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

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Did they have to choose the photo that looked most like Clinton's face was a badly attached mask? Trump looks so smug he's punchable, and Johnson looks like he is judging every life choice ever made by you and has come up disappointed. 

 

Why do all the candidates have to have different good things and different awful things? In such variations that none of them actually stand out as great? It's very irritating that there can't be a consensus on some of the bigger issues. 

Like what?

[Aerion Brightflame]

Like what?

 

So based just on my personal viewpoints on that list (Since some of it isn't objective, and my viewpoint is different to most people in this discussion due to being British):

 

Trump - No common core, great idea. Work or vocational training to get welfare handouts is a fantastic if implemented well. Gay marriage on a state basis, whatever it's not a flat out no. 

 

Then the increase in military budget, no addressing of global warming, drug testing welfare, and felons not voting vary between just bad to terrible terrible ideas. 

 

I'd personal put being pro-life up there, but that's a touchy subject. I simply can't fathom why it's such a big issue in the states because it's never been a big issue here in my lifetime, so I'm not commenting on it much. Pro-life just seems needlessly restrictive compared to pro-choice. 

 

Hilary - Required vaccinations, the healthcare, the global warming incentive, more voters and gun control (To me, again controversial) are the good points. But common core, unanimously accepting the refugees, and not changing the military budget are no nos. Less than Trump maybe, but still. 

 

And then Johnson: Legalising and Taxing weed is a fantastic idea, the background checks, no common core, not drug testing welfare (For the sane reason) and decreasing the military budget is great. And congressional term limits is honestly a fantastic idea. 

 

But not addressing global warming is again insane, as is the border restriction (arguably. It could be better if it decreases the amount of illegal immigrants but I'll say it's a negative because it is to most people), and the gmo labelling is somewhat a waste of money. 

 

So like all them miss out on at least one or two good things. And it's really irritating because some of it should be obvious things to do. 

[Agro]

unanimously accepting the refugees

"Unanimously" seems a bit misleading compared to what she more likely would do, which would be to accept refugees like the US always has. Currently, refugees are far and away the most highly vetted people entering the US. I doubt she changes that. While she might increase the limit of refugees the US is willing to take, there'll undoubtedly be those weeded out in the vetting process, so I'm not sure if "unanimously" is the right word.

[Aerion Brightflame]

"Unanimously" seems a bit misleading compared to what she more likely would do, which would be to accept refugees like the US always has. Currently, refugees are far and away the most highly vetted people entering the US. I doubt she changes that. While she might increase the limit of refugees the US is willing to take, there'll undoubtedly be those weeded out in the vetting process, so I'm not sure if "unanimously" is the right word.

 

I wrote it and I don't think unanimously is the word I wanted to use xD

 

Essentially just not letting refugees in like Germany, where you take such a mass in at once there's no real way to verify where they are or even who they are due to the sheer volume of them. 

 

It is a bit of a stretch on my part, but Hilary is the leader most likely to be lax on that issue which kinda filtered through in my response. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Hillary would by far let the most in. 550% Increase on Obama's number. She's running as a more liberal yet hawkish Obama...which to a moderate like me is terrifying 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/01/business-empress-now-super-surrogate-can-ivanka-trump-be-dad-s-deal-closer.html

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So based just on my personal viewpoints on that list (Since some of it isn't objective, and my viewpoint is different to most people in this discussion due to being British):

 

Trump - No common core, great idea. Work or vocational training to get welfare handouts is a fantastic if implemented well. Gay marriage on a state basis, whatever it's not a flat out no. 

 

Then the increase in military budget, no addressing of global warming, drug testing welfare, and felons not voting vary between just bad to terrible terrible ideas. 

 

I'd personal put being pro-life up there, but that's a touchy subject. I simply can't fathom why it's such a big issue in the states because it's never been a big issue here in my lifetime, so I'm not commenting on it much. Pro-life just seems needlessly restrictive compared to pro-choice. 

 

Hilary - Required vaccinations, the healthcare, the global warming incentive, more voters and gun control (To me, again controversial) are the good points. But common core, unanimously accepting the refugees, and not changing the military budget are no nos. Less than Trump maybe, but still. 

 

And then Johnson: Legalising and Taxing weed is a fantastic idea, the background checks, no common core, not drug testing welfare (For the sane reason) and decreasing the military budget is great. And congressional term limits is honestly a fantastic idea. 

 

But not addressing global warming is again insane, as is the border restriction (arguably. It could be better if it decreases the amount of illegal immigrants but I'll say it's a negative because it is to most people), and the gmo labelling is somewhat a waste of money. 

