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

[Aerion Brightflame]

No one here is far left because no one is advocating for communism or socialism in the sense of the state controlling the means of production. It's not a strict sliding scale where being left of you on social issues makes us far left. At most there's a handful of people (Myself included) who could class as some kind of social democrats, but for the most part everyone here is pretty much a moderate. And the far left is commonly considered as people who view social democracy as just a bit too little. It's not as simple as taking a test based on previous voting patterns, because most people have no understanding of the make-up of various political viewpoints. 

 

Even if people, in social terms are 'far-left' (Which I would still disagree with) nobody on this site has a far-left economic view. We are all seemingly content with private ownership of the means of production. It's got nothing to do with the US/UK line, and everything to do with the fact that nobody here is actually on either extreme. We have no fascists or anarchists, and we have no socialists or communists in the strict sense. We have an array of moderate viewpoints with some left wingers in there. But being left-wing is not the same as being 'far-left' 

 

It would depend how foreign investment is defined. Trump seems to be talking about foreign governments, not foreign corporations so you won't actually take that much money out. Or if you do, it won't matter because these corporations can still invest a funk-tonne if needed. I wouldn't even think foriegn governments make up that much money out of lobbying outside of towards very specific individuals but Lobbying stretch waaay beyond that. 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

For the record, I myself actually am a heavy socialist, but between the two candidates my opinions are largely influenced by fairly standard liberal ideologies.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

1. I never thought Trump supporters beat up innocent people.

 

2. I didn't confirm he was lying, I was researching whether or not his claim was true and I couldn't find anything other than an endless amount of sites reporting that he said. He presented no evidence other than a claim and "why would he lie" isn't evidence.

 

3. It's a problem. True or not, it's a huge foot-in-mouth moment that does nothing but increase tension. He needs to answer for what he said regardless of what he said after, especially considering that Florida is an infamous swing state. It certainly holds more weight than maybe election fraud in a state that swings one way by such a large margin that simple voter fraud can't account for it. Florida could go either way. New York doesn't and never could.

 

Uh Jesse, please answer to this. Busing people in from Illinois to Iowa to get votes? Iowa is a swing state and no New York. How should I feel about this. 

 

Edit: Bob Creamer was fired/resigned

 

It's shameful that this is getting basically no coverage outside of Twitter, FB, some Fox Guys and Tapper for a few min

 

As for the paid violent agitators, that's viable to be prosecuted under Federal Statute 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

 

 

No one here is far left because no one is advocating for communism or socialism in the sense of the state controlling the means of production. It's not a strict sliding scale where being left of you on social issues makes us far left. At most there's a handful of people (Myself included) who could class as some kind of social democrats, but for the most part everyone here is pretty much a moderate. And the far left is commonly considered as people who view social democracy as just a bit too little. It's not as simple as taking a test based on previous voting patterns, because most people have no understanding of the make-up of various political viewpoints. 

 

Even if people, in social terms are 'far-left' (Which I would still disagree with) nobody on this site has a far-left economic view. We are all seemingly content with private ownership of the means of production. It's got nothing to do with the US/UK line, and everything to do with the fact that nobody here is actually on either extreme. We have no fascists or anarchists, and we have no socialists or communists in the strict sense. We have an array of moderate viewpoints with some left wingers in there. But being left-wing is not the same as being 'far-left' 

 

It would depend how foreign investment is defined. Trump seems to be talking about foreign governments, not foreign corporations so you won't actually take that much money out. Or if you do, it won't matter because these corporations can still invest a funk-tonne if needed. I wouldn't even think foriegn governments make up that much money out of lobbying outside of towards very specific individuals but Lobbying stretch waaay beyond that. 

There's a lot of socialists here mate. Hell I'm a tankie myself. I just don't agree with the budget imbalance implicit in half of what Bernie wants. 

