First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Post Reply US Presidential Race: Is it OK if I get a little excited this year?
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/5/16

southplumb wrote:
Either way, at this point Trump isn't scary enough to make me vote for Clinton, if she is the Democratic nominee.


You're not scared at the idea of putting a guy who tried to sell steak through Sharper Image at the helm of the most powerful nation on Earth? Given the way he responds to even the slightest criticism he'll probably have you at war with New Zealand within a year for making fun of his tiny, tiny hands. ;p

Besides if you aren't scared of Trump. you should be scared of the people he's surrounding himself with as advisers. Even putting aside the ones that are crazy assholes, he's also been hiring inept fools from Carson, Christie, Walker, Perry and Huckabee's failed campaigns. Not to mention the ones with ties to the Koch brothers and even farkin' Putin.

His WH staff would make Cheney & co look like a bunch of well meaning geniuses. -.-


14470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Online
Posted 5/5/16

Ejanss wrote:

If eight years of Looking for WMD That Weren't There


To be fair they DID find WMDs... by their own definition anyway. The broad definition leads me to believe that looking for actual WMDs may not have actually been the goal...
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

Ejanss wrote:


Nogara-san wrote:Am I still the only one who doesn't think Trump will seriously build a wall? I mean...ain't no one gonna pay for that He can go on and on about immigrants and certain things all he wants, but he's still gotta stick to the Constitution. And I'm sure Senate ain't gonna let him get away with half the crap he says.


Reagan was never going to get his Star Wars satellites that were ridiculously naive, Cold-War outdated, nuclear warmongering and didn't work, but that didn't stop him from wasting billions of dollars and OUR time trying to.
It's harder to say "No, Mr. Prez, just no. As in, NO." once they're already elected, particularly with other aides and party-friendly senators trying to placate him with "Well, we could get them to say 'Maybe' if we keep at them for a few more sessions..."
Trump will never get those 300 miles of Wall, but he'll certainly try to, with the expensive self-indulgence of buying up land from supporters--only to be stalled by those who won't sell, and wasting courts' time with legally pressuring them to--and taking bids from construction companies "as soon as they can start work", all the while doubling it with another few millions of official press and advertising to sell the American public on how "It's finally gonna happen and it'll be a Beautiful Thing". (Once they actually start building, of course.)
Daddy's going to build a rainbow across our border...

Not Gonna Happen must be made non-negotiable from the outset, and it will save a lot of wasted effort that would be better employed on things that Could Happen, like schools and the economy.
If eight years of Looking for WMD That Weren't There seemed like it took what should have been the 00's of the future and threw the entire decade away, we're not going to throw another half-decade away--the '16-'20 that we could have used building Sealabs--on the non-stop futility of trying to explain to a president what he can't build with his Lincoln-log set.


Kavalion wrote:
Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it is what he says.


"Not going to pay for your f***in' wall" is what the Mexican president says. He even practiced his English profanity just to say it.


I can't wait until all of those people that had voted for Trump because of 'WE GONNA BUILD A WALL AND KEEP EVERYONE OUT' get all mad when Trump finds an excuse not to build it.

It'll be YOOOGGGEEE
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

Kavalion wrote:


Nogara-san wrote:
Am I still the only one who doesn't think Trump will seriously build a wall? I mean...ain't no one gonna pay for that


Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it is what he says.

What he really intends to do is revive old policies of high tariffs, applied to certain countries like Mexico and perhaps China.

Good idea, bad idea? Hard to say, harder to explain and reason, so it's easier for him just to say that Mexicans are rapists and we're gonna build a wall. But it's just gonna be a wall of tax collectors, most likely.


He's trying to pander to all of those yokels who are convinced that brown people are destroying this country.