 

So like all them miss out on at least one or two good things. And it's really irritating because some of it should be obvious things to do. 

A couple things, wouldn't the Military budget be needed if the US is to do the geo-political re-shuffle that Trump seems to want to do? Or the more rigorous vetting program for the Terrorist Hotspot Immigration?

 

Global warming is a lost cause isn't it? Quite a few scientist agree that even if we stop all CO2 now, it's still too late for the ice caps. We'd need to REMOVE CO2 to reverse anything. I don't agree with Trump that it's a Chinese hoax, but China is the biggest producer by a large margin (China=aggregate of the next three guys (US, India, Russia))

 

What's wrong with Drug Tested welfare? If you're in a state where you need a shot of heroin everyday, food stamps aren't going to save you, you need to be treated. Just throwing them welfare won't solve anything.

 

Agreed on felons. Once your time is up, you should be able to vote. I have mild reservations about pedophiles being able to vote on issues that concern kids, but w/e

 

Agreed on Hillary w/ vaccines. Not so much healthcare. Healthcare is one of those things that capitalism CAN solve. Removing state boundaries doesn't allow for stratification of healthcare costs and would force competition. The government should keep an eye on drug companies and providers (incase a jackass bumps up the cost of a pill by 4000% again), but should largely stay out of it

 

I don't get what the problem with the middle ground it w/ regards to abortion. Give the exception for Rape, Incest, and mother's & Child's health. Support Women during the pregnancy. Provider better sex education. And clean up the adoption system so more children can leave the foster care system instead of rotting there

 

Congressional Term-limits is nice, Weed has the simple problem of affecting the developing human brain, so bump age limit to 21?

 

Common sense reforms to guns should be done. Like cross listing with Terrorist watch-list and No-Fly lists for starters. Hillary just wants to do a lot more than that to the 2nd amendment sadly. She's played around with confiscation before. And supports the Brady Bill

[Aerion Brightflame]

You already spend more money than any other country in the world on your military. By a stupidly large margin, you spend more than something like the next 20 odd countries combined. And you are allies with almost all of them. There is bound to be a way you can structure and adapt to changes a president wants to make without increasing the budget any further.

 

The point isn't that changes to global warming policy will stop it happening (We are supposedly seeing the impacts of 40 years ago now, not the current stuff. Which is terrifying). The point of spending money on climate change is too reduce future impacts, and to prepare ourselves for the negative consequences. We are talking flooding, droughts and good knows what else. We have to be prepared for it, have a budget for it, have measures in place or it will be a massive humanitarian crisis. Even if China is still the biggest polluter (And they are undertaking some steps already) there is still stuff the rest of the world can do - especially when it comes to furthering and implementing clean energy technology. 

 

Drug testing welfare is just a waste of money. The idea I assume is you drug test welfare families and individuals - If they don't pass they don't get welfare till they are clean. The issue is, the majority of people on welfare will be clean I imagine, so you are spending money testing so many people needless to prevent a tiny portion of people wasting money on heroin. It also doesn't work unless you have suitable social programs to help people get and stay clean which the US does not. 

 

I'm British, the NHS is one of the few things we as a people should be incredibly proud of. I will never be for the idea of privatised healthcare without a suitable 'free' public option avaliable because I believe that a functioning society is in part measured by how well it treats those in need. I.E. the sick and the old. I don't agree with the idea that because some people get more out of the system than others it's unfair because people just get sick and I'd rather not need to worry about anything other than getting people better when ill. It's a fundamental difference between the US and most Western nations - You place more emphasis on personal responsibility than social responsibility. 

 

I'm just of the opinion that there is no point in limiting it. If people want to have an abortion it should freely accessible, if people are against the idea morally it shouldn't deprive it from those that wish to have it. Again - Abortion is just a non issue in the UK for the majority of the population. If you really have that much issue with the idea of abortion, there's other alternatives that completely circumnavigate the moral issue that should be freely available. The emphasis people place on the moral wrongness of abortion is just a non factor to me so. 

 

Guns are an issue I'm not willing to go into on here, because we all know I'd be fine with the removal of every last firearm not in the hands of the military or the police. In fact I insist it would improve your society. But for the purposes of this, I just want to see it being made the equivilant of driving - You have lessons, you have a test, you get a licence showing you have been education in proper usage. If you are seen to be misusing it in anyway, your license gets strikes and eventually gets revoked. 