 

See the problem is we all view everything through rose tinted lenses. If you think these is anything "moderate" about supporting Bernie, you're really not understanding the American norm. Which is fair given you're a brit

 

Free College, Single Payer Healthcare aren't economically left? C'mon man I'm all for giving the government the power to step in an regulate companies then funnel the wealth towards grown potential for infrastructure. You know what that's called? Stalinism. IDK why you're so eager to keep trying to paint the majority of people on this thread as "moderates"

 

Though I do believe a few like Val1ne and Dad are truly moderates

 

Watching his Colorado speech atm, seems like all foreign donations from the way he's talking. I really underestimating how much name recognition matters. Most lobbyists don't get 1M Checks for 5 min convos

 

And he supported Term limits just now.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Where's the unedited, complete footage? I see a bunch of convenient cut-outs and editing to make it look far more incriminating than it probably is, and most of it ends at hypotheticals that he takes as truth.

 

I seriously doubt anything coming from that guy. James O'Keefe is well-known to make fraudulent claims and videos.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Where's the unedited, complete footage? I see a bunch of convenient cut-outs and editing to make it look far more incriminating than it probably is, and most of it ends at hypotheticals that he takes as truth.

 

I seriously doubt anything coming from that guy. James O'Keefe is well-known to make fraudulent claims and videos.

What's the possible good context for "we manipulated the vote with money and action, not law"

 

Please, enlighten me

 

What about the validation of his claims yesterday after FEC records showed that woman in his video organizing the faux protesters? Did he fake FEC records too?

 

 

This is old, now Mr. Creamer has also been sacked. If claims where false, why have operatives kick the bucket

 

No one here is far left because no one is advocating for communism or socialism in the sense of the state controlling the means of production. It's not a strict sliding scale where being left of you on social issues makes us far left. At most there's a handful of people (Myself included) who could class as some kind of social democrats, but for the most part everyone here is pretty much a moderate. And the far left is commonly considered as people who view social democracy as just a bit too little. It's not as simple as taking a test based on previous voting patterns, because most people have no understanding of the make-up of various political viewpoints. 

 

Even if people, in social terms are 'far-left' (Which I would still disagree with) nobody on this site has a far-left economic view. We are all seemingly content with private ownership of the means of production. It's got nothing to do with the US/UK line, and everything to do with the fact that nobody here is actually on either extreme. We have no fascists or anarchists, and we have no socialists or communists in the strict sense. We have an array of moderate viewpoints with some left wingers in there. But being left-wing is not the same as being 'far-left' 

 

It would depend how foreign investment is defined. Trump seems to be talking about foreign governments, not foreign corporations so you won't actually take that much money out. Or if you do, it won't matter because these corporations can still invest a funk-tonne if needed. I wouldn't even think foriegn governments make up that much money out of lobbying outside of towards very specific individuals but Lobbying stretch waaay beyond that. 

There's a lot of socialists here mate. Hell I'm a tankie myself. I just don't agree with the budget imbalance implicit in half of what Bernie wants. 

 

See the problem is we all view everything through rose tinted lenses. If you think these is anything "moderate" about supporting Bernie, you're really not understanding the American norm. Which is fair given you're a brit

 

Free College, Single Payer Healthcare aren't economically left? C'mon man I'm all for giving the government the power to step in an regulate companies then funnel the wealth towards grown potential for infrastructure. You know what that's called? Stalinism. IDK why you're so eager to keep trying to paint the majority of people on this thread as "moderates"

 

Though I do believe a few like Val1ne and Dad are truly moderates

 

Watching his Colorado speech atm, seems like all foreign donations from the way he's talking. I really underestimating how much name recognition matters. Most lobbyists don't get 1M Checks for 5 min convos

 

And he supported Term limits just now.

 

 

Edit:

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/election/article108539187.html

 

and the shoe drops

 

Edit:

 

 

"If I'm elected president I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress," Trump said, seeking to capitalize on the momentum of prior ethics reforms announced one night earlier. Trump did not specify what the term limit would be, and his campaign did not immediately respond to a request for clarification.

 

"The decades of failure in Washington and decades of special interest dealing must and will come to an end," Trump said to applause, pushing for "new voices" to have a chance at changing the system he sees as failing the American public. Amid the approving cheers of his supporters

 

[Sunshine Jesse]

 

What's the possible good context for "we manipulated the vote with money and action, not law"

 

Please, enlighten me

 

What about the validation of his claims yesterday after FEC records showed that woman in his video organizing the faux protesters? Did he fake FEC records too?