At least I can somewhat breathe a sigh of relief somewhat that the US won't turn into Gilead since Cruz is out. However, it might turn into the Hunger Games!
22333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/5/16
Ok so go cast your 3rd party vote. Then after the election look and see at the amount of 3rd party votes, ask yourself did I make a difference? Is any news cycle going to be talking about John McAfee, or anyone else you like for that matter. I'm psychic and the answer is no. What did your 3rd party vote do? Not a thing.Your playing the long game waiting for the media to cover Libertarianism. The media covers things people want to hear and your a very small minority. You can either become the media or become the politician if you want things precisely your way. It's like me saying I'm going to vote for someone with no chance, which is basically not voting at all especially because you wrong about perception. When I said you might as well not even vote I mean it as your vote doesn't change a thing whatsoever when Libertarian votes could. To answer your original post you are excited because you think the libertarian group is moving forward which it always has. In reality your vote will change less than the original post you made. You can still push libertarian views but you should seriously consider voting for a candidate that can actually win this yea,r as it is crucial. I agree with most libertarian views, I think, but can't sit back and watch myself get it "in the back door". Voter perception won't change because your not going to get a sizable amount of votes in comparison to what is needed. Who is going to talk about a candidate receiving 1/60th of the vote? You need to get a libertarian in the spotlight but can't because your candidates views aren't adopted by Americans yet or they don't know anything about you. Obama is garbage. What if Mitt or whoever lost by 1 million votes? If Libertarians voted for the other candidate Obama would've lost and we'd almost surely be on a better track now, not that I like Mitt. So yes take one for the team and vote for a candidate that is a compromise but still get your point across about Libertarianism. The candidates you like that have came along are weak and have no momentum. So therefore you wouldn't vote for a candidate like that because it is a waste of your vote, voters will not ever switch to Libertarianism due to a candidate receiving 2% of the vote, as a matter of fact it looks bad. You need to talk policies and publicize yourself broadly.

Ok so next John McAfee, and whoever else you like, what are there chances for making it to the white house? Somewhere around 0.000000000009% So the opinion he would do better as president is abhorrently stupid because they all have no shot at becoming president. You might as well go vote for yourself as you have just a good as shot as your party of making it to the white house. YOU DON'T HAVE THE VOTERS. No one will be voting outside the party this year, "for fun", that seriously wants to improve lives for the next generation. So hypothetically make libertarians a bonafide party with 2% of the vote still for a total of three parties. I would encourage you to vote against Hillary, I'll just say it I have negative feelings about her policies. You realize your party can't win and make the right decision to vote against her because you want the future to be better and know you can't afford 8 more years of bs. No matter how much you despise anything, love for the next generation, including my unborn children, should overpower your hate in a two party system. So you should vote for the person who can improve the future and best represents you, that can still win.

Here's a compromise for you. I'll seriously consider Libertarianism, as I am an independent, and seriously look at their views in comparison to my own. If a candidate I agree with has serious potential that is a Libertarian I would absolutely vote for them in the future. In return you think about voting this time around for Trump, I know you probably think he's a bigot like McAfee and democrats tell you but consider it and don't push them away because you don't believe in the system we currently have. I know policy is vague but the policies democrats are pushing for are purely for demographics and not what's best for the country.
14470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Online
Posted 5/5/16 , edited 5/5/16
The defeatist attitude that you can't win is part of the reason 3rd parties gain very little traction. If people are sitting there afraid to waste their vote that fear will spread to others. It's a self-feeding loop of negativity.

It's very similar to what happens with some video game consoles. There have been great pieces of hardware held back by negative perception. Publishers don't make games out of fear of the risk... which then causes customers to wait on it until it gets games... Its a standoff of stupidity where someone has to take the lead. (I'm using an example that more people here are probably familiar with... but there are many other things it applies to such as team sports)

If you want something to succeed buy in on it... and convince others who want it to succeed to do the same. Nothing ever gets done by being timid. Have some damned ambition!
51535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 5/5/16

maxgale wrote:

Vote Libertarian?


Hell no.


One of the most annoying things about the Trump campaign is that it's gotten a bunch of liberals trying to change the party because Bernie got blitzed by Hillary and they are wandering over to the other "anti establishment" guy.


No, Liberals, vote for Trump if you want, but don't try to take over our party because you are salty that Colonel Sanders lost. So much "that's racist! That's transphobic! That's bigoted!" bullshit coming from all these new "Republican" voters.




Libertarian =/= Liberal.

Trump is about as anti-libertarian as Hillary so you don't have to worry about many libertarians joining Team Trump.


runec wrote:

Even putting aside the ones that are crazy assholes, he's also been hiring inept fools from Carson, Christie, Walker, Perry and Huckabee's failed campaigns. Not to mention the ones with ties to the Koch brothers and even farkin' Putin.


What's funny about this is that even the Koch Brothers have said Hillary would be better than Trump.


Nogara-san wrote:

At least I can somewhat breathe a sigh of relief somewhat that the US won't turn into Gilead since Cruz is out. However, it might turn into the Hunger Games!