 

These are just my incredible personal British views on the issues. Which are generally going to be more liberal than any of the US policies. Even if I was conservative in the UK I'd still be a slightly left leaning moderate by your standards. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Well abortion is basically first degree murder, difference being Roe made it lawful murder

 

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim

 

And a good portion of the US agrees

 

 

Contrasting something like Gay rights which has been pretty monotonic in public opinion

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

#NeverTrump Republican Tim Huelskamp was defeated Tuesday night in the Kansas primary by  Pro-Trump Challenger Roger Marshall.

 

MAGA #REVOLUTION 

[Aerion Brightflame]

And the debate on whether or not it's murder is the issue most people have. There currently exists (To my knowledge) no metric that defines when exactly 'life' begins. Hence why you see abortion laws get more stricter as you come closer to bringing a child to term. Because then the grey area around 'is it alive or not' becomes less and less grey up until the point is is born where it is for certain alive. 

 

I've found usually that restricting things to the first trimester save in extreme cases is the best solution that doesn't constrain the rights of both parents. 

 

Something new to discuss in the wake of the media being well the media:

 

http://www.alternet.org/donald-trumps-war-first-amendment

 

It is a biased article against Trump given the note it ends on, gives a surprisingly large look into some of the legal actions Trump has tried and failed. Most importantly however is Trump's comment about easing Libel laws, which sounds like a terrible idea. 

 

The motive he argues as the cause for it is fine, newspapers shouldn't really write hit pieces unless there is information that warrants it. The problem is opening up libel laws restricts what the press can and can't say against those in power because those in power are usually rich enough to sue them. Even if they didn't win, they'd eat at the papers resources. It essentially infringes on the freedom of the press if it's done too liberally (I mean liberal in the non political sense). 

 

There's also some bullshit third hand stories circulating around about Trump asking 'Why can't we use Nuclear weapons' multiple times in some defence meeting, but since there's no first hand evidence of it it's not worth discussing. Believe me if I find one it's going straight in here because any indication of a willingness to use Nukes in a solely aggressive manner should be ringing alarm bells. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I mean there's like actual cases like the NYT's woman story where you have sources come out and say they weaponized her words.

 

Going back to Sullivan may not be the smartest idea, but something needs to be done about the massive partisan split in papers at the moment.

 

That aside, no one president can overturn anything. And I'm not sure any justices are promising to do so either. All in all. It's been an awful week for Trump and my loyalty is to Trumpism first, then Trump

 

----

Trump raised 80 million in July

 

Obama got caught giving Iran money

 

Polls apparently have a large saturation of democrats

 

I'm hesitant to openly criticize Trump here cause IK y'all will jump on that and be like even Trump's base is dropping him...

 

That being said, here goes.

 

Khans: The simple thing to do here was to concede. Admit that he has not had to go to their levels of sacrifice. Thank them for their son's service. And hit by say Hillary's war killed their son. Also re-iterate that the muslim ban is a media fiction, and that it's a regional extreme vetting program

 

Ryan: Just endorse him, being petty is silly.

 

Baby: Make some jokes about the kid, maybe that even the children are scared of Hillary winning

 

Purple Heart:....don't take it >_>

 

Trump is an alpha male, and that's really not what's needed atm Imo. Even if that's what I find attractive about him

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/abortion-tim-kaine-hillary-clinton/493913/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/trump-fundraising.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

 

-----

Clinton camp breaking Federal laws and coordinating with super-pacs

 

[spoiler=Large images]

 

 

 

 

Lock her up

 

------------

Wait, where's Stein?

 

[spoiler=Large image]

 

 

 

 

Only thing I would add is on crim justice reform, Johnson strongly supports private prisons

 

Something I'm personally not a fan of, but to each his own

 

Funny Trump isn't pro NN though...seeing that his opposition is usually the big spender

 

Also lacking on Trade atm

 

Oh well

[Aerion Brightflame]

For God's sake spoiler the post comprised of a dozen images. 

 

I'm impressed that Stein only has a minor number of insane sounding ideas. But I guess that's par for the course for greens, given this sort of thing doesn't actually address the crazy things greens want to do. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://video-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t42.1790-2/13928973_1065707150187802_223279863_n.mp4?efg=eyJ2ZW5jb2RlX3RhZyI6InN2ZV9zZCJ9&oh=f566ca4c6fc2d4d467c8cdf7fba5920d&oe=57A2CC10

 

He needs to air stuff like this on TV

Also...was that really so hard to start with?

