responded to it at the time. 

 

That's... impressive to say the least. 

 

It's also entirely out of context given that the sudden turn of face I talked about was in relation to your reaction to the Orlando, not you in general. So you know it makes for a randomly confusing tangent in this thread. 

[cr47t]

Wow... how in the world did Trump have just $1M and then raise $51M? Personally, I'm skeptical that this is real.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wow... how in the world did Trump have just $1M and then raise $51M? Personally, I'm skeptical that this is real.

Washington Post confirmed it lol

 

Same way Sanders did. Used his massive following, and got small dollar donations to get there. There's a lot of us ya know

[Aerion Brightflame]

So...I'm doing this at 4am but correct my math if I am wrong:

 

Average donation of 55$ and he got 51 million donations in total. So that's in theory about a million donations. 

 

But 400,000 were under 200 dollars. So that's at most 80 million in donations. If you take the average of 55 dollars instead, you get like 20 million dollars in small donations. If you look at the actual article it says a little under half was raised with at RNC events - So it's less impressive than it seems. I would say that that's basically comparable to Hilary Clinton here, except he generated less money overall. 

 

It's not as remarkable as Sanders. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So...I'm doing this at 4am but correct my math if I am wrong:

 

Average donation of 55$ and he got 51 million donations in total. So that's in theory about a million donations. 

 

But 400,000 were under 200 dollars. So that's at most 80 million in donations. If you take the average of 55 dollars instead, you get like 20 million dollars in small donations. If you look at the actual article it says a little under half was raised with at RNC events - So it's less impressive than it seems. I would say that that's basically comparable to Hilary Clinton here, except he generated less money overall. 

 

It's not as remarkable as Sanders. 

Well you're shortselling Trump for a couple of reasons.

 

This is a VERY recent feat by Trump. As of about 2 weeks ago, Hillary had more than a 40 million dollar head start

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/republicans-cash-crunch-donald-trump/

 

So Trump raised this money in two weeks give or take. 

 

Secondly, he's far closer to sanders than he is Hillary in 

 

*Includes self-financing

 

Campaign finance

Jan 2015-May 2016

Source: OpenSecrets

 

Trump

 

3%

Super PACs and other groups

 

97%

Campaign donations*

 

 

Clinton

 

27%

Super PACs and other groups

 

73%

Campaign donations*

 

 

Bernie Sanders

 

0.01%

Super PACs and other groups

 

99.99%

Campaign donations*

 

Tell me, who is closer to whom? Also this grossly ignores how much "Free" media Trump worth Trump got

 

But oh well

[cr47t]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/09/could-donald-trump-lose-the-millennial-vote-to-gary-johnson/

[Aerion Brightflame]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/07/09/jill-stein-to-bernie-you-can-replace-me-as-green-party-candidate.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

 

I'm pretty sure this would never happen, but Sanders taking over the Green's from Jill Stein would be hilarious. 

 

It would kinda work out for Greens, since Sander policies are for the most part just sane version of there existing ideas, but I don't think it would work out well for Bernie in the end even if he won off of it. It would arguably make 3rd party politics relevant for an election tho. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/09/a-curveball-in-trumps-veep-search-hes-seriously-considering-a-retired-general/?client=safari#

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/7/9/12129202/michael-flynn-vice-president-donald-trump?client=safari#

Intriguing

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump apperently has a 95% chance of picking the strong social conservative (outspokenly anti-gay) Mike Pence as his VP (who endorsed Cruz btw)

 

Hoping that the WP is off their mark and the 5% swings in someone else's favor

 

Still say Corker is the smart choice, but SecState is smarter for him

[vla1ne]

Trump apperently has a 95% chance of picking the strong social conservative (outspokenly anti-gay) Mike Pence as his VP (who endorsed Cruz btw)

 

Hoping that the WP is off their mark and the 5% swings in someone else's favor

 

Still say Corker is the smart choice, but SecState is smarter for him

Flynn is the best choice. it would provide the backing of military on his ticket, which would give him a massive edge as far as veteran and foreign policy goes. choosing the openly anti-gay conservative would shoot him in the foot, especially after orlando. at the same time, the veteran coverage would allow him to sway those who vote based upon military and foreign policy, considering they'd have a second person on the ticket who could adopt and develop stronger policies overseas than trump or Hillary could, due to experience in other parts of the world, be they savory or unsavory. it's be a more interesting pick, with unquestionably higher potential than pence.

[cr47t]

Flynn is the best choice. it would provide the backing of military on his ticket, which would give him a massive edge as far as veteran and foreign policy goes. choosing the openly anti-gay conservative would shoot him in the foot, especially after orlando. at the same time, the veteran coverage would allow him to sway those who vote based upon military and foreign policy, considering they'd have a second person on the ticket who could adopt and develop stronger policies overseas than trump or Hillary could, due to experience in other parts of the world, be they savory or unsavory. it's be a more interesting pick, with unquestionably higher potential than pence.

Yeah... Flynn seems to have potential but after his comment saying he was pro-choice I doubt he would make the ticket.

 

It would be nice, but even if it did happen it wouldn't sway me over to his campaign.

[vla1ne]

Yeah... Flynn seems to have potentia but after his comment saying he was pro-choice I doubt he would make the ticket.

 

It would be nice, but even if it did happen it wouldn't sway me over to his campaign.

actually, him being pro choice would be more helpful than hurtful, while there are democrats that would swing over to trump's side, there aren't as many republicans that i can see swinging over to Hillary's side. even if the VP's pro-choice. the man's a vet, and held a high office in government. he'll pull in average republicans regardless.

 

his pro choice stance can be discussed and may have conditions to it that have yet to be explained, and even if not, he can play it that way and keep a tight lip about it throughout the election. especially since Hillary is (i think) pro life as well. so at best,it gains votes, and at worst, it does nothing. it's + or neutral, easily the best choice atm. while pence is an almost guaranteed loss of democratic voters. from strictly political view, it's his best chance.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

actually, him being pro choice would be more helpful than hurtful, while there are democrats that would swing over to trump's side, there aren't as many republicans that i can see swinging over to Hillary's side. even if the VP's pro-choice. the man's a vet, and held a high office in government. he'll pull in average republicans regardless.

 

his pro choice stance can be discussed and may have conditions to it that have yet to be explained, and even if not, he can play it that way and keep a tight lip about it throughout the election. especially since Hillary is (i think) pro life as well. so at best,it gains votes, and at worst, it does nothing. it's + or neutral, easily the best choice atm. while pence is an almost guaranteed loss of democratic voters. from strictly political view, it's his best chance.

Him taking on a guy who didn't even endorse him is kinda shameful.

 

Flynn and him have been working together for a while, and have similar views on Russia and such

 

As for Flynn's pro-choice views, the three exceptions are a grey area that you could construe to be on either side. That's hardly an issue.

 

Really really really praying it's him. That being said, got my residence transferred to Iowa, so my vote might actually make a difference this election (instead of voting in TN)

[vla1ne]

Him taking on a guy who didn't even endorse him is kinda shameful.

 

Flynn and him have been working together for a while, and have similar views on Russia and such

 

As for Flynn's pro-choice views, the three exceptions are a grey area that you could construe to be on either side. That's hardly an issue.

 

Really really really praying it's him. That being said, got my residence transferred to Iowa, so my vote might actually make a difference this election (instead of voting in TN)

it's not shameful at all, if trump can convince a man who didn't endorse him at first, to run alongside him, he would be making a bridge across both parties.

 

he has the qualifications, and the background to appeal to democrats and republicans. it's just a solid move overall.