 

 

This is old, now Mr. Creamer has also been sacked. If claims where false, why have operatives kick the bucket

Show me the timestamp where someone said that. I'm skimming over the video and can't find it.

 

And-

 

Political damage control?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod

 

It's happened before, not to mention there's no true evidence that they were actually fired. In Scott Foval's case, he actually said on his linkedin that he left back in June.

 

"If the claims were false, why would they" is not evidence. It strengthens your beliefs because it fits your narrative, but from an objective point of view, there's absolutely no evidence. Seeing it as evidence is clear confirmation bias.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Show me the timestamp where someone said that. I'm skimming over the video and can't find it.

 

And-

 

Political damage control?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod

 

It's happened before, not to mention there's no true evidence that they were actually fired. In Scott Foval's case, he actually said on his linkedin that he left back in June.

 

"If the claims were false, why would they" is not evidence. It strengthens your beliefs because it fits your narrative, but from an objective point of view, there's absolutely no evidence. Seeing it as evidence is clear confirmation bias.

~2:39 

 

I saw the Shirley case, but there's actual proof vindicating James thanks to the AZ lady working on the hired props, that's my evidence there's truth to the matter. FEC filings show part one of this thing to be true. 

 

They talked about how they cover up evidence though. That's in the video too, there's just really no way to spin this barring a "today is opposite day, everything I say from here on is false"

[Sunshine Jesse]

"We did it to them when we were in charge too."

 

What's the context behind that? Who's them? The Republicans, aka the people who blatantly manipulate voting by gerrymandering districts?

 

If the video was unedited you could say for certain, but it's not. We need the full context. "Confessing" that they manipulate the votes doesn't mean anything if they actually just used "manipulation" when talking about how their opponents do the same thing with different methods.

 

It's only evidence to you because you went in with the assumption that they do manipulate votes. The video, aside from that one line, doesn't show much of any illegal election fraud. It just shows them getting people to vote.

 

Meanwhile, the other side manipulates how the very system works to make votes matter less.

 

That's not to say Democrats wouldn't do the same thing if they had the chance, but right now they're just fighting fire with fire and using legal methods to oppose legal methods. And even if it is illegal, is it really worse than winning the house despite getting almost 3 million fewer total voters?

 

I don't think it is.

 

Even then, where do they even explicitly say "we bus people around so they can vote more times than they should?" They may have said it. I may have missed it. But through skimming, I see hypotheticals of what their opponents are likely to think more than actually confessing to anything illegal.

 

This isn't even about Trump. Props to him for suggesting something great in congressional term limits. That's one of the few proposals of his that I unambiguously agree with, and it's actually a really huge one that'd tip it in his favor if I was considering him to begin with.

 

This is about the parties themselves. They both cheat. One legally cheats. The other may or may not legally cheat.

 

It's fighting fire with fire.

[Aerion Brightflame]

Bernie is left wing. But he's not far-left. Because he's a social democrat. Just as Tea Party candidate like Ted Cruz are right wing, but not far right. I'm not taking issue with you calling people left wing, just calling people far left. I still don't think anyone on the site is actually far left or far right. Don't get them mixed up: Single Payer and Free College are left wing economic policies, but not far left. It really just is the use of the word 'far' I am objecting to, because it implies the viewpoints are more extreme than they are. It's essentially a parallel to me calling you a facist say for wanting more government surveillance. It's just in accurate, because most people don't hold truly far left or far right views. 

 

I try to call most people in the thread moderates, because I don't think most people in the thread are educated in politics to be anything but (I don't mean that in an offensive way). Without a rudimentary understanding of what make up given political viewpoints, you get people going 'Oh I think I am very left wing' without being able to name any distinctly left wing policies and such, and in fact having viewpoints that make up centre-left viewpoints. That's the case for most people, for you I consider moderate because you have such randomly contrasting opinions about everything it just sort of evens out in the middle. I would still call you centre right before I consider you centre left because I think the things you feel more strongly about align with the right more than the left. 

 

I don't think a lot of people in the thread who expressed support for Bernie did so because policy frankly, but because he was the more likeable person, and because he felt 'different' to Clinton. On top of the shady s*** Clinton started to do during the primary to win the nom that would just irritate you. I mean hell, I supported the man first because of the hilarity of the guy being a 75 year old 'socialist' running in the US. Policy came afterwards when I actually started to care about the discussion, and I bet a lot of people are the same. 

 

I imagine I am understating the number of left leaning members here, I just don't think the site is nearly as left as you suggest it is at times. Because I don't think most people actually know enough about politics to really understand there views (I myself don't understand political positions especially well so it's not me trying to blame them. Most people just don't know s*** about politics).

 

 

 

Bill Clinton does not get paid for speeches as a Lobbyist. He gets paid as any speech giver gets paid; generally disproportionate amounts.Tony Blair got paid a lot of money for giving speeches, but he wasn't a lobbyist because of it. A Lobbyist does not raise money in that form, a lobbyist tries to influence the opinion of politicians on a given bill to support the interests of the group they are lobbying for. From my understanding, a lobbyist won't raise money himself he will just use money from his interest groups to try and win the support of given politicians on a bill. 

 

So one of us has a misunderstanding about how the process of lobbying works - Because in my mind, the issue is not about a guy going out and raising money with whatever degree of ease, my issue is with money from large corporations being used to curry political favour through lobbyists. Because in the current system simply having more disposable capital allows you to curry more favour, which favours s*** like corporations. 

 

So we may have different things in mind here - Because yours, the raising of money, does indeed put a lot of influence on the name. Mine doesn't. Mine places more emphasis on the interest group, the intermediary simply needs to not be an idiot. 

 

Congressional term limits are a start. A great start in fact, but there's a hell of a lot more he can and should do if he is serious about making politics 'ethical' 

[Tentacruel]

Kind of off topic, but what do you guys think about Stop and Frisk?  

 

Definitely not ideal in terms of personal rights, but if it actually cut down on crime rates, would it be worth it?  

[Sunshine Jesse]

Also-

No one here is far left because no one is advocating for communism or socialism in the sense of the state controlling the means of production.

I do.

 

Well, I'm actually an anarcho-socialist, so if I were to play semantics, it'd be the public and not the state that I think should "own" the means of production.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Paul Ryan UNFAVORABLE opinions among

 

Clinton voters – 61%

Trump voters – 64%

 

(via YouGov (link: http://y-g.co/2dOydhN)y-g.co/2dOydhN)

 

Traitors won't be forgiven

[Aerion Brightflame]

What was his unfavourability before this whole thing?

 

I'm sure it dropped amongst Trump supporters, but I also wouldn't be shocked if it rose a little among Hillary supporters. Because Ryan was really disliked before all this came out anyway being the figurehead for the dysfunctional mess that is congress. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

+23 with republicans, -5 now

[Aerion Brightflame]

And with Dem's and unaffiliated? If you can find them?

 

It's not hugely important, it's just interesting because just as I can imagine Trump supporters and die-hard party liners hating him for this stuff, I can see people who dislike Trump finding it admirable, which may translate in slightly increased support. I don't expect it to be much even if it does exist, it's just an interesting thought. 

 

Meanwhile some places are looking into passing temporary laws and such banning guns from polling stations, concealed and open carry included. Which is fine in my mind because you don't want people applying pressure to voters (Scaring them off or forcing them to rethink there vote) through suggestion of force. It comes after Trumps comments asking supporters to go 'watch' polling stations to make sure nothing shady happens. Obviously there's nothing wrong with what he said, but you can understand how some may misinterpret that and say go sit outside a polling station with a hunting rifle or whatever. 

 

Also Third Debate; Both candidates really want to talk about policy. I doubt either will. I'm hoping for and expecting a sheet-show due to the lack of high calibre moderators. I have money on Trump either calling Hillary a jabroni or trying to assault her on the air if she has a good night. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

And with Dem's and unaffiliated? If you can find them?

 

It's not hugely important, it's just interesting because just as I can imagine Trump supporters and die-hard party liners hating him for this stuff, I can see people who dislike Trump finding it admirable, which may translate in slightly increased support. I don't expect it to be much even if it does exist, it's just an interesting thought. 

 

Meanwhile some places are looking into passing temporary laws and such banning guns from polling stations, concealed and open carry included. Which is fine in my mind because you don't want people applying pressure to voters (Scaring them off or forcing them to rethink there vote) through suggestion of force. It comes after Trumps comments asking supporters to go 'watch' polling stations to make sure nothing shady happens. Obviously there's nothing wrong with what he said, but you can understand how some may misinterpret that and say go sit outside a polling station with a hunting rifle or whatever. 

 

Also Third Debate; Both candidates really want to talk about policy. I doubt either will. I'm hoping for and expecting a sheet-show due to the lack of high calibre moderators. I have money on Trump either calling Hillary a jabroni or trying to assault her on the air if she has a good night. 

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3eyveosiyg/econTabReport.pdf

page 173

[Aerion Brightflame]

Interesting. 23% of voting Americans don't know who Paul Ryan is (Or don't know what they feel towards him which is much stranger).

 

I can't actually tell if that's pleasing or unpleasing. I expected worse, but I'm still disappointed. 

 

His stats by voter break down make sense though; Only being really liked by non Trump backers because he's trying to distance himself from the man, (And presumably right leaning others who got alienated by Trump). Then still bitterly disliked by every else. 

 

Nice data set though. Lovely amount of detail. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Interesting. 23% of voting Americans don't know who Paul Ryan is (Or don't know what they feel towards him which is much stranger).

 

I can't actually tell if that's pleasing or unpleasing. I expected worse, but I'm still disappointed. 

 

His stats by voter break down make sense though; Only being really liked by non Trump backers because he's trying to distance himself from the man, (And presumably right leaning others who got alienated by Trump). Then still bitterly disliked by every else. 

 

Nice data set though. Lovely amount of detail. 

This is my fav:

 

Trump 33 HRC 45 Gary 3 Stein 4 Undecided 6 Wont Vote 11 

 

Trump is talking about Economically Blackmailing Mexico

 

Maybe bashing Latinos in your emails wasn't the best idea HRC

 

Obama won 71 Romney 27 in 2012.

 

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3eyveosiyg/econTabReport.pdf

 

Did you know Immigration and Welfare aren't the top issues for Hispanic voters?

 

 

Regarding where people align politically, I'd imagine I'm a mirror image of Giga, Phil, and Jesse (as in they'd be green)

 

But seems about right

 

 

Kind of off topic, but what do you guys think about Stop and Frisk?  

 

Definitely not ideal in terms of personal rights, but if it actually cut down on crime rates, would it be worth it?  

Worked in NYC. Should be implemented in all inner cities. It'll probs upset gunrights people everywhere, but safety>privacy 

[cr47t]

 

Is that you Winter?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Is that you Winter?

Ye

I'm a tankie

 

Edit: It's also where Trump stood in 2012, but he has since moved right economically. But w/e the Y axis is more important to me than the X for the most part

[Tentacruel]

As obnoxious as Trump is Hillary is arguably worse when it comes to these debates.  

 

"Secretary Clinton why did..."  "LET me tell you why I'm great and Trump is the worst."

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Who won each debate? Per CNN insta-polls

Debate 1: Clinton 62 - Trump 27

Debate 2: Clinton 57 - Trump 34

Debate 3: Clinton 52 - Trump 39

 

This is people who sampled +22 Dems lol

 

I hated the debate and didn't watch the second half. Independents and Undecideds loved it

 

He doesn't need my vote

 

[Sunshine Jesse]

"I'll keep you in suspense."

 

Wow.

 

funk this guy and everything he stands for.  He wasn't even man enough to give a straight answer.

 

Is this some sort of game to him? Does he really think this is a reality show?

 

Holy hell, this might be the angriest I've ever been at Trump.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

National Post #Debate YouGov Poll Among Undecided And 3rd Party Candidate Supporters: Trump 61 (+22) Clinton 39

"I'll keep you in suspense."

 

Wow.

 

funk this guy and everything he stands for.  He wasn't even man enough to give a straight answer.

 

Is this some sort of game to him? Does he really think this is a reality show?

 

Holy hell, this might be the angriest I've ever been at Trump.

Agreed, he was a beta male there. He should called the project viritas emails and said he absolutely wouldn't

 

 

I'm pouring my heart out day and night going door to door. I'll never forgive him if he admits defeat 

 

http://archive.is/XBrih

[Sunshine Jesse]

keep doing what you're doing kid