 

Jesus Christ Donald

 

 

There's also some bullshit third hand stories circulating around about Trump asking 'Why can't we use Nuclear weapons' multiple times in some defence meeting, but since there's no first hand evidence of it it's not worth discussing. Believe me if I find one it's going straight in here because any indication of a willingness to use Nukes in a solely aggressive manner should be ringing alarm bells. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/world/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons.html

 

So what are your thoughts on your PM also saying something Similar?

 

For the record the Trump campaign has said no such thing was said

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/world/europe/donald-trump-finds-a-russian-policy-he-wont-defend.html

 

Little disappointed in Trump for this. But I guess I'm a rare pro-Russian 

[Aerion Brightflame]

Any Prime Minister who expressed a willingness to use Nuclear Weapons in an aggressive manner would be dead to em. The argument 'What's the point in having them if we aren't willing to use them' doesn't apply - I'm sure every single government is prepared to use them as a defensive measure in exceptional circumstances, but almost none would be willing to use them aggressively. 

 

I essentially follow Eisenhower's logic - They are simply too destructive to use in anything other than the most extreme of circumstance. The modern military can achieve most of the things a nuke would be used for without them. 

 

You don't need to show a willingness to use them in order for them to act as a deterrent in my eyes - The destructive power alone should be enough because it's the greatest destructive force man has ever had access to. Especially because if you are too liberal about wanting to use them, you actually paint yourself as a bigger target (Ala the Koreans. We can believe that Kim would actually use Nukes, and as such he probably has the largest target on his back of anyone in history.)

[Aerion Brightflame]

I hate to double post, but this story is just too sweet not to:
 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/was-melania-trump-an-illegal-also-argh

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/melania-trump-immigration-donald-226648

 

Meliania Trump, by comments of her own admission, has inferred that she came to and worked in the US illegally for years before she got her green card. The Wife of the man who wants a no tolerance policy towards illegal immigration, was for a period of time an illegal immigrant working the country. 

 

It's just too perfect for words - Given it has at least one obvious lie on Trumps part (Saying she came over first in 96 when there's a shoot from 95). And that she was working in the US without a green card for at least 6 years by her own admission of when she obtained it. Now it's obviously not confirmed, but good god is it beautiful irony if it is true. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Except it's not "no tolerance"

 

He wants to push out those with a criminal record. And prevent anymore from entering. 

 

Literally in the first debate he said he wanted to do something for the "good ones" and not punish them. OFC the media didn't show that, but I thought a standard of objectivity like you might Tom. 

 

 

If you're gonna go mudslinging, atleast be right about it

 

https://inquir.io/2016/08/05/donald-trump-leading-new-polls/#.V6OvqrgrLb0

 

This is an intriguing take on matters

Any Prime Minister who expressed a willingness to use Nuclear Weapons in an aggressive manner would be dead to em. The argument 'What's the point in having them if we aren't willing to use them' doesn't apply - I'm sure every single government is prepared to use them as a defensive measure in exceptional circumstances, but almost none would be willing to use them aggressively. 

Well I guess you're all up in arms and furiously gnashing your teeth over May then.

 

I will agree with you on that matter though. For the most part, Sarin gas does what Nukes need to. Clean out population, leave structures untouched. The only reason I can think a nuke would be needed is to make an example out of a region. Which I personally don't feel is warranted at the moment

[Aerion Brightflame]

Okay, so he's apparently more lenient on it now than he was a while back. It still makes him look bad given we have him on the record in the politco thread with comments from March saying '“end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labor program, and institute an absolute requirement to hire American workers first for every visa and immigration program. No exceptions.”'

 

And then have his wife having been in direct opposition to that. It looks terrible to blame a group of individuals (In this case illegals), and then have your wife be a member of that group. Call it mudslinging if you wish, but it makes him look sheet given Trump's biggest selling point to the uninformed is his hard hard stance on illegals. You can't deny it's an issue to his perception. 

 

As for May - I'm more opposed to her stance on human rights and I think privacy. I think she is the reason we didn't take the EU Human Right's treaty and instead have our own more restrictive one. Her attitude towards nukes irritates me, but doesn't terrify me. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://www.longroom.com/polls/

 

Can we talk about this

 

Regardless of what Trump says, H1B are toxic. bastards like my father bring in people twice as talented willing to work for half as much and pay them sheet here. It puts Americans out of business and need to be taken out back and shot

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Been taking a look at the Oregon Presidential Polls, and I'm scared. Including Johnson and Stein, Clinton only has a 3 point lead against Trump. On top of that, RCP is considering Oregon a swing state. That scares me more since Oregon has been blue for decades...