Stephen Colbert is way ahead of you!


maniackillah wrote:


You seem to not understand the reason people vote third-party in the first place. There's nobody saying that they expect anyone other than a D or an R to win any time soon. Pretty much everyone you ask will say the same thing. The whole point of voting third-party is to slowly expand that party. No one is saying "vote Gary Johnson 2016 and he'll win!" Even if the Libertarian Party or the Green Party gain only 1 million more voters than the previous election, that's still some progress. Getting as many people as you can to vote for a third-party is to keep that momentum growing until eventually enough people are aware that the party even exists. That'll take a long time, but it'll take even longer when there are people like you trying to convince everyone that it's meaningless.

You said to vote for what's best for the next generation, but you also believe that the next generation should get stuck with the lesser of two evils permanently even when there's a better alternative that desperately needs more support. You're contradicting yourself by not thinking of the long-term effects of voting based on party.
47868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 5/6/16 , edited 5/6/16

maniackillah wrote:

Here's a compromise for you. I'll seriously consider Libertarianism, as I am an independent, and seriously look at their views in comparison to my own. If a candidate I agree with has serious potential that is a Libertarian I would absolutely vote for them in the future. In return you think about voting this time around for Trump, I know you probably think he's a bigot like McAfee and democrats tell you but consider it and don't push them away because you don't believe in the system we currently have. I know policy is vague but the policies democrats are pushing for are purely for demographics and not what's best for the country.


Alright then. I'll consider Trump. On economics, I legitimately do not know whether he would be worse than Hillary, because he has no fucking clue how anything works. Hillary at least knows what she's saying, she's just wrong. Trump, however, seems to think that trade deficits matter somehow. As though having a trade deficit means there's actual money owed somewhere. All it is, however, is businesses from different countries buying stuff from each other. You can't just tell Mexico to build a wall because we have a trade deficit, because what that means is that you will dictate what Americans can and cannot buy. Instead of businesses getting the best product for the best price, you're making them pay more money for a possibly inferior product. This is such a shitty policy for businesses, that I can't possibly believe Trump knows anything about economics. He has the same misconception about China, Europe, and everywhere else. Trade deficits don't matter--Mercantilism has been debunked for hundreds of years now. But, the fact that he seems so ill-informed on economics may be a two edged sword. It may mean that he'll just leave it to people that do know what they're doing, and we'll be fine, or it could mean that he'll implement some stupid trade embargo thinking that it will help. On the whole though, he probably is just a hair preferred to Clinton on economics. At least she'll support some version of free trade, though.

On immigration, he simply hasn't looked on the facts. Immigrants, on average, post a net gain on country's budget, paying more in taxes than they take out in services, they commit less crime than natives (they don't want to be deported, after all), and they spur growth in the economy. Yeah, it's true they take jobs, but they also create jobs. It's not like they're some sort of superhumans that don't eat, live, and consume. They need stuff as much as anyone. So while they increse supply side, they also increase demand side, and on top of that, increased exchange of ideas in a now bigger population leads to increased innovation. Immigrants, even illegal ones, are such a slam dunk for this country that I can't ever see myself thinking he has good ideas here. Even when he talks about refugees, I'm sort of on board for erring on the side of caution on the issue, but truth be told, we already have one of the toughest screening processes in the world for refugees. It could very well be that we still ought to make it tougher, but he just makes himself sound like he knows absolutely nothing about the issues. Those two issues are just about the only things he seems to talk about. There is, oddly enough, one point in which I do think Trump might have a leg up.

On military, he's said so many contradictory-sounding sentiments, that I honestly don't know what he's thinking. But on the whole, I actually do think he's less likely to go to war than Hillary. On the other hand, he definitely seems to want to pour vast amounts of money into the military budget, which is really un-Libertarian, so it's a bit of a wash. I put a list of basic Libertarian policies in the original post. Can you tell me anything with which I might agree with him? Stupid question. Sorry about that. In practice, I'm pretty sure his policies would have lower taxes than Clinton's, and we might get rid of obama-care if congress is up for it. That's about it. He want's to bolster Libel laws, which is (for all his talk about political correctness and saying what you please) a free path to censorship and anti-free-speech. He's anti-privacy, anti-government-transparency, anti-free-trade, anti-immigration, anti-gay-marriage, and whole host of other things that clash with Libertarian values. If I only had two choices, I'd probably choose Hillary by a hair, but I actually could see myself voting Trump in a rare mood. It's way too fucking close, and I disagree way too fucking much with both of them to consider them when I have a chance to vote against the system that put them there.