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Been taking a look at the Oregon Presidential Polls, and I'm scared. Including Johnson and Stein, Clinton only has a 3 point lead against Trump. On top of that, RCP is considering Oregon a swing state. That scares me more since Oregon has been blue for decades...

Because I've been telling you. Trump is a social moderate. He's basically a liberal in a conservative fat suit

 

 

Anyway, Oregon's 7 EV won't help Trump if he loses Florida. All it'll do is offset Nevada or Iowa if he loses them

 

Ohio, Florida are still vital for him...and as an Iowan...based simply on the size of rallies...there's no funking way Iowa goes blue if he just doesn't behave like a crazy anymore

 

 

nuff said

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Because I've been telling you. Trump is a social moderate. He's basically a liberal in a conservative fat suit

Do note Oregon is blue because of Northwest Oregon (Oregon Coast, Portland, Multnomah County, Clackamas County, the Willamete Valley, and Eugene primarily). Considering a good amount of Bernie or Bust people are here, I am scared that Oregon will turn red.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Do note Oregon is blue because of Northwest Oregon (Oregon Coast, Portland, Multnomah County, Clackamas County, the Willamete Valley, and Eugene primarily). Considering a good amount of Bernie or Bust people are here, I am scared that Oregon will turn red.

What's the problem in that...Hillary broke laws and DNF funked Sanders...TPP is gonna rape everyone regardless of Red or Blue...don't worry, Oregon won't make or break Trump its gonna be Ohio or Florida (I don't think Penn is in play despite what everyone says)

 

And Trumps a social moderate, so might as well

 

Trump's path is Romney+Florida+Ohio+Iowa+Nevada+NH+MD2

 

Oregon can sub in one of Bold +MD2, but it's a farshot

[Aerion Brightflame]

Because a state going red means aligning with the Republican party, not Trump. Trump die-hard supporters and Trump's policies don't make up the majority of the part. Blue states shifting red at state levels means you'll see a lot of liberal states losing a lot of there benefits in theory. And those are benefits people usually like, because conservative candidates in local elections tend to be the crazy ones. 

 

A state turning red has more implications than just the presidential election. 

 

I also wouldn't describe Trump as a social moderate. He could be considered moderate by the standards of the republican party, but Hilary is closer to a social moderate than Trump is. The idea of him being a liberal is also out of the water - His platform is still a conservative platform, it's just not Tea Party levels of crazy for once. 

 

EDIT: The whole 'Trump is actually just a liberal playing with the GOP idea' was based around him switching to a moderate platform and generally acting more presidential once he had the nomination clinched to appeal to the non party supporters. 

 

Trump did not do this. Trump has arguably doubled down on the insanity in the weeks following the nomination. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Because a state going red means aligning with the Republican party, not Trump. Trump die-hard supporters and Trump's policies don't make up the majority of the part. Blue states shifting red at state levels means you'll see a lot of liberal states losing a lot of there benefits in theory. And those are benefits people usually like, because conservative candidates in local elections tend to be the crazy ones. 

 

A state turning red has more implications than just the presidential election. 

 

I also wouldn't describe Trump as a social moderate. He could be considered moderate by the standards of the republican party, but Hilary is closer to a social moderate than Trump is. The idea of him being a liberal is also out of the water - His platform is still a conservative platform, it's just not Tea Party levels of crazy for once. 

 

EDIT: The whole 'Trump is actually just a liberal playing with the GOP idea' was based around him switching to a moderate platform and generally acting more presidential once he had the nomination clinched to appeal to the non party supporters. 

 

Trump did not do this. Trump has arguably doubled down on the insanity in the weeks following the nomination. 

Then you should see the senate race be competitive too...which it isn't.

 

This is Bernie people going Trump. That's really it. Trumpism isn't a majority yet, but we have the plurality if you factor in the hard left and people like Kasich

 

Trump is a social moderate by American standards. Hillary wants Hyde gone lol. Even Democrats don't support that. 

 

 

TIL an unbiased polling aggregate that evens out biases on both sides has gotten the past 3 elections correct with a margin of error of 0.03%, and Trump is currently winning in their poll.

 

Not by much granted, he was significantly up a week ago, but still

 

Republican Platform: We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children.

 

Dems: Forcible gay conversion therapy

[Dad]

"Forcible gay conversion therapy". Now you're trolling.

 

And no, Trump is not a moderate. But a bunch of butt hurt Bernie Bros are so "down with the system" that they don't know the difference between an adopted platform --forced as it is-- and a polar opposite.