runec wrote:



And what if I genuinely don't think there's much of a difference in overall quality between Trump and Clinton? Military Spending and Military isolationism is the biggest issue for me. I think Clinton will spend less on the Military, but I actually think Trump is slightly less likely to go to war. But, he's been kind of cryptic on the issue. At the very least, I get the feeling that Clinton believes she knows best, and won't hesitate going to war--all the while believing herself in the right. If she has any edge, it's small. She's more along my lines on gay rights and abortion, but since she's started co-opting Bernie's policies, she's getting worse and worse on economics--and she started pretty badly to begin with. She definitely has a leg up on Trump with immigration. On the whole, It's true that I'd be voting for a different country under Trump than with Hillary, but they're pretty similar on the most important issue to me, and their differing views cancel each other out on a more absolute scale of preference. Ultimately, it's not, as maniackillah puts it '4 years of bs,' that I'm voting against, it's (probably) 200+ years of bs. If a third party never gets any sort of chance, then we're stuck with decade after decade of bs--of choosing between two shitty options that only each make sense on a small portion of what you believe.

Luckily, government is only able to leech off the success of its citizens, and there are so many checks on power in this country, that citizens can make a great country against their government through sheer determination. I don't think government can do a whole lot to dismantle that, and I don't think having Trump or Clinton as president can completely ruin this country. So, I play the long game, because having a third party can open this country up to so many other political directions--we won't have to just vote for one of two ideologies when there are so many others to choose from. You said that it's american tradition to 'vote against' someone, but if there's a third party, then I may have the chance--americans might have the chance--to vote with somebody. To stop voting for government, and start voting with the people and their convictions. I can't just let that chance slip by, small as it may be. Particularly with a field as bad as the one available to me.
16390 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Arizona, US
Offline
Posted 5/6/16
I'm definitely not excited for this year's presidential candidates. #1 reason is politics have become a joke and with the line of candidates so far, I say that we're doomed.
710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Rin Matsuoka
Offline
Posted 5/6/16

Sogno- wrote:

tldr but of course it's ok if you are excited, why would it not be okay


Deez nuts dropped out damnit
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 5/6/16
Donald Trump is going to roll into Washington and put the fear of God into the senate the house and the courts a NEW ERA IS DAWNING!
runec 
28348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/6/16

PhantomGundam wrote:
What's funny about this is that even the Koch Brothers have said Hillary would be better than Trump.


Yeah, and they've had front row seats to the inside of his campaign thanks to the staff they provided. So whatever they saw of Trump off camera was actually enough to make the Koch brothers think about voting Democrat. >.>
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 5/6/16

PhantomGundam wrote:


maxgale wrote:

Vote Libertarian?


Hell no.


One of the most annoying things about the Trump campaign is that it's gotten a bunch of liberals trying to change the party because Bernie got blitzed by Hillary and they are wandering over to the other "anti establishment" guy.


No, Liberals, vote for Trump if you want, but don't try to take over our party because you are salty that Colonel Sanders lost. So much "that's racist! That's transphobic! That's bigoted!" bullshit coming from all these new "Republican" voters.




Libertarian =/= Liberal.

Trump is about as anti-libertarian as Hillary so you don't have to worry about many libertarians joining Team Trump.




Nope, Libertarians are just selfish Liberals.


Unwilling to recognize the cost to society their policies will have, but screw it, everyone else should pay for their good time!
52866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 5/6/16
I got confession to make.. Trump work under me! If you vote for him, you're voting for me! That right Marcus Octavius! Wah hahahaha

Lets make Rome Great again.. err I mean lets make America great again!

47868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 5/6/16 , edited 5/6/16

maxgale wrote:



Nope, Libertarians are just selfish Liberals.


Unwilling to recognize the cost to society their policies will have, but screw it, everyone else should pay for their good time!


Example? Edit: perhaps a better question is just which parts you're talking about. There are some issues which Libertarians and Liberals agree, but there are a lot of huge disagreements, particularly in Economics. If someone tries to lump me in with a left/right political group, I gotta say, it's usually conservatives. So I'm more or less just curious which parts you're talking about here, or how you come to the conclusion that 'libertarian' is approximately/equals 'selfish liberal.'